Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 December 8

= December 8 =

Languages of Belgium, Luxembourg and Switzerland
I am confused. Which language is the first official language of Belgium-French or Dutch? Which language is the first official language of Luxembourg-French or German? and which language is the first official language of Switzerland-German, French or Italian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.17.243 (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are explanations at Languages of Belgium, Languages of Luxembourg (and Multilingualism in Luxembourg), and Languages of Switzerland. Why do you think that any of them would have a "first official language"?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Whereas, as you may imagine, individual speakers have their own preferences, for example the creator of en:Multilingualism in Luxembourg translated from the Luxembourgish Wikipedia, but rearranged the order of languages at will. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Luxembourg is confusing, as Languages of Luxembourg explains - French and German are "official languages" and Luxembourgish is the "national language". Most people speak Luxembourgish as their native language, so Luxembourgish is first in that sense; but it's also the last to be recognised officially, so it's last in that other sense.
 * If by "first" you mean "most popular", then it's Dutch in Belgium, German in Switzerland, and in Luxembourg either Luxembourgish (counting only native speakers) or French (counting native and second-language). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On official documents from the Belgian government, which are written in three languages, the order is French, then Flemish (Dutch), then German. Alansplodge (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In Switzerland, for example, the languages should have equal standing from a national standpoint - even to the extent that the Latin "Confoederatio Helvetica" (Swiss Confederation) is sometimes used to avoid having to favor one language over another. The paper money is printed in all four (yes, there is Romansch, a fourth, but very minority, official language, which in fact does not have an equal standing in the government), but the text on the coins is only the Latin "Confoederatio Helvetica".  Where you will find that one language is clearly favored over another is in the Cantons and towns; while there are some that are officially bilingual (Canton of Fribourg, Fribourg, Murten, for example), in probably the majority of places, people and signage, generally operate in one language or another.  That being said, one can still often find things pretty much anywhere in Switzerland that have French, German, Italian, and sometimes Romansch translations. Falconus p  t   c 13:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit: I thought that Murten was officially bilingual, but now I'm not sure. It definitely is bilingual, but I don't know what the official status is. Falconus p  t   c 13:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that the former Biel District is officially bilingual, whereas in mostly German-speaking Murten there are some activists in favor of a bilingual statute. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my questions because Belgium is very confusing. I thought that it was a Francophone nation and the I thought the majority of the Belgians were Francophones. I thought Luxembourg is a 99% Francophone nation like Belgium. Switzerland now I understand is a German-speaking nation. 70.31.17.243 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.16 (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Belgium makes more sense if you consider that it is, in fact, two nations brought together artificially - Flanders and Wallonia. There's a German-speaking enclave in the south-east of the country. Brussels, although it is in Flanders, has more French speakers, but its historical language was Bruxellois, which is the language used by the Toone Puppet Theatre still. However, wherever you go (and this is definitely OR), if you speak English you will be welcomed. (If you speak German you will be ignored - at least in Flanders and Wallonia!) --TammyMoet (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me put this in doubt. Flanders and Wallonia share a long common history. They can separate, or remain together, who knows. In Brussels they spoke Marols and German is not ignored in Flanders. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, Belgium is the remnant or "rump" of the Burgundian/Hapsburg/Spanish Low Countries. During decades of fighting during the second half of the 16th century, those who embraced Protestantism or were unwilling to be ruled by Spain  usually ended up in the northern 2/3rds of the Low Countries (modern Netherlands), while those who remained Catholic ended up in the southern third (modern Belgium).  It's not as if two pre-existing nations were artificially stitched together -- rather, Belgium was defined as a territorial unit before 19th century style concepts of linguistically-based "Romantic" nationalism became important (as was also the case for Switzerland).  