Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 April 11

= April 11 =

Is it ethical for a doctor to lie about Homeopathy even it helps the patient?
There is an ethics section in Homeopathy, which is mostly about not giving patients evidence-based treatments but insisting on prescribing homeopathy instead. There is more in Placebo. Both zoom in on how unethical it is (or isn't) to prescribe a non-working substance. Personally, if I would find out my doctor is prescribing placebos to me, I'd get another one immediately. For a close relative though, some homeopathic drug really helped (after all evidence-based medications didn't), probably for being a working placebo and the physical symptoms having a psychological cause. So my question is: should a doctor feel bad after prescribing a placebo for having lied to the patient, or should he feel bad for not prescribing a placebo because the patient might have been cured if he would have? Joepnl (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a hard question. In 2008, a study reported that half of all doctors prescribe placebos on a regular basis. The placebo effect is real, so it isn't an entirely neutral thing. The American Medical Association apparently doesn't consider it ethical, but they are hardly the be-all and end-all of medical ethics. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the demise of (most) placebos is credited to 1960s principles of autonomy, which I strongly favor. There is no doubt in my mind that the doctor is supposed to be my employee and do as I see fit; I hire him for his advice, not for deception.


 * Furthermore, I see no reason why the doctor would need to prescribe a placebo under conditions of deception. For every ailment there are many therapies which might work, but are unproven or dubious or disputed, but still, far more rational than infinite-dilution homeopathy.  The doctor need merely advise the patient to take one of the many real herbal supplements sold daily on store shelves around the country, things which really might have beneficial effects on many major organ systems, and which in any case as foods should do little harm, at least when selected by a reasonably well-informed physician.  He should of course explain the limited nature of the evidence supporting the herb, but leave it to the patient to decide whether it provides some relief. Wnt (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I would consider the question of "just" placebos and the question of homeopathy separately. The latter implies a causal mechanism that reaches far beyond the specific treatment and can lead to a lot of other nonsense as well. I have had a doctor prescribe what I assume to be placebos to me under the heading of "natural supplements." These have been for various medical conditions which are chronic, non-life threatening, but somewhat irritating. (If you haven't had these sorts of things, just wait. Life is full of irritating conditions that there aren't any medical treatments for. You get more of them over time.) In some of the cases I've looked them up and found that the natural supplements have no visible effect different than placebo and I assume that my doctor is aware as well, but in the lack of other options (or when the medical options are more extreme than are warranted for the conditions), I can see why he said to just give it a try. In some cases I've actually found them to work "good enough", even when I basically know they are a placebo. So I don't know. Homeopathy is pure, unadulterated rubbish, though, and I don't consider that to be quite the same ethical situation. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If the natural supplement works by placebo effect alone, and the same is true of the homeopathy treatment, what's the diff ? StuRat (talk) 04:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Case A, incurable disease: homoeopathy and natural supplement have the same effects.
 * Case B, curable disease: only real medication have real effects.
 * If doctors prescribe homoeopathy in Case A and the patient recovers, they might not seek professional medical help when they encounter Case B but instead turn to some online "experts" on a homoeopathy forum.Anonymous.translator (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what I was saying, anyway. Homeopathy is not a one-off deal. It's a quack ideology. Natural supplements may or may not effective in any given case, but they're still within the standard realm of believing in truly bioactive answers to a medical question. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Consider also that the doctor may not know that what he is prescribing is a placebo: this happens in medical trials. As for Mr.98's point about natural supplements, I had a rheumatologist tell me to take glucosamine and chondroitin supplements for my rheumatoid arthritis as there were studies that showed that these supplements worked. Fast forwards a few years and I read studies that showed that the effect of these supplements were no more than placebo. Who is right? Did the supplements work because the doctor believed that they worked, or because I believed that they worked, or because they actually did have an effect? Placebo is a very slippery concept and causes no end of problems for medical trials. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sure a saw a study recently which said placebos were just as effective when the patient was told it was a placebo but that it would be good for them and they should take them according to the directions. Dmcq (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Tammy, do you have a link to those studies which show glucosamine and chondroitin do not reduce pain from arthritis? They are still touted as beneficial to reduce joint pain. Edison (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's difficult now to put my finger on it, but this one looks familiar. I'm actually taking them for an unrelated condition and have not noticed any improvement in my joint pains. I'll keep looking. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC) Ah yes found it, the next one on the list. Current NICE guidance is not to prescribe or recommend the supplement in the UK. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Both I and my brother had the same experience; that those helped, at first, but any benefit quickly faded. The body appears to develop a tolerance to it, at which point it no longer serves any purpose. StuRat (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * A patient might come in and tell the doctor he feels "tired and run down." A physical exam and tests of blood and urine show no problems. The doctor prescribes a "vitamin shot," to be repeated every weak. The patient thereby gets vitamins he could get by eating food, or by taking a vitamin supplement by mouth, but at an annual cost of hundreds of dollars. See "Take 50 of these, fork over some cash, and call me in the morning," Spy Magazine, 1989. Edison (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If a patient complains about being "run down", I'd first check them for tire tread marks. :-) StuRat (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks all for the confusing message :) Joepnl (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there really evidence that a known placebo is ineffective? Taking a placebo, after all, has consequences.  Once, twice, maybe three times a day a person might drink an extra glass of water.  Daily he thinks about his condition, perhaps becoming desensitized to it by doing so?  Maybe he takes extra care with lifestyle precautions?
