Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 April 9

= April 9 =

Can someone explain Zimbabwe's inflation for an incredulous layman?
Inflation is when the money supply grows faster than the amount of wealth, right? I can pretty much understand why a relatively inept dictator would think "Ah, I'm in charge -- I can just print money and pay my stooges with that!" and consider that it might work... for a while. But how in the haploid jesusplexy can there be rampant hyperinflation of 16 wartzillion percent for (I'm not sure the exactly length of time here, but) approximately, fucking, ages?

Surely, at some point, someone has to whisper into Mugabe's ear that this may not be doing anyone any favours, and they could just re-peg the currency to something sensible, right?

I mean seriously, it's beyond a joke...

Can someone please explain to me how this has possibly gone on this long? It's like watching a hall full of people trying to eat using knives and forks that they're holding the wrong way around. After a while, someone has to have a fucking glimpse of revelation that there might be a different way of doing this shit?

Thanks in advance 217.43.230.27 (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC) (Feel free to edit out profanities if there are inanusated rods present)


 * The best we can do, I think, is point you at Hyperinflation in Zimbabwe. I imagine it's a slippery slope to get off, once you;ve isolated yourself from the rest of the world and from criticism. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm no economic genius, but I know a few things about politics. However, in this case it doesn't matter. I think Mugabe just doesn't care. So long as his army will protect him, and he can control the masses by starving them half to extinction, he can sit in his mansion and drink the finest brandies and smoke the finest cigars. He's not bouncing on the same castle as the rest of the world, anyway.--KageTora (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, in non-democracies, it's possible for the leaders to show absolutely no concern for the welfare of their people and still stay in power indefinitely. North Korea is another example of this. StuRat (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am far from being an economist. But from what I gather, it comes down to financing the government. The Zimbabwean government doesn't collect enough money with taxes to pay for its expenses (much like many other governments around the world including the US). So the Zimbabwean government sells bonds to cover the shortfall. But no one in their right minds would buy a Zimbabwean bond. So the Government pretty much forces the Zimbabwean central bank to buy them. And the way the Central bank does that is by creating new Zimbabwean dollars, hence the hyperinflaion. The way to stop this hyperinflation, would be to stop the central bank from buying the bonds. Unfortunately, for the Zimbabwean Government, if they do that, they wouldn't have enough money to finance the budget, which could result in the collapse of the government (particularly of the army doesn't get paid). But like you said, doing what they're doing now is certainly doing more harm than good. But I guess, like Givnan said, Mugabe just doesn't care. Creating money allows him to pay his followers to protect him. (Once again, I am not an economist, so all of the above could be wrong!). Akamad (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I am to understand that confidence, or rather the distinct lack of, is a major cause of Hyperinflation. In places where rapid inflation is occuring (or where confidence in the value of money is all but gone) you'll find a lot of people operate using barter exchange - see Barter economy. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ...or simply use another currency. StuRat (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with that is getting the currency into the country. The country has isolated itself from the world, and I doubt any bank in the world would be interested in selling Euros or Dollars or Sterling to Zimbabwe for a currency that is totally worthless. Then there is the problem of circulating it and exchanging it for the money people already have. At a time when people are taking a week's wages home in trucks, this would be utter chaos, not that it isn't already. It would be best just to devalue the currency and set a legal cap on inflation. Force the banks to hold a reserve of XXX amount, to recall all the notes that are in circulation. This might do it. Or it might not.--KageTora (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems that during the last few months, foreign currencies have come to be used in many everyday transactions... AnonMoos (talk)