It was something of a historical accident that Belgium ended up with somewhat equal numbers of French and non-French speakers (determined by the military balance of power between Spanish armies and Dutch rebels 500 years ago, more than anything)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The modern state of Belgium dates only from 1830, when Romantic nationalism was very important. It's correct that the wars between the Hapsburg rulers and Dutch Protestants had a major effect on which parts of the Low Countries were predominantly Protestant and which parts were predominantly Catholic, but there were a variety of states and political arrangements between then and the 19th Century, some of which included most of the Low Countries in a single state, others where it was split into several states. Template:History_of_the_Low_Countries is a handy summary. The modern Netherlands includes some areas - notably Dutch Limburg - which are predominantly Catholic and were never really part of the Dutch Republic set up by the Protestant rebels. Valiantis (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There have been many minor adjustments down the years, and several wars and changes of sovereignty, but the basic Netherlands-Belgium boundary was established towards the end of the 16th century, and lasted about 200 years before the the wars of the French revolution, so it would be somewhat pedantic to trace Belgium as a territorial unit back only to 1830... AnonMoos (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You say pedantic. I say factually correct. I'm fairly sure I acknowledged the general correctness of your comments, but nonetheless there wasn't a place generally called Belgium in existence from the end of the 16th Century. A person reading your comment who had little knowledge of the history of the region might well have inferred that there was. I felt a few comments (and references/links) might cast additional light on this subject. I'm sorry if providing additional information is considered pedantry! Valiantis (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC) (Edited my own comment) Valiantis (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't called "Belgium" then, but it's relevant that a territorial unit with borders substantially similar to those of modern Belgium existed for about two centuries prior to the nineteenth century. I wouldn't have bothered to reply, except that your remarks of "14:35, 9 December" seemed to give the impression that things were in a chaos of constant flux before 1830... AnonMoos (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how the words "a variety of states and political arrangements" and a link to a chart that shows what they were could create an impression that things were in "a chaos of constant flux". Even if someone did choose to interpret my words in that way, the link would disabuse them of this misunderstanding. I don't plan on commenting further on this in this section. Valiantis (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Partial globe
Imagine that one has an oversized globe that is too large to fit in a room, say two meters in diameter. And imagine that one removes from its surface a small circle encompassing only Europe. The resulting lens-shaped object is flat enough to hang on a wall, but it is free of the distortions of a map projection. Has this cartographic method ever seen use, in lieu of globes or flat maps? Is there a term for it, other than "partial globe", "global section", etc? L ANTZY T ALK 04:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * How is it free of distortions? It is still a segment of a sphere. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That's why there are no distortions. I'm talking about something curved, like a giant contact lens. It's not flattened or projected onto a flat surface, so there are no distortions. L ANTZY T ALK 06:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You mean a spherical cap, correct? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. That's what I mean. L ANTZY T ALK 09:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There is map projection. But I don't know if it covers them all, or indeed if it covers the exact projection you are looking for (there is a lot of them). --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What Lantzy is suggesting is not a projection (which necessarily requires some distortion), it is a model. I have found no information that such a model has ever been produced, at least not commercially.  Perhaps you could patent it?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There's "gore" (probably not exactly what you're asking). AnonMoos (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it has been used or even if it has a name. However, if ever made, such an object derived from a 5,500 km diameter circle around Europe (approximately the distance from Portugal to the Urals), would be approximately 85 cm in diameter and would (if hung on a wall) project about 10 cm from the wall.  Such a map would have a scale of 1 cm = 64 km.  Astronaut (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds like something that might have been useful in the past. However, now, with computers, you can have a virtual sphere on the screen and zoom in or out as much as needed, and take exact measurements, without distortion. StuRat (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It may not have a practical 21st century use, but I can visualize it as an interesting art object. — Michael J 18:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * While it's not being projected in order to go on your wall, it is still being projected in order to form an image on your 2D retina, so the distortions are still there. The benefit is that you can minimise the distortions to the bit you are interested in at the time by changing the angle at which you view the cap. You get to chose what projection you use at any given time (in the same way you can with a computerised virtual sphere of the type StuRat mentions). --Tango (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The retina is not flat like a table top, and how we see things in the brain is hardly merely a raw unprocessed map of how light falls on the retina (otherwise we would see everything upside down!). You also seem