 * Gratuitous anecdote: I remember that when I was around 10 or so I had a plantar wart, a sort of hole in the bottom of the foot that my father had suffered dozens of during his own childhood and nearly faced surgery for before being treated effectively with purple dye placebo. Neither he nor I knew that was a placebo until some time later, but somehow I independently became convinced that "mental therapy" would work on it, and acting on this I dutifully put the scum from a bar of soap into the hole each day, watching a thick pitch-black ooze bubble up from the wound; after repeating this a few times until no more came, I then on several occasions would concentrate to increase the bloodflow to the area by relaxing relevant arteries, until I could see the redness and feel the pulse around the hole.  Which very quickly healed up and went away.  Now much of this could, inadvertently, be accomplished by a placebo, but my feeling hasn't changed from way back then - that deliberate mental effort and changes in behavior are more powerful than inadvertent placebo effect. Wnt (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Similar experience here. In my case, going barefoot seemed to dry out the skin and kill them off, although using a power drill on the bastards gave me some satisfaction (don't try this at home !). StuRat (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Where does money come from?
How is it originally distributed and how is this process made fair? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.84.107 (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you assume that money had an original distribution, or that any element of the economic process is "fair"? Fifelfoo (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume it started as the simple bartering for items of gold or other valueble metals. Travelling merchants would have bartered using gold or items with a high value to weight ratio to ensure that the costs of travelling does not exceed the profits generated from trading. Coins are just the right size for this and are a natural consequence. Eventually, gold and such became a little bit rare, and people started to write IOUs, sign, and stamp them coins made from lesser metals. Now there is no reason why you can't do the same, but keep in mind: it is illegal to forge the goverments signiture onto a coin. Paper money is a much later invension, but it came around for the same reason. When the government ran out of coins altogether, they started writing IOUs on paper and signing it. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In short, the concept of money was created by travelling merchants. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and money was never distributed, money was introduced through the bartering system. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Your assumptions don't correlate well with economic history, see Marco's discussion of accounts money in hydrologically oriented bureaucratic archaic societies if you mean "tokenised exchange conduits." Fifelfoo (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I presume you've accessed the relevant article Money for the answer to the first part? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Fractional reserve banking and links therefrom is relevant here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't read a single article on it, I just thought about it. That is why I assumed. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is an extremely poor way to touch on historical topics. History is more complicated than what you might think. The history of finance is pretty interesting, but it isn't what you've described up there (the invention — and adoption — of coined money, paper money, credit, banks, etc. is much more complicated than people just thinking it is a nice idea, or just because gold and silver were rare). When addressing historical questions, please refrain from just making stuff up and listing it as fact, just because it makes sense to you. (Niall Ferguson's The Ascent of Money is a nice place to start.) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Money has never been fairly distributed. The earliest forms of money were commodity money. Money inevitably develops in any society where processes of exchange involve a degree of complexity or geographical distance that makes barter impractical. Different forms of money have emerged independently in a number of societies through history.  The earliest that we know about were in Sumer, but that's just because the Sumerians were the first to leave written records.  Very likely forms of money existed during earlier prehistoric periods.  Marco polo (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Mr.98: It is a good thing then that I added the disclaimer of "I assume." Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is indeed a good thing, as far as it goes. But better not to air one's assumptions here; the OP was after factual information, not anyone's assumptions.  Oftentimes, actual history is far stranger than what we assume "must have happened".  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  03:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Can a comrade with more history of finance than I have lend a hand on why in the articles for the Tribune Marx discusses the discount rate on Consols, bonds or notes of hand rather than the rate of interest? I can observe that the rate of discount corresponds highly to what I'd conceive of as a rate of interest, but I want someone to help out by explaining the minutae. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's somewhat a difference between European & Anglo-American usage and banking, but not unimportant. Discount rates & interest rates are the same thing (or inverse). But the European / old-fashioned "discount rate" is a better conceptualization of, fits better with how banking and money really work. As our article explains the "discount" usage is used in American banking in the Fed's "discount window" - the reserve lending the Fed does collateralized by the securities (bonds, commercial paper) that banks hold, "discounting" these less liquid, less mature bank assets at some rate the Fed decides on, to immediately acquire ready money, reserves, in order to satisfy reserve requirements. BTW, the above answers to the OP & much of wiki still get things, get history backwards, like Plasma, because they rely on (recent) economists & their textbooks, who indeed write history & economics by "just making stuff up and listing it as fact" without doing any research or thinking, unlike anthropologists, archaeologists, sociologists, historians and numismatists.John Z (talk) 03:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Money is created by magic and misdirection. See Bitcoin, Million Dollar Homepage, and Magic: The Gathering for examples in which money emerges from nothing. Wnt (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