I'm thinking of a book...
OK, I'm thinking of a book I probably read about 5 to 7 years ago; it's a children's to young adult book, I think. Some stuff I remember about it: Can anyone help out? I'm really trying to remember the title of book but I can't. Thanks! Ab e g92 contribs 02:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It was an older teenager/college student, in some sort of summer travel camp situation with a group of younger children.
 * One of the days, in Chicago, the chaperone decides to follow the advice of one of the children, who is superstitious. This leads to good things happening, such as a swerve to avoid a black cat leading them to a restaurant serving cheap, great spaghetti.
 * One of the children is extremely intelligent, and successfully counts cards in Las Vegas and opens a nightclub called Pretzel in Denver.
 * This can go to the language ref desk. Jay (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? It seems totally appropriate here. Algebraist 11:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've usually seen book-related questions at the language ref desk than here. I may be wrong. Jay (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll crosspost this there, if no one else has. Thanks for that. Ab e g92 contribs 15:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No Coins, Please by Gordon Korman Library Seraph (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Why there isn't any Northeast Indian Independence Protest?
Today there are insurgencies in the Northeast India and many native Northeast Indian people want indepdendences there. Why the native Northeast Indians aren't protesting for independences around the world like the Tibetans and the Uyghurs? 72.136.108.97 (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * India is a multinational state which was basically only lumped into a single administration by the British in the 19th century. Even British India eventually fractured into 3 states (India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh).  The 1947 independance movement was an early step into unifying the subcontinent under one indepedent native government, but you don't erase thousands of years of history by declaring "OK, you're all "Indians" now, and not Gujarati and Tamil and Marathi anymore".  We have a featured article titled Political integration of India which will give some background into this, but suffice it to say that having a single "India" is not working for everyone living there.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  03:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Make that 4. Burma/Myanmar was part of British India at the height of this unification, although it was split out into a separate colony before independence.  --Anonymous, 04:20 UTC, April 9, 2009.


 * I'd say the reason for international protests in the cases of the Tibetans and Uyghurs is that China is not a democracy, so there's no hope of gaining independence from China short of convincing the world to put enough economic pressure on China to make it happen. Anyone protesting for independence in China is likely to be arrested and/or killed.  India, on the other hand, is a democracy, so all that's needed for independence there is to convince the people of India to vote for it. StuRat (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The majority of the native North-east people want independences, but the Indian government won't give up the Northeast India. For example, Nagaland. India is not true democracy. That's why there are insurgencies in the Northeast. So why the Northeast people aren't protesting oversea? 72.136.108.97 (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're saying the majority of the people in Nagaland want independence. However, since this will also affect the remainder of India, it's also necessary to convince the majority in all of India to give Nagaland independence.  The same would apply for the other regions.  So, unlike in China, the main goal should be to convince the entire population to vote that way. StuRat (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A state can freely vote to be independent or not independent. You don't need to convince the rest of the country to decide to give up the Northeast. Maybe India's democracy is different from the other countries' democracy. India is not a true democracy. The Northeast people are suppressed and killed by the Indian military for their freedom of speech and independence movements. Is this democracy? So why the Northeast people aren't protesting around world? Is the western media not cover their stories? 72.136.108.97 (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Since everyone in India would be affected in India were to be broken up, why shouldn't they all get a vote ? Also, if you allow any group of people who want independence to have it, without regard for what the rest of the nation wants, you could end up with every country fracturing into hundreds of unworkable nations, some as small as a single house.  StuRat (talk) 12:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It's debatable what support independentist ideas have in North-Eastern India. I think many of the rebellions in the region are actually motivated by other causes, since borders within the region aren't 100% settled. Some of the most violent conflicts are intra-Northeastern, between different groups saying that they represent different ethnic groups. As to why n-e people aren't protesting around the world question, there isn't any big north-east indian diaspora around the world. --Soman (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Soman, there are about 30 million North-east Indians and their population is more than the Uyghurs and the Tibetans. Surely there would a lot of North-east Indians living oversea. The intra-northeastern conflicts is skeptical. Still, the most violent conflicts are between the Indian military and the insurgent separatist groups. Why the north-east people aren't protesting around world? 72.136.108.97 (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

what was the first recorded birth
what was the first recorded birth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Almalik95 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, even at the time of the Roman Empire, they were taking censuses so I would assume they had birth records, too, at least in some places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.73.151 (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I offer this link with no warranty as to its accuracy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.4.136 (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're relgious...Adam and Eve? Although I suppose they weren't 'born' so much as 'created'. So whatever their first born was (Cain or Abel?). I have no idea my religious knowledge is terrible. Back in reality it looks like the Babylonians had censuses in 3800BC. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Or how about first man or woman? Jay (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Bible dates the first humans Adam and Eve to about 4000 BC... The genealogy record then traces down to about 2000 years ago.