to be overlooking stereoscopic vision... AnonMoos (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Stereoscopic vision isn't as clever as you might think. Remember, the baseline is only a few centimetres (ie. the distance between the eyes). Wikipedia has, for once, let me down and I can't find any numbers, but I don't think you would be able to perceive a depth difference of 10cm from several metres away (which, I would think, would be the typical viewing distance of such a map, at least if you want to view all of it) using stereopsis. The way you would actually perceive the shape is through the shadows, I would expect. --Tango (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The rule of thumb for stereophotography is that to pick up reasonable variations in depth, you want the distance to the subject of your photograph to be around 30 times your baseline. For a baseline of 6.5cm (normal eye spacing), then, the subject distance should be about 2 meters.  A 10cm depth will be quite perceptible in any reasonable-sized room. --Carnildo (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Syria vs France
I understand the terrible relationship between France and Algeria because of the Algerian war of Independence but what about Syria? Why Syria don't like to keep relationship with France in terms of Syrian immigrants to France and Syria not being the member of La Francophonie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.17.243 (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't know that there's a "terrible relationship", but some Syrian nationalists consider that the Sykes-Picot agreement was a kind of underhanded stab in the back, and that France thwarted Greater Syrian aspirations, by splitting off Lebanon (an area much larger than the traditional 19th-century definition of Lebanon) and giving Alexandretta away to the Turks, etc. Some people think that both Lebanon and Syria probably would have been better off in the long term if Lebanon had not been extended beyond its traditional Maronite-Druze core to include so many predominantly Shi'ite and Sunni areas (not to mention a direct border with future Israel)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that the French presence in Syria was much shorter than in Algeria - only a couple of decades between the end of World War I and the beginning of World War II. There was also no policy of encouraging the settlement of French citizens in Syria as there was in Algeria. It took much less traumatic events to break the link with France than was needed in Algeria. Since Syria's independence, it has been largely governed by leaders with a pan-Arabic ideology, who consider the period of French rule as a time of national humiliation (and one during which the national territory was carved up, as pointed out above). As a result, there has been little interest in being part of la Francophonie, even though some segments of society are still quite Francophile. That may or may not change depending on what type of government emerges from the current chaos. --Xuxl (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ottoman Sudan?
Up to the Ottoman entry into World War I, was the future Anglo-Egyptian Sudan officially Ottoman? I'm quite confused by Khedivate of Egypt and by various websites that I found through Google: obviously Egypt was officially Ottoman, but judging by the significant autonomy enjoyed by Egypt (it's quite the rare province that attempts to conquer other provinces of the same empire, and when beaten isn't squished out of existence) I'm wondering if the actual situation were otherwise for the Sudan. Was it perhaps somewhat like the Duchy of Prussia, which was ruled by a suzerein of the Holy Roman Emperor but wasn't part of the HRE, or England during early Norman times, which wasn't part of France even though it had been conquered by one of the French king's dukes? FYI, my Google search is primarily giving me websites that are attempting to sell me furniture, perhaps made with Egyptian cotton. Nyttend (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This book appears to address the subject. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to the book. Could you answer my question?  Nyttend (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Demographics South Africa
Hi, the article has a graph that indicates the population of South Africa which, I am sure, is not accurate. In 1959 whilst I was at school in form 1 the population of the country was posted in the media as 12 000 000. This was compared to the population of London, also 12 000 000. This may seem insignificant but in the context of population growth, and an ANC in exile resistance to a Nationalist Party family planning initiative at that time, we have a situation where the natural resources of the country are not sufficient to sustain the present population. In this light the population figure becomes extremely relevant to those seeking such reference for research purposes. Cfjiwi (talk) 07:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What's your question? Nyttend (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Cfjiwi: If you believe an article is inaccurate, the appropriate place to discuss that is the "discussion" page for that article. This is a reference desk. Gabbe (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Demographics of South Africa has a graph that shows the population in 1961 as being around 17,500,000 (it doesn't go back any further). South_Africa has a table that puts the population in 1960 as 16,385,000.  The data in the graph matches the figures from UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) so it's almost certainly a reliable estimate.  The figures you were told at school may have been out of date or incorrect at the time, or you may have misremembered them after more than 50 years.  That's why Wikipedia publishes facts from reputable and verifiable sources.--Colapeninsula (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The population of Greater London has never been as high as 12 million, either, although there may have been figures based on a wider geographical area circulating 50 years ago. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Very likely as Greater London wasn't defined until 1965. Alansplodge (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ... as an administrative area, although the term "Greater London Planning Region" was in use well before then, covering a much wider area than the GLC, and in 1961 had a population approaching 11 million -  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