cloves
can we make cloves by nano technology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryan Suman1993 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Cloves? as in the the spice? And using what type of nanotechnology? Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that you know what the concept nanotechnology entails? Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No. Nanotechnology in food production is largely confined to packaging, and while there are potential uses in agriculture, food processing, and food supplementation (additives/fortification), these don't extend to actually producing foodstuffs. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What about genetic engineering, does that not include the manipulation at the nanoscale? Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I suppose the OP tried to say gloves. MangoNr1 (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case the answer is, yes we can but unfortunately they are too small to keep anyone's hands warm or safe from chemicals. 24.92.85.35 (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I suppose the OP tried to say gloves with a layer of some nano-technological developed material. MangoNr1 (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

universe
with the help of nano technology,can we know more about the universe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryan Suman1993 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What part of the universe? (The universe by definition includes anything and everything.) Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you mean anything and everything then yes, particle accelerators help us explore particle physics. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It is a question for Reference desk/Science, not Humanities. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  13:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Common civil law interaction
Dear refdesk. In The USA, Louisana operates under the civil code (from France), within a federal structure of the Common law (from England). In Canada, Quebec has the same situation. I was wondering, have the different starting principles of these ever created problems/conflict when federal law is applied in the constituent part? (e.g. where the principle of one code would assume something as legal, where the principle of the other would assume it was not). Do the laws have any problems interacting that they wouldn't if it was common/common or civil/civil? If this isnt a problem would it be more of one the other way round (for a common law component of a civil law oriented federation)? Thankyouverymuch for thoughts. 82.33.230.34 (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know about Canada, but in the USA the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. So if a common law precedent is found to be in conflict with the US Constitution, it could be nullified. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is an issue for all states, not just Louisiana because there can be conflicts of laws without getting into the whole civil law versus common law issue. In the U.S. the States are allowed to have whatever laws they like as long as they don't violate the constitution or conflict with valid Federal law. If there is conflict, then the federal law always wins. See the Supremacy Clause for more on that. Rabuve (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the only laws that apply at the U.S. Federal level are actual codes enacted by the U.S. Congress, and precedents connected to those codes. English common law precedents apply only in jurisdictions that recognize them, which include U.S. states other than Louisiana, but I think not in Federal courts.  So I think there is no conflict between the Louisiana and Federal legal systems.  I think the same applies to Canada and Quebec.  Marco polo (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, in the U.S. the Federal Courts apply not only federal law but the law of the state in which it resides. See Rules of Decision Act for details. The only case in which they don't is if the law is merely procedural, or if doing so conflicts with federal statute. Rabuve (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In practice all legal systems are a blend of civil and common laws, the point becomes which is the overarching framework within which the other operates.
 * In the US the overarching framework is a common law model with many elements of civil law. This sets the limits within which the predominantly civil system within that state exists.
 * ALR (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

¶ See Louisiana Civil Code and Quebec law, which explain some of the differences with the English common-law traditions of surrounding states and provinces. I know very little of the Dominion–province interaction in Canada (although the powers of the Supreme Court of Canada over the provinces, unlike those of the U.S. Supreme Court over the states, can be limited by an explicit provincial notwithstanding clause under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms). However, the United States Bill of Rights explicitly provides in the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution that In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.This applied originally only to civil suits under Federal (rather than state) law, but many although not all of the U.S. Bill of Rights' limits on the federal government have been extended to the states by application of the Supremacy Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, (most notably the second sentence in Section 1: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.") The jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court and of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (sitting in New Orleans), as well as of the United States District Courts in Louisiana must be rich in precedents and case law about just this kind of conflict. Were I a Louisiana lawyer or constitutional scholar, I could say more, but I'm not. ¶ One of the most commonly-seen practical differences between common-law and civil-law principles (which is often observed by the U.S. Treasury Department and federal courts in applying the federal Internal Revenue Code) is in the treatment of marital property: in many states formerly part of the Louisiana Purchase or of the Mexican Cession, the assets acquired after marriage are considered community property equally shared by the spouses, while they are treated differently in states following common law traditions. The Internal Revenue Service in determining federal taxes will make a similar distinction based on a taxpayer's residence. ''[A contrast can be seen in the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act (1996), which forbids the U.S. government from recognizing any same-sex marriage or civil union that might be binding under state law. This greatly complicates tax returns for such couples in Massachusetts; they have to compute their state and federal taxes under completely different rules.]'' —— Shakescene (talk) 06:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