The Records would have continued but the Romans destroyed the record keepers (Jews) in 70 AD... Conveniently after the genealogical record was preserved through the time of the prophecy fulfillment.


 * According to History of writing, writing systems emerged somewhen between the 7th and 4th millennia BC. The first time someone thought of writing down that a birth had happened was probably within that time frame as well. The earliest record that is still extant is another problem – the references at Birth certificate are very vague, but Census is better, claiming "The first known census was taken by the Babylonians in 3800 BC". (If you'll count a written record of someone's existence as a birth record.) If you want a specific, dated letter or inscription though, keep asking, maybe another editor will know. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that most likely the earliest recorded births would have been of royalty, as having records of who their parents were and precisely when they were born would be of critical importance if they ever became contenders for the throne. StuRat (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The OP did not specify human births. Long before there was writing, systems were used to count things such as animals(Dammit, I sent you up to the meadow with 25 sheep and you only brought back 23!). A tally could be kept by notches cut on a piece of wood, or impressions in clay, or tokens in a carrier. It is possible that a "birth" of an animal was recorded in this way a very long time ago, soon after animals were domesticated, so that it was possible to keep track of the number of new lambs or goat kids. Per Domestication, people have been domesticating sheep and goats since about 10000 BC. History of writing says "roto-writing systems" evolved in the 7th millenium BC. We cannot tell what it represents, but some could be keeping track of animal or human births. In other words there could be early recorded births we just cannot read yet. Edison (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Czech Lands
What does "balance of Silesia" mean: 3rd sen. second paragragh in lead?68.148.145.190 (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "The balance of" is just another way to say "the rest of". I don't find the sentence very clear.  However, since the previous paragraph mentioned Czech Silesia, I guess it means the part of Silesia that is not Czech Silesia.  --Anonymous, 08:43 UTC, April 9, 2009.

has the United States ever done anything of which international opinion is as condemning as it is of the Holocaust committed by Nazi Germany?
'''This question has been removed as it is not appropriate for the Reference Dek. Please see the talk page.''' —Preceding unsigned removal performed by Malcolm XIV (talk • contribs) 10:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that it isn't appropriate. The answer is obviously no as the Holocaust is the event of which international opinion is most condemnatory. Luwilt (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This question is not inappropriate at all. And though it is true that international opinion is more condemning of the Shoah, Holocaust expert David Cesarani has argued that "in terms of the sheer numbers killed, the Native American Genocide exceeds that of the Holocaust". 194.171.56.13 (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It depends on what you mean by international opinion. If you include communist China, the answers might be rather surprising, and if you asked in the middle east anti-US sentiment and Holocaust denial often go hand in hand.  On the other hand, if you restrict yourself to Western sources, Luwilt's answer is almost certainly correct.
 * The United States embargo against Cuba is an interesting case; while not condemned as vociferously as the Holocaust (and clearly not as morally evil), it has almost no support outside the USA: the United Nations General Assembly voted against it by 173 votes to 3, and the European Union and Vatican have criticised it. It is perhaps the most widely condemned US action in recent history.  So compare that to the Holocaust. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Trains 'beeping' as they approach stations
I walk to work each day and the 10 minute walk basically follows the train-track to the city's station. Regularly when trains approach the station they beep their horns. Is there a reason for this? They always seem to do it at a bit where there is a big-echo from a building over the river. I'm sure they don't do it "for sh!ts and giggles" (to use a particularly awful phrase) but wondered what the reason was. Anybody? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Trains in the US are required to sound their horns in a standard way (long-long-short-long) when approaching a railroad crossing. There may be a crossing very near the station. --Thomprod (talk) 11:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Some smaller, local train stations have walking paths that go right across the tracks. It makes sense to beep your horn when approaching something like that. APL (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In my city they also do this to warn passengers on the platform to stand back from the edge. Are you in Germany? (as per IP) – you could look up the regulations of the Eisenbahn-Bau- und Betriebsordnung to see if they use the same rationale. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In the UK they are required by law to do it, too, and for the same reasons, but it hardly ever happens. Only when someone is obviously dangerously close to the edge.--KageTora (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"Teorema" - dog's name?
There is a scene in "Teorema" in which the visitor (played by Terence Stamp) runs with a dog, shouting "Qua, xxxx, qua!". Is the xxxx, which sounds like Barbie or something similar, the name of the dog or it is something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.14.48.55 (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not have the film, but in the book the name of the dog is Barbìn (chapter 12, the visitor plays with the dog and Lucia looks at them). "Barbìn" is from the local dialect, means "little beard", I suppose a common name for a dog.--pma (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sea angling rights
I and several of my colleagues are keen sea anglers who currently fish from the beaches of the UK (beachcasting). I was recently told that it was an English monarch who stated that every Englishman had the right to fish from the UK's coast without the need for a licence or any to fish during a specific season as with coarse or fly fishing.