¶ A Google search for "South Africa census 1951" and "South Africa population 1951" is remarkably fruitless for someone who isn't plugged into JSTOR; the Google Book snippets cut out anything useful. However, going through the old reference books I've hung onto much longer than most people would consider rational yields me this. Be warned that the usual Reliable Sources are not necessarily so: Leonard Thompson's A History of South Africa (Yale 1995) cautions that "South African statistics are particularly poor before World War II and at all times suspect concerning Africans." ["Appendix: Statistics", page 278] Here are some numbers going into 1970 to supplement the series mentioned above.

I have left the precision or rounding as in the original sources. I actually have some sympathy for the original enquirer, as I was avidly collecting stamps and studying foreign countries' capitals, flags and populations for myself in London in 1959 (when I was in classes 5 and 6 of primary school), so it's sometimes hard for me to remember (though well I know it) that Malaya's population isn't 10 million or Mexico's 30 million any more. ¶ As for London's population's perhaps the media were comparing the population of the Home Counties, whose definition varies. If you take the 1951 or 1961 populations (from p. 69 of the 1967-68 Statesman's Year Book) of the County of London, Middlesex, and the counties which abutted them in 1961 (Surrey, Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, Essex and Kent), you get just about 12 million; add Berkshire and you're comfortably over 12 million, and add Oxfordshire and/or Bedfordshire, you're well over 12 million.

Difference between generic and brand-name guidelines for biologics
I've read that in the US, Congress has been dragging its feet since about 2001 regarding the codifying of guidelines for generic production of insulin. Granted, the point is presently moot as the patents for Novolog, for instance, aren't set to expire until 2014, but that day is getting closer and closer. So from what I've read, even if the patents expired today, generics would still be unable to start selling affordable medication to actually help human beings because of this. Well, my question is, by what certification is Novo Nordisk actually doing it now?? I assume that in this day and age where we have regulations up the wazoo for every single thing, they must have some already-codified set of standards by which they showed the government that their manufacturing process produced safe product, so why couldn't generics use that as a standard? Standards are not the intellectual property of drug companies, I hope. Otherwise they'd have incentive to lower standards so they can start selling their products. So what certification did the manufacturing process of Novolog go through, and why can't that be the hoop for generics to use when the patent expires in 2014? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Novo Nordisk has FDA approval to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus. Generic versions of drugs also require FDA approval, although it's less stringent than for new drugs - see Generic drug. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * One kink in the legal labyrinth that no doubt many a player uses to their advantage is that there is a legal difference between "drug" and "biologic" in the US legal system. Man-made insulin is categorized as a biologic. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Standards can be the intellectual property of drug companies. Of importance is what is proper patentable subject matter?  As federal law states, "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." (35 USC 101, emphasis added).  Drug manufacturers do create standards and methods, but it is national standards associations which set them.  I don't know the process incredibly well as that facet isn't in my practice area.  I'm more concerned with what the standard is and its use in establishing a standard of care in negligence suits.    I attended an hour long student seminar taught by a medical doctor who was a law student about the FDA process for approval of a new drug and generic drug.  It was highly complicated.  I would recommend a book on the subject as even a rudimentary explination of what is involved took an hour to explain in a confusing manner.  If you do a search for the terms "fda drug approval process" you will find a bunch of books with a couple hundred pages.  Your local library should have one for free.  Finally, if there is a patent for the development of the drug, it makes manufacturing easier for the generic, because this process will be disclosed with particularity in the patent.  