U.S POW's
Are there any public statements (or even private journal entries) made by American pow's in WWII Japan, who survived the atomic bombings, made against the dropping of the atomic bombs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.124.35 (talk) 11:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There might be, especially by those wanted to be POW's for much longer instead of being liberated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There were no POW-camps in Hiroshima. Joe Kieyoomia, who was a POW in Nagasaki, said that he was protected by the concrete walls of his cell. Since he was liberated 3 days after the bombing, it might be that he is even pro-atomic bombs. MangoNr1 (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There were Allied POWs in Hiroshima despite there not being a camp. Many actually suffered from radiation poisoning. See here. There were Allied POWs killed at Nagasaki as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently there were a number of POW camps in the Hiroshima Prefecture, as the inmates were used as forced-labour in the shipyards and mines. Reference is here. The account of a British POW who was blown off his feet by the Hiroshima bomb's shock wave is here. I can't imagine that they would have had much sympathy for the Japanese. Alansplodge (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should assume one way or the other. I haven't found anything that said they felt one way or the other. One need not have much sympathy for the Japanese to not like the morality or ethics of the atomic bombings or firebombings — one can still draw the distinction between the Japanese military and the Japanese civilians. One of the best-known critics of the firebombing policy against Germany was Kurt Vonnegut, who was a witness to it firsthand as a POW. I think it is silly to assume, in the absence of evidence, that POWs would necessarily have one position or the other on the use of the atomic bombs. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would imagine that an allied POW in Japan wouldn't suffer too many moral scruples about an act which resulted in their liberation.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely that very many would have been critical immediately, as they would have been elated at being freed. On reflection, some of them might have had concerns. But were it not for the bombings, countless more Allied lives would have been lost. The moral issue is not the specific types of bombs, it's war itself... tempered by the fact that the Japanese attacked us first. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Bugs, you're taking for granted something which is an area of huge historical debate. This is unbecoming of a Ref Desker, as I assume you are aware of the fact that this debate exists. The question of whether the bombs were needed, whether surrender would have happened without them, whether they actually caused surrender, how many "lives were saved", whether Pearl Harbor "justifies" them in any way, and so forth, have all been hotly debated by both experts and lay folk since 1945 and there is, as of the moment, no clear consensus amongst people who actually study the topic. The question of whether the atomic bombs are themselves uniquely immoral has similarly been debated. Whether you yourself take a strong position in this debate is not really at issue here because this is not a debate forum. It is entirely possible that any given individual POW would have a variety of opinions on this topic, and it is ridiculous to assume that just because they were likely maltreated by individual Japanese that this would necessarily give them simple opinions on this topic. In the absence of evidence, we should resist the urge to presume especially about controversial topics. There are plenty of examples from history of people who, despite being victimized or persecuted or what have you, ending up with complicated moral positions with respects to their victimizers, persecutors, and so on. Vonnegut is one prominent example but there are many others. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The elements of the controversy are presented well in Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. My remark "I can't imagine that they would have had much sympathy for the Japanese", was based on conversations I've had with a number of British veterans of the war with Japan, one an ex-POW. Without exception they despised Japan and the Japanese. However, you are correct that this is does not represent objective evidence. The British observer at the Nagasaki bombing, Group Captain Leonard Cheshire VC, became a noted pacifist. Alansplodge (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Wilfred Burchett's reporting was also highly controversial; he was the first Western journalist to arrive on the scene. Some of his reporting was suppressed by the Americans as being inimical to their cause.  Burchett was very left leaning (he had Communist sympathies and was branded a virtual Communist at the height of the Cold War), which tended to colour his whole career.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  21:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