What is the true origin of the right for every Englishman to fish from the UK's coast line? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KatanaKing (talk • contribs) 13:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This newspaper article says "A public right to fish dates back to the Digest of Justinian, a Byzantine legal codification, in the sixth century AD." Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Most likely they were referring to the Magna Carta. Try this search: .&mdash;eric 05:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

British colonization in Hong Kong
Do you think that the lost of freedom anticipated at the end of the British Colonial rule in Hong Kong did or did not significantly occur? Some may argue it did, and some may argue it didn't. I would really like to know what you think. Thanks you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishxoxo (talk • contribs) 14:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for visiting the Ref Desk (Humanities). Please note the following which has been copied from the top of the page:
 * The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead.
 * This is not the place to start with something you have already labelled an argument, or even any of its softer variations. // BL \\ (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know that the above is an entirely fair characterization of the question; certainly there are references we can point to that illuminate the topic. Have you read our article on the transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong and associated subarticles (particularly Hong Kong Basic Law)?  They look to provide a good starting point. &mdash; Lomn 16:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Mishxoxo, the OP, asks what "you" think. Perhaps I am mistaken in interpreting the "you" too narrowly as those who would reply to Ref Desk questions and the "think' too narrowly as opinion. Mishxoxo also states "some may argue" and then again "some may argue not". Perhaps I am also mistaken in intrepeting this to mean that some of the Ref Desk regulars will debate one side and some will debate against it. Perhaps Mishxoxo is really asking "What evidence is there in reliable sources that a loss of freedom in Hong Kong has occurred since the end of British Rule there?" Perhaps to conclude with such an interpretation would be WP:OR. Notwithstanding the actual question asked, Lomn has provided a source where the OP might find his/her own information, and this is a postive action, whereas my comment was not. // BL \\ (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