You can patent a process for development of a biologic under US law. Gx872op (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Both drugs and biologics are handled in the US by the FDA. Within the FDA, drugs are controlled by CDER and biologics by CBER. The main difference is that CBER wants to ensure that no harm comes to those who receive or those who help produce the biologics. Drugs are chemically produced, so CDER doesn't worry about things like homeless people donating blood plasma three times a week. Also, you have implied that Novolog is not doing anything at all to "actually help human beings". Really? -- k a i n a w &trade; 15:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to imply that Novolog didn't help. Barring generic companies from entering the market once the patents are up because the standard by which to measure the safety of their manufacturing process has not been stated, is what is not helpful. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to believe that generics will not be on the market immediately, but I am very jaded in this area because I work with medication data all day and I see what is available, what is being prescribed, what is being purchased, and how much is being paid for it. What I see rarely lines up with what the press reports. Also, the initial generics are often available right away and identical to the namebrand because the same company produces both. Then, to cut costs, the generic goes off on a cheaper production path. Do you have a source that is stating there will be a delay in generics in this case? -- k a i n a w &trade; 15:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't find a single generic version of Humulin insulin, whose patents went out in 2001 and 2002 (source) see the section entitled "What about Generic Insulin?" The next section "Insulin is a Biologic, so the rules are different" includes the following statement: "According to Karen Riley of the Food and Drug Administration, insulin is a biologic drug, and that manufacturing process is different than other drugs. Therefore, insulin is not afforded the same privileges as other generics under the Hatch-Waxman Act." The next paragraph includes "In an interview with dLife, Andrea Hofelich, a spokesperson for the Generic Pharmaceutical Association (GPhA), says the FDA has yet to put forth a guidance for the approval of generic insulin." The FDA has yet to put forth guidance for approval of generic insulin, but there exists guidance to approve brand-name insulin? Nice. For brand-name companies, at least.20.137.18.53 (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will read that now and I think I have a meeting with the FDA soon so I can ask about anything that seems a bit fishy. -- k a i n a w &trade; 15:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Before I got to read much, I already got replies from questions I sent to others. There is a lot of finger-pointing going on. FDA is pointing at Congress because FDA is bound by the laws of Congress. Congress is pointing at FDA because the FDA is obeying the laws instead of doing what the people want them to do. The brandname companies are pointing at the generic companies and claiming that they want to produce untested insulin that could be harmful. The generic companies are pointing at the brandname companies and claiming that they are paying off Congress to keep the FDA from allowing them to put drugs on the market without a complete FDA testing process. Note: It is normal for generics to have an abbreviated (not complete) testing process because they are copies of already tested medications. Biologics are different because a very tiny difference between two biologics could have severely bad outcomes. What I get from all of that is that if Congress really wants this to go through, they just need to subsidize the FDA testing process for the generic companies. Of course, try and sell that to the public - it will come off as a bailout for already rich drug companies. -- k a i n a w &trade; 16:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That's sad because if diabetics are left with no choice but to pay higher prices, not doing anything kind of already is a bailout of sorts for rich drug companies. But of course the public wouldn't care that the per-taxpayer cost of the testing process (which for the most part is a one-time-thing, not very recurring, at least as recurrent as buying insulin is, right?) would be less than the per-diabetic difference a diabetic's cost is for brand name insulin over what generic could be. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I suspect that, with name-brands, the FDA just decides on a "case-by-case" basis whether each drug is produced safely, without having a predefined standard for what is acceptable. The realty, though, is that the big pharma companies have enough clout (bought by political contributions) with Congress to pressure the FDA to approve anything not obviously dangerous.  Generic drug companies, though, don't have the same clout, so might find the FDA rejects their application and they lose their investment.  Therefore, they don't want to invest in producing a generic product until there's a set standard, so they can then prove that they've met the standard and deny the FDA any wiggle room to reject products from companies that haven't paid them (or the Congressmen who control them) bribes (political contributions). StuRat (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * An apparently effective way of keeping an unwanted out. "Sorry, you don't meet the qualification standards that we haven't even made or that if we had made have an exam fee of more than you have." 20.137.18.53 (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It does sound reminiscent of poll taxes and literacy tests formerly used to keep minorities from voting. StuRat (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Afghanistan time
How many hours different between New York and the time in Afghanistan?