How does/did Instagram make money?
Before they were bought out. Maybe this is quickly answerable by googling it myself. Please, oh please, resist the urge to tell me "See [whatever link here] (you idiot)." I was just curious but I would really appreciate if a human would boil down their business model into a short sentence understandable by a seven year old. Please, if you are able to, without redirecting me, tell me, when a human downloaded and used this free app six months ago, how the usage of this app enable one dollar to make its way into Instagram's coffers and from whom did that dollar come? That's all. Can you do that please in one sentence that comes from you? Please, one short sentence that answers this exact question of Instagram's business model before they got bought that is not a redirect. Thanks. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * They had no ads and no pro features for a fee. I'd say that they were just expecting to be bought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MangoNr1 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a redirect for you which confirms what MangoNr1 says. --Viennese Waltz 13:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Having lots of users is, at various times, considered a business asset. (Literally. You list it on your list of assets when valuing the company.) The idea is that someday, someone will want lots of users, and just "buy" them by buying the service. Time will tell whether it actually will work out in this situation; I suspect this, along with the overly high FB valuation, is just the end of the next tech bubble. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * ... a business model sometimes derided as the Underpants Gnomes strategy. In fairness Facebook does have about $1B/yr revenue (ref), but that's rather low if one estimates their "value" as $50B or more (ref). Others also suspect a bubble. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I wonder if in their terms of service they reserved the right to say "Hey, Joe Blow takes a lot of pictures of airplanes, let's sell his contact information to Airplanes Weekly Magazine and never let him know it was because of us that he started getting solicitations from them." I don't expect anyone would actually look through the old TOS and actually answer me on this. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Bingo! "By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the Instagram Services, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels, except Content not shared publicly ("private") will not be distributed outside the Instagram Services." Althought I suspect this is just a very minor factor in its $1 billion evaluation. Anonymous.translator (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't say they can sell the information privately (everything they say they can do with regards to other parties must be done "publicly"). That says they can store it and use it on their servers and display it on their site if it is not set to be private — standard boilerplate for a site that takes other's intellectual property and does stuff with it. I'm not a lawyer but the TOS doesn't currently say they can do things like that. (They can change the TOS, of course, but they have to inform the users of that first.) --Mr.98 (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * These links support my claims. Please feel free to instantiate yours. Anonymous.translator (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Posting links doesn't mean they say what you claim they do. None of those are about the Instagram TOS (the first one references it but doesn't pay any specific attention to it). They are not the same, legally. What you want to watch out for in a TOS is whether they can share/sell the data to "partners" and things like that. If they just say, "we can store the stuff and use it in our website and display is publicly" that's not so bad. The whole "irrevocable license" thing just means "you can't sue us for copyright infringement when you upload stuff to our site." --Mr.98 (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought legalese that effectively says "we can change the terms of this agreement immediately without notice" was common. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is. Personally I'm not of the belief that you can rely on TOS's for any of your rights. I'm not arguing that the TOS is great, I'm just pointing out that it doesn't say what others think it does. It's no guarantee against anything. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The first link specifically discusses the Instagram TOS as an example and even links to it. The other two links discuss the phrase "...a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content..." which is taken verbatim from the Instagram TOS. If you search that particular phrase you will find dozens of amateur photographers discussing the legal ramification of that phrase. Amateur photographers aren't exactly legal scholars but then again no lawyer will risk his license over a pro bono blog post. I see what you mean about the partners disclaimer, but what's the difference between ACME paying Instagram to use a photo versus ACME paying Instagram to "publicly display" the photo on ACME.com? Even without the partner disclaimer Instagram can still profit from user photo by "displaying" for paying third parties. Since you don't seem to have any references to add and neither of us are lawyers then we can only agree to disagree.Anonymous.translator (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The use of "publicly" implies that they are not giving exclusive licenses out and the lack of discussing partners is significant. Again, your links don't add up to what you're saying they do. They don't have anything to do with selling contact information of users or anything like that. None of what is in that statement implies that Instagram can re-license the material to third parties. It gives Instagram a huge amount of leeway to use the images for their own purposes, but it would be a stretch to thing that the TOS was saying that they could arbitrarily sell them or use the information elsewhere. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Most aps do not get millions of users (there are lots of aps out there). How does "number of users" of a free ap with no advertisements add up in dollars when valuing the ap? Say I wrote an ap which was useful or amusing, and soon it had been downloaded free and  was in use by 10,000 people. While using it, they incidentally provide me with knowledge of their location, and there preferences in some product for which they spend tens of dollars a week. But I get zero revenue. Would a potential purchaser value the users at $28 each as the Instagram purchase implies (from the link  provided by Viennese Waltz), or what? Edison (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a fixed number on it (these sorts of things are not yet common enough to establish a rule, and I don't think this particular sale should be taken as some kind of standard occurrence in the tech industry — if it was, there'd be a lot less reporting on it!). I suspect that "number of users" breaks down much more precisely on real valuations — e.g. how many repeat users, user visitation frequency, etc. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Examples of Vikings in Artwork Contemporary to the Time