As a long-time resident of Hong Kong both before and after 1997, my opinion is that the problem was with the "anticipation" of what China might do. Since HK doesn't cause China problems on the scale of what it has to deal with in other places, it pretty much gets left alone. Where Beijing has stepped in has always and only been at the request of HK politicians. DOR (HK) (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Christianity misconceptions
My Muslim brothers and sisters thinks that Roman Catholics and Protestants are the same thing, but I tell them that Roman Catholics and Protestants are different because I mistold them that Protestants mean those who protest that Jesus Christ is not the son of God and they believe in holy trinity. Is there a site where I can tell my brothers and sisters to read the differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.103.36 (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * احلان Protestants tend to believe that faith is more important to God. Catholics tend to believe that works and ordinances are. Wrad (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * هذه مقالة Wrad (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They could read our articles on Roman Catholics and Protestant, although I don't think we have a page with a list of similarities and differences. The clearest difference between the two is that Catholic Church has a clear and distinct hierarchy, following the Holy See, where those of the Protestant faith have no large central ruling body. Livewireo (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * {After edit conflict) The simplest explanation may be that Protestants and Catholics are different sects of Christianity in the same way that Sunni Islam and Shia Islam are different sects of Islam.
 * There are many varities of Protestantism; the term is often used as a catch-all for "not-Catholic", but there are significant differences within the category between, say, the Church of England, the Baptist church, and the Seventh-Day Adventists, to name only three. The key difference is not a rejection of the divinity of Jesus Christ but rather a rejection of the authority of the Pope, a schism which took place during the Protestant Reformation.
 * There are other differences in doctrine and dogma, both between Protestants in general and Catholics and among Protestant sects, but as is often the case in religious differences, these may seem bizarre, trivial, or incomprehensible to those who are not Christians. - EronTalk 17:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) Protestants do not accept the authority of the Pope, whereas Roman Catholics do. But walk into a High Anglican church, and it will be virtually indistinguishable from a Catholic church, apart from the absence of a portrait of the Pope.  Anglicans also do not believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation, although other non-Catholic Christians might.  --  JackofOz (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do your brothers and sisters understand much English? هل اخ يفهم اللغة الانجليزيا؟ Wrad (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just in case of misunderstanding here, both Protestants and Catholics (and Orthodox Christianity) believe in the Trinity, and all believe that Jesus is the Son of God. There are a very tiny minority of Christians who do not believe in the Trinity. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Christians who hold that God has only one nature include Unitarians or Monophysites. To answer the OP, "Protestants" are so named because the "protested" the excesses of the Roman church to one degree or another.  There are MANY strains of Protestantism, and the degree of difference between different Protestant sects is often greater than the difference between some Protestant sects and Catholicism (for example, Anglicanism is often sometimes called "Catholicism without the Pope").  Also, the Christian world really should be broadly divided into Four broad groups, Catholic,  Orthodox,Protestant and Baptist or Ana-Baptist.  Then of course there are Pseudo-Christian faiths like Mormonism or Jehovah's Witness, which are really not included in any of these 4.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  21:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The "Protestantism" article on the Arabic wikipedia has a list of 8 things Protestants typically believe . I've looked at them and they seem true enough. This may help if your friends know Arabic, but not English. Wrad (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There is another Prime Difference between the Catholic and other Christian groups... While the Catholic group does not recognize Isreal in the middle east, Other Christians not only recognize Israel but are in sypathy with her plight. While this may not be a universal Church oppinion it is an underlying current in our Christian Beliefs.. They are Gods Chosen People and are the "Bride" of Jehovah God... While God has temporarily put her away for her past infidelity, he has promised to redeam her... so leave her alone!!! Difference between Muslim belief and Christian: Koran: "say not that Allah hath a son" (sura ???) or Old Testament Bible

"Proverbs 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell? 5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.  6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

If some of your Muslim friends have questions about the "Baptist" Christian side of things I would be happy to talk with them... email at 

The future will be better tomorrow
I never understood what was so embarrassing about that quote. Why do people see the quote as a blunder? 99.227.94.24 (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As opposed to the future yesterday? AnonMoos (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it seems rather redundant, as "future" and "tomorrow" mean the same thing (unless by "tomorrow" you literally mean the day after today). StuRat (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand that the future and tomorrow can mean the same thing. But wouldn't we expect or at least for the mankind to be constantly improving? So that every day after day, the future will look bright? 99.227.94.24 (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades" or (as Émile Coué would phrase it) "Every day, in every way, I'm getting better and better"? AnonMoos (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest either "The future will be better" or "Every day will be better than the last", depending on the meaning you wish to convey. StuRat (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it implies that you are comparing today's future with tomorrow's future, both of which are essentially the same.--KageTora (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * They are mostly the same, not essentially the same. Tomorrow's future is a subset of today's tomorrow.  Specifically, it is today's tomorrow with the removal of one day (tomorrow).  Therefore, if tomorrow is going to be the worst day of today's future, tomorrow's future will be better. --  k a i n a w &trade; 04:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So why not just say, "Tomorrow's going to be a bad day"? :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "Future events such as these will affect you in the future." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If tomorrow's future is better than today's future, doesn't it imply only that tomorrow will be a below-average day? APL (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. A lot of people plan for/expect to have a wonderful future, but usually they have to be prepared for years of hard work and many failures and disappointments before their longed-for future finally arrives.  And sometimes their future never arrives, and they die destitute, sick, and unmourned. --  JackofOz (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Pakistani-Canadian
You said that in Canada, not only are they Muslims, but some of them are Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, and Zoroastrian. Which languages do each religious group speak? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.95.73 (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It will vary widely. Some will speak English or French.  Others will speak whatever language they spoke in Pakistan (I assume your question is only about Pakistani-Canadians).  Spoken languages of Canada says that 0.9% of the total population speaks Punjabi and 0.3% speak Urdu.  Not sure about break down by specific nationality. Tobyc75 (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)