Noon (12 P.M.) in New York is what time in Afghanistan? --Doug Coldwell talk 16:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You can figure out the answer using List of time zones by UTC offset. Afghanistan is UTC+4:30; New York is UTC-5:00.  So the difference is nine and a half hours (leaving out Daylight Savings Time, which is not currently active). Looie496 (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems that Afghanistan does not observe daylight savings time, while New York does. So, that means the time difference will sometimes be an hour more than at other times.  This means Afghanistan is only ahead by 8.5 hours in the summer.  StuRat (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * See also this map, which takes into account which areas observe the daylight saving time and which don't. The figures make it very convenient to calculate the offset between any two given points in any time of the year. --Theurgist (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Current times are given for, for instance, New York City and Kabul, Afghanistan, here. Bus stop (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)You don't have to figure out. It's 09:30 PM. See this site. Oda Mari (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's no longer 09:30 PM because the Earth has rotated on its axis. In fact it is now 10:55 PM. Bus stop (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Rubbish, Mr Stop. The question is: "Noon (12 P.M.) in New York is what time in Afghanistan?" - the answer is 9:30 PM.  It has nothing to do with whatever time it may happen to be when someone is answering the question.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  19:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My mistake. I stand corrected. Bus stop (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There is, however, no such thing as 12 P.M. --Trovatore (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And yet everyone knows what it means. So while technically true, it doesn't matter. Mingmingla (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, not true. Yes, there is a fairly large preponderance of 12 PM == noon, 12 AM == midnight, but the opposite convention is also attested, and has some logic behind it.  --20:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My long case clock would disagree that there is no such thing as 12:00 noon. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  14:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see where anyone said that there was no 12:00 noon, just that there is no 12:00 PM. And technically, I agree.  PM after all stands for post meridian.  And exactly 12:00 is neither post nor ante meridian.  It is the meridian.  Dismas |(talk) 14:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * At the meridian my clock strikes 12. Kittybrewster   &#9742;  14:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But, by the time you hear the clock strike, is post meridian. -- k a i n a w &trade; 14:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Pedanticism warning: A.M. and P.M. stand for ante meridiem and post meridiem, "before midday" and "after midday". Deor (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The correct fix is of course to refer to noon as 0 PM, which it is; it's 0 hours post meridiem. Midnight would be 0 AM.  If there were a 12 AM, then it would equal 0 PM, or noon &mdash; this is perfectly natural, just as today is September 6674, 1993.  That consideration is actually the basic reason that I object to referring to noon as 12 PM, which ought to equal 0 AM.