I'm looking for some examples of drawings, painting, etc of the Vikings that were produced around the time that the Vikings existed. Details of the helmets are the primary source of interest. --188.220.46.47 (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Bayeux tapestry has some (no idea if Viking helmets are included at any useful level of detail, though)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Search for "oseberg tapestry". But first search for "viking helmet history"; if they wore horned helmets at all,they were ceremonial, as opposed to hard leather skullcaps worn for general use. --jpgordon:==( o ) 14:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * All three armies contesting England at the time were, at least in part, culturally Norse, although only Harald Hardrada came directly from the Nordic area. Unfortunately, for this purpose, the tapestry doesn't depict the Battle of Stamford Bridge. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The Lewis chessmen, which were made in Norway in the 12th century, depict knights and foot soldiers with the plain "bullet" type metal helm. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Also included in the Lewis find are a couple of berserkers. One has the same bullet helmet, but another is this guy, who isn't wearing a helm. While it looks to me like he's wearing a mail coif, he may just be going into battle with nothing more than a headband and a bad attitude (I can't find a proper description of him to clarify that). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 15:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You described it pretty well, I think. I had a good chuckle over that :) IBE (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The chessman's headgear looks like the leather skullcap mentioned by Jpgordon. As for the forces shown in the Bayeux tapestry, I don't think it's right to call them Vikings or even really culturally Norse. The Norman forces were made up of people who spoke French and whose families had been living in France for close to 100 years.  The English forces were a mix of straightforward Anglo-Saxons and people with Danish heritage of varying recentness.  Even the actual Norse forces of Harald came from a kingdom that had already been Christianized and exposed to cultural influences from Christian western Europe.  These people were several generations removed from the pagan "Vikings" of the 8th to the 10th centuries. So I don't think that the Bayeux tapestry is a good source for the appearance of "Vikings". This page, though has a contemporary image of actual Norse invaders from the "Viking" heyday. Marco polo (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * When doing searches, you might want to look for "Northmen", as this was a common term for Vikings at the time. StuRat (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please clarify your request. Are you looking for contemporary depictions of North Germanic peoples as a whole or are you looking specifically for vikings; i.e. the well-traveled, trade-and-marauding-focused warrior class among the North Germanic peoples during the Viking Age? If the prior, there's a huge amount of material to pull from, if the latter, basically any depiction of a "Northern Warrior" during the Viking Age will do, and there's plenty of that around. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * From our Viking article: "Apart from two or three representations of (ritual) helmets – with protrusions that may be either stylised ravens, snakes or horns – no depiction of Viking Age warriors' helmets, and no preserved helmet, has horns. In fact, the formal close-quarters style of Viking combat (either in shield walls or aboard "ship islands") would have made horned helmets cumbersome and hazardous to the warrior's own side."
 * A quick Google found this 11th century carving from Sweden. Alansplodge (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I presume that this was a response to the original poster and not to me? Anyway, our Wikipedia article does a fair job of explaining the situation regarding horned helmets in Northern Europe. That said and although it is just prior to the Viking Age, the original poster may be interested in some of the spectacular Vendel era helmets that have been unearthed. Just do a Google image search for "Vendel helmet". &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * But I have it from a highly reliable source that they had horns ! :-) StuRat (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also this. Although in my example, the horns on the helmet are flat and harmless (much like the team itself). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As intimated in the quotation provided by Alansplodge above, some examples of actual helmets of the period survive. Here's an image of one from the Norwegian (bokmål)‬ Wikipedia, for instance. Deor (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That helmet comes from Sutton Hoo, which we English folk are pretty sure is English. Alansplodge (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The file description, as well as our article Viking Age arms and armour (which contains a different image of the same helmet), says that it comes from Gjermundbu in Norway. Deor (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Bloomin' cheek! It's definitely ours! You can come and see it in the British Museum if you don't believe me. Actually, if you click on the image it says "Photo of the Sutton hoo helmet temporally located in room 1 of the British museum." Sutton Hoo is in Suffolk in East Anglia. Alansplodge (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we're talking about different helmets. The one I linked above is obviously not the same as the Sutton Hoo (yes, I know where it is) helmet pictured in this thread, which I was not referring to. Deor (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * D'oh! Humble apologies; you're quite right. Alansplodge (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the finest examples I can think of is depicted on the cover of The Anglo-Saxons, by James Campbell. It's a stone relief, probably 8th century, probably from a sarcophagus. The spectacular bronze Sutton Hoo helmet, held in the British Museum, looks to me extremely similar, but Campbell mentions that scholars believe it to be late Roman/Sassanid. --Dweller (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, just to be clear to readers, the famous Sutton Hoo helmet, while also Germanic, shouldn't be confused with Viking Age artifacts. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Irish language in Dublin
When did the Irish language disappear in Dublin? --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Presumably earlier than in most other places, since it was more continuously under English rule (see The Pale)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That doesn't necessarily follow. History of Dublin says "by the 16th century, English accounts complain that Irish Gaelic was starting to rival English as the everyday language of the Pale", and history of the Irish language says "Queen Elizabeth I encouraged the use of Irish even in the Pale with a view to promoting the reformed religion". Neither of them seems to answer the question, though. --ColinFine (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In fact, Irish has never disappeared in Dublin. It has long been the chief city of Ireland, and, as such, it has attracted people from Irish-speaking regions, who have brought their language with them.  Of course, during the 19th century, the Irish-speaking population of the country shrank dramatically, and by the early 20th century Irish was spoken in a very small fraction of Dublin households.  Still, the language did not disappear completely.  Even today, some Dublin households speak Irish, either because they are rooted in the Gaeltacht or because they have chosen to adopt the language. Marco polo (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * When I lived in Dublin, the only Dubliners who could speak Irish were those taught to do so in school, and it must be pointed out that not everyone whose only language has been English for generations (as is the case in Dublin) become proficient in Irish - a difficult language to learn. Most "Dubs" could neither speak nor understand Irish.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems that the Irish language is still used in Dublin, as our article Streets_and_squares_in_Dublin shows dual language signs. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's also used on all official documents but as I said before it's spoken by few people in Dublin. Not once did I ever hear it being spoken by people in the streets. As a matter of fact, my ex-husband, who actually was a fluent Irish speaker despite being a Dub, used it as a joke on bus conductors and drivers, all of whom would look on in total bafflement, not being able to understand a word. Yet, the destinations on all the buses were in Irish!!!.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I once spent a holiday in one of the Gaeltacht areas and only heard two people speaking Gaelic. A lot of Irish can't seem to manage more than "céad mile fáilte". It's quite different to Wales, where in great swathes of the country, everybody speaks Welsh first and English when they have to. Even there, in the big cities, nobody speaks Welsh and they haven't done for centuries, although it's taught at school; but they still have biliingual signs. Alansplodge (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This Irish man's experience may be of use:


 * There is something absurd and rather tragic about setting out on a journey around a country, knowing that if you speak the language of that country you will not be understood. It is even more absurd when the country is your native one and you are speaking its native language.... Today, a quarter of the population [of Ireland] claim they speak it regularly. I have always suspected this figure and to test its accuracy I decided to travel around the country speaking only Irish to see how I would get on.


 * I chose Dublin as a starting point, confident in the knowledge that in a city of 1.2 million people I was bound to find at least a few Irish speakers. I went first to the Ordnance Survey Office to get a map of the country. (As a semi-state organisation it has a duty to provide certain services in Irish.) "Would you speak English maybe?" the sales assistant said to me. I replied in Irish. "Would you speak English?!" he repeated impatiently. I tried explaining once again what I was looking for. "Do you speak English?" he asked in a cold, threatening tone. "Sea," I said, nodding meekly. "Well, can you speak English to me now?" I told him as simply as I could that I was trying to get by with Irish.


 * "I'm not talking to you any more," he said. "Go away."


 * I really needed a map for the journey ahead; it would be hard enough to get by without having to ask for directions constantly. I tried addressing the man one last time, using the simplest schoolroom Irish that he must have learned during the 10 years of compulsory Irish that every schoolchild undergoes, but he covered his ears, and I was left with no choice but to leave.


 * "Where are all the Gaelic speakers?" by Manchán Magan. The Guardian, 5 January 2007 There may have been a book as well. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Americans
Is it true that Americans clap at the end of movies and when airplanes land? 176.14.152.144 (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've definitely been on planes where people applauded the landing. I've always thought it was a little silly. I hadn't noticed it being specifically Americans doing it, though. --Tango (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The few times I have experienced air travel clapping were at the ends of particularly bumpy or severely delayed flights. I think the last time I have observed this was on a domestic flight in Cambodia. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never seen airplane clapping on a domestic (American) flight. I've very rarely seen clapping in movie theaters (exceptions being premieres or special events like film festivals). So I would probably answer both of those as "almost never", assuming my experience (many flights, many movies, in many different parts of the country) is representative. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The only time I've seen people clap at the end of a movie is after premieres of big name franchise movies when there are a lot of hardcore fans in the theater. Examples include the Star Wars and Star Trek movies.  Dismas |(talk) 23:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Clapping tends to happen at the end of a certain sort of emotional film &mdash; not the Ang Lee sort, but a different kind. I'm not sure exactly how to characterize them.  They could generally be called chick flicks, but probably a subgenre of that. --Trovatore (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In both of these cases I don't think it is wholehearted or unrestrained clapping. Those clapping under such circumstances tend to have accompanying silly giggling and/or sheepish smiles. I think there is the understanding that clapping is not really called for under these circumstances. Nevertheless there is experienced the need to comment on the significance of the shared experience. Thus there is a unique form of clapping that is self-conscious of its semi-impropriety. Bus stop (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been in movie theaters and airplanes where the audience applauded. It's unusual, but it does happen. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've lived on the U.S. West Coast and East Coast among other places. I spent my first 27 years in the Northeast.  I never heard an audience clap in a cinema.  When I moved to the West Coast, it happened fairly often.  Since I've moved back to the Northeast, I virtually never hear an audience clap.  I think it is a West Coast thing.  As for airplanes, I've heard applause after a few difficult landings, but I think I've heard it in Europe as well as in the United States.  It doesn't happen after an ordinary landing.  Marco polo (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * After a difficult plane landing the expression is one of shared relief. After a good movie it is shared delight. It is unlikely the pilots hear the applause. And it is unlikely the filmmaker is present (to hear the applause). Applause under certain circumstances is odd. It is not to convey appreciation to those responsible for providing something deemed valuable or special. Under the circumstance of an aircraft landing or the completion of a movie, the applause is an expression to one another of the common feeling of the shared experience. Bus stop (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good summary. The flight attendants can hear the applause even if the cockpit crew can't. But in a movie, it's not like the folks on-screen are going to hear it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for American's, but the pattern is pretty clear among Norwegians. On charter flights with package tourists to sunny holiday destinations, there is always an applause after landing. On commercial flights, it never happens. --NorwegianBluetalk 05:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I live in Italy where the people often clap at funerals as the coffin is being carried out of the church. I personally find this custom to be bizarre and disrespectful to the deceased.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Giving the benefit of the doubt, I would imagine they're applauding the person, not his demise. When a basketball player fouls out after a great game, the spectators usually clap; it doesn't mean they're glad to see him leave the game.  You can find an analogy here if you really want to. --Trovatore (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In sports in America, a player from either team who has been injured or is taken out after an exceptional game will often elicit polite applause. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, they are applauding the person, not clapping at his demise. It's just that I personally find it disconcerting and disrespectful.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, since you're not Italian yourself you're not really entitled to hold that view. If the Italians do it for their own people, then by definition it can't be disrespectful. --Viennese Waltz 07:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, I think you totally misread her. I read her as quite clearly saying how it makes her feel about a custom she doesn't disrespect.  It's why she said "I personally find this custom to be bizarre and disrespectful to the deceased."  If you're a guy and guys kiss you on both cheeks in the country where you live, just because they're your friends, you would probably say you persoally find this custom uncomfortable and intrusive.  It's just a personal feeling, it doesn't mean that these people are intrusive or presumptuous or disrespectful of you.  I think the way she wrote this made it quite clear that it's just how it made her feel about it.--80.99.254.208 (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Except "disrespectful" is not a feeling. What Jeanne probably means is that she would never applaud at a funeral, because she would feel she was being disrespectful.  That's perfectly understandable.