 * There's a parallel confusion about whether "midnight Friday" means the midnight at the end of Friday, or the midnight at the start of Friday. 24-hour time deals neatly with this (0000 Friday = 2400 Thursday), but there's no reason 12-hour time couldn't do it just as well; you just have to call it 0 AM on Friday, which equals 12 PM (midnight) Thursday. --Trovatore (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would not like it if my clock struck 0 twice a day. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  18:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All my clocks strike 0 continuously. Doesn't bother me much.  You get used to it after a while. --Trovatore (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got a watch like that. It is (not very) useful twice a day. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  18:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't follow. Striking zero, as far as I can tell, is the same as not ringing a bell.  All my clocks are not ringing bells all the time.  In fact they never shut up about it.  My coffee mug also seems to be striking zero; should I be concerned? --Trovatore (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not unless your mug is designed audibly to indicate the time. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  19:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All this makes me very glad that I work in an environment where we refer to 1200 and 2400...
 * ALR (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't 2400 be 0000? and by the way, I've never seen a didgital clock that referred to 12:00 noon as anything other than PM. Is 12:35 after midday not PM?  It's certainly not noon. Mingmingla (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 0000 Saturday is the same instant as 2400 Friday. Yes, 12:35 after midday is unfortunately called PM, because it is post meridiem, after noon, but this is the source of the whole confusion.  In any sensible mixed-radix number system, increasing the hour "digit" by one, and leaving everything else the same (including the AM/PM "digit"), should result in a time one hour later.  So one hour past 11:35 AM should really be 12:35 AM, or better, 0:35 PM.  --Trovatore (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? 12:35 AM signifies a moment in the middle of the night, eleven hours before 11:35 AM, not one hour after it. AM means "before noon", so how can any point after noon be "before noon", unless it's before the noon of the following day?   --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  08:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you're going to go by the literal meaning of the Latin words, then the whole AM scale is backwards. What we call 11 AM is only one hour ante meridiem, one hour before the middle of the day, so it should really be called 1 AM.  On the other hand, that time in the middle of the night is indeed 12 hours and 35 minutes after noon, so 12:35 PM would make perfect sense.
 * [sarcasm warning] Oh, I get it. We could use "12:35 PM" and "11:35 AM" interchangeably to refer to the exact same moment in time.  Not much room for confusion there. Also, these would not refer to a time within an hour of noon, but to a time within an hour of midnight.  Not much room for confusion there, either.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  09:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not proposing that as a good system (btw it would be 12:35 PM == 11:25 AM, not 11:35, but in any case it's not as redundant as you make it sound, because it's 12:35 PM Friday == 11:25 AM Saturday) . I was using it to point out that, if the argument is that 12:35 PM should be in the afternoon because PM stands for post meridiem, that's not a very good argument.  --Trovatore (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But being less literal-minded about the etymology, the system that makes logical sense is to treat AM/PM as a digit in a mixed-radix system, so the time in the middle of the night would be 0:35 AM, and the time 12 hours later, in the middle of the day, would be 0:35 PM. Then we could have noon unambiguously as 0 PM, alternatively represented as 12 AM, and midnight as 0 AM == 12 PM. --Trovatore (talk) 08:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with your first sentence but not your second. The precise moment of noon is neither before nor after noon, and it is an agreed convention that we call it PM.  It could just as easily have been AM, but there's no point upsetting one arbitrary convention only to replace it with another.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  09:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it's actually not so totally agreed. It is the predominant one, but you can find the opposite convention.
 * Every moment is both before noon and after noon. In fact it's both before and after a lot of noons.  You understand, I hope, that today is December 10, but it's also November 40?  And that thirty-twelve is the same as forty-two?  I hope it's clear why this is relevant to the current discussion. --Trovatore (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really. Times are intimately connected to the dates on which they occur.  By my clock, it's currently 9:19 PM on Saturday 10 December 2011.  You could say it's also 33:19 PM on Friday 9 December and 57:19 PM on Thursday 8 December and so on - but to what end?  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  10:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're looking at it from the wrong direction. Time just is.  It's the underlying noumenon, the real thing.  The names we put to it, those are secondary.  Therefore the right question is not, "given a certain time, what do I call it?" but rather "given a name for a time, what actual time does it represent?".  And to the question "what time is 2700 hours on January the 67th?", I hope it's clear that there is a single right answer, no ambiguity about it.
 * So it would be much nicer, more systematic, if the computation of the answer to that question, which is the *right* question, had nice mathematical properties, such as "x PM, day y is always exactly twelve hours after x AM, day y." --Trovatore (talk) 10:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems to be exactly what we do have at the moment. 3 PM today will be exactly 12 hours after 3 AM today.  And 12 PM (noon) today will be exactly 12 hours after 12 AM (midnight) today.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My bad (although 12 AM and 12 PM are not actually as standardized as you claim). Here's the property I should have said:  x+1 AM should always be exactly one hour after x AM, and similarly for x+1 PM.  --Trovatore (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I could live with that, as long as you don't have 11 AM being followed by 12 AM, 13 AM, etc. What we use to label the hours is the set of numbers 1-12.  The first hour past the most recent reference point is completed at 1 o'clock, the second hour at 2 o'clock, ... and the 12th hour at 12 o'clock.  Scientists and mathematicians can easily deal with the set 0-11, but that wouldn't suit most lay people, who do not expect the first page of a newspaper or a book to be called Page 0, or the first day of a month to be called the 0th of the month.  Nor would they like the 12th hour to conclude at 0 o'clock rather than 12 o'clock.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  21:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, "what we use to label hours" is the wrong way around. The time is the real thing; the labels are just labels.  So there's no problem with multiple labels for the same real thing; the only problem is different real things for the same label.  Therefore there's no reason we shouldn't be able to say it's 14 AM, and have that mean the same as 2 PM.
 * This would also ease a problem at the other end of the day. As I mentioned, "midnight Saturday" is ambiguous; you don't know whether it means the midnight at the start of Saturday, or the midnight at the end.  But in practice it's even worse than that &mdash; when I say "tonight" I really mean the coming time of darkness; it's not over at midnight.  So what's "2 AM tonight"?  A little unclear.  If I could call it "14 PM tonight", everything's hunky-dory. --Trovatore (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good luck with convincing the world to make the switch. I'll consider it if you send me a clock that doesn't have the 12 AM/12 PM thing the standard way.  And it is standard.  Show me a commercially available clock that does it the opposite way. Mingmingla (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no illusions about convincing the world to switch to that system, even though it would be better than what we have. My real hope is that 24-hour time, which does not have these flaws, will slowly take over.

As for clocks, not all time measurements concern what you see on a digital clock. There is no doubt that 12:30 PM standardly (though regrettably) refers to a time when the Sun is usually shining, and probably 12:00 PM does as well.

However, the situation for "12 PM", with no minutes shown at all, is somewhat less clear. While people understand 12:30 PM to be in the afternoon because PM means "after noon", and probably extrapolate that to 12:00 PM, that argument does not attach to 12 PM, and the strangeness of going straight from 11 AM to 12 PM is more apparent when the minutes are not there.

So for me the takeaway message is:
 * Just don't write 12 PM or 12 AM, especially without minutes; they are ambiguous and may be misunderstood. Use 12 noon and 12 midnight instead.
 * Hope and work for the day when everyone uses 24-hour time. --Trovatore (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My clock won't go there. And it defines time. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  21:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Your clock measures time; it does not define it. --Trovatore (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, there are a lot of similarities between this and the whole 0.999... thing. I hope you accept that 0.999... is exactly the same real number as 1.000...?  That real number has two different names, which confuses a lot of people for some reason.  But it's really perfectly straightforward.  That real number is the real, underlying Platonic abstract object, which happens two have two different decimal representations.  That's not a problem; just two names for the same thing. --Trovatore (talk) 10:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You can ask Google by typing in "What time is it in" followed by whatever location you want. Dismas |(talk) 04:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 12:00 Noon and 12:00 Midnight leave no room for confusion. Bus stop (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wish more people would use them instead of insisting on one of the confusing conventions.   D b f i r s   08:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)