 * But she didn't say it like that: she said she " finds [the Italian] custom disrespectful to the deceased", which on face value appears to be a fairly serious negative judgment of a longstanding cultural practice, and one that happens to be done as a mark of great respect, exactly the opposite of how Jeanne experiences it. Customs are tricky things; in the West, it's considered extremely rude to burp after a meal; in the Middle East, it's considered extremely rude NOT to burp after a meal.  If you went there and started accusing them all of being pigs because they all burp, you'd be imposing your own cultural perceptions on a culture that doesn't share them and to which they would be totally irrelevant.


 * It is not open to visitors to "find" another culture's custom to be anything other than what that culture says it is. But I give Jeanne the benefit of the doubt here, because I doubt she meant it the way she wrote it.  Lesson: imprecise language = hot water.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  12:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * She doesn't need the benefit of the doubt because she didn't say "I find" but said "I personally find" and first used the word 'bizarre'. Obviously nothing can be bizarre inside the culture where it is the norm.  It is 100% clear that she was talking about her subjective reaction to it.  "I personally find the French habit of eating snails to be bizarre and repulsive" does not mean that eating snails is repulsive.  It is a misreading to read the sentence that way, because of "I personally" and because the first word used is bizarre, automatically showing that it is an outsider's, rather than an objective or critical, view. 84.1.177.43 (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My reaction is what the US military call "culture shock". So what if I find aspects of Italian culture bizarre such as clapping at funerals and guys living at home with mamma until they marry (even if this joyous event doesn't occur until their 40s). My neighbour finds my habit of kissing my beautiful gold cat Tony repulsive judging by the face she makes whenever she happens to see me do it. Again culture shock. It doesn't bother me when people criticise my foreign habits as I'm very arrogant so prefer mine to theirs.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not necessarily just American, though it may be more common there. In the UK, I heard people clap at The Simpsons Movie and (I think) The Dark Knight, and in Germany people seem to applaud just about every film (though most of the films I go to are advance screenings of films in English, before the German dub is released, which obviously draws a very different crowd to a normal film). Smurrayinchester 12:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it true that people applaud when a serviceman in uniform boards a plane in the United States? --Viennese Waltz 07:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Viennese Waltz, I'm entitled to hold whatever view I want (Italy is a democracy, after all), just as Italians are allowed to criticise American customs-which they do frequently. Most people feel more comforatable with their own customs-it's human nature. As for US servicemen, I only saw people clapping at the airport when they were returning from missions such as Desert Storm.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * VW can be a little dictator at times. And I'd have to agree that applauding at a funeral seems bizarre to an American such as I. However, there's no accounting for cultural customs that have developed over time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, but the only unusual reaction at the end of a film that I've ever experienced, was when I went to see Schindler's List in an art-house cinema in the London suburbs. As the film ended, instead of the usual scramble for the exit, the whole audience sat silently through all of the credits. Only when the house lights came up was the spell broken. Alansplodge (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I once witnessed clapping during the old Alfred Hitchcock film Rebecca. It was being shown at a film festival in Los Angeles back in the late 1970s. When Joan Fontaine told Judith Anderson "I am Lady de Winter", the entire cinema erupted in thunderous applause.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Jeanne! Spoiler warning! Ah well, I was probably never going to watch that anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to toss my own UK experiences into the stew: similarly to Orange Suede Sofa, the only time I've witnessed (and participated) in applause at an aeroplane landing was after touchdown in gale-force winds at Glasgow International Airport. There was applause after an independent cinema's screening of Werner Herzog's Cave of Forgotten Dreams I attended in the Historic Dockyard, Portsmouth recently, but it was in response to an announcement of how much money the special showing had raised to keep the cinema going; I don't recall another public cinematic occasion, but I recall several at SF and Manga Conventions over the past 30 years. Close in spirit was at the close of the first Nov 1975 broadcast, on Top of the Pops, of Queen's 'Bohemian Rhapsody' video, when the entirety of a large, packed university hall of residence common room paused for a moment, then spontaneously rose in a standing ovation. Truly a defining cultural moment. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.34 (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've only ever heard applause on an airplane when flying in Europe. I actually thought this was a stereotype of Europeans (or at least French), not Americans (I have absolutely never heard applause on a flight in North America). Adam Bishop (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Only time I've ever witnessed applause on landing was in Russia - we were told by our guide it was a Russian thing. Certainly never seen it on western European flights --Saalstin (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It is rare for Americans to clap at the end of movies, in my experience. When it happens, it's a few people.  A couple of times I have been in a theater where a lot of Americans clapped, but it was definitely less than half the theatre.  As for airplane landings, I've been on a couple of flights where it was very bumpy or windy and passengers were nervous and there was some applause at the end of the landing.  Robot Mandate (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)