Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 April 16

= April 16 =

Which former Confederate, Southern U.S state would currently best represent the phrase “the New South?”
Which of the following former Confederate states of the U.S is the “Northern-like” of the states in the South in terms of industrialization, urbanization, economic status, immigration, social and cultural values, attractiveness to Northerners, attractiveness to African Americans, positive treatment toward African Americans, etc: South Carolina, North Carolina, Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Virginia, Arkansas, or Tennessee? Willminator (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Most of Florida seems so overrun by northern vacationers, retirees and Cuban exiles, that it hardly seems "Southern" anymore, more like East California. I think the "good ol' boys" all retreated into the swamp.  StuRat (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The article New South indicates that the term generally refers to those states in the south on the Atlantic Seaboard, i.e. Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, and Florida. The term tends to refer to the more historically progressive (in comparison) areas of the Southern U.S., and is often contrasted to the Deep South (Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana) and Appalachia (Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia) each of which have distinctly different character from the South Atlantic States.  Northern-like places in the south include places like South Florida, which with its influx of Cuban emigrees and retirees from the Northeast feels nothing like the south.  The area of Virginia around Washington DC has a more Northern feel too it, as do some places like the Research Triangle, which has places like Cary, North Carolina (which has the perjorative backronym "Containment Area for Relocated Yankees") and the very politically progressive cities of Chapel Hill, North Carolina and Carrboro, North Carolina.  Linguisticly, the city of New Orleans, despite being deep in the Deep South, has an native accent which is quite similar to New York, and somewhat distinct from more rural areas of Louisiana.  -- Jayron  32  01:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * StuRat... your comment is borderline offensive... I'm not sure why that's really useful. Yes, Florida is certainly more diverse than the vast majority of the south, but I think you intensely overestimate those factors. Atlanta is the financial center of the American south, and has been for the past 20 years or so. Florida certainly has major metro areas, and has an overall population that places it above most European countries, however as a whole, Florida is a very diverse state, with a lot of competing interests. I think the real situation is much more complicated than the narrative would suggestion. Shadowjams (talk) 08:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm also kind of puzzled by the "Eastern California" thing. You mean like Bishop and Lone Pine?  I don't think there are a lot of Cubans or New Yorkers there. --Trovatore (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If I understand Stu's comment correctly, he meant "East California" as in "Florida is like California only on the East Coast". It's like saying Chicago, with its large Polish population, might as well be called "West Poland".  i.e. The same place but separated by a good deal of distance in a particular direction.  Dismas |(talk) 10:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, that does make more sense than the Bishop – Lone Pine metro area, but "South New York" seems more consonant with the rest of the comment than "East California". --Trovatore (talk) 10:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * One minor correction to a comment a few above. Atlanta is certainly a major city, and in some ways may be seen as a cultural center of the south, and it does have a vibrant financial industry, but for some time Charlotte, North Carolina has been the financial center of the south, and the second largest concentration of financial institutions and workers in the U.S. after New York City.  -- Jayron  32  15:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I compared Florida with California due to the climate and diverse population (specifically, the large population of Hispanics). Then there's Disneyworld/Disneyland. StuRat (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

1) According to a history textbook I have called “The American Promise: A History of the United States,” the New South was “a vision of the South, promoted after the Civil War by Henry Grady, editor of the Atlanta Constitution, that urged the South to abandon its dependence on agriculture and use its cheap labor and natural resources to compete with Northern industries.” I know that the term “the New South” could also entail racial equality, high population growth, immigration, political progressivism, etc. in contrast with the antebellum “Old South.”

2) I noticed that Florida, Georgia, & North Carolina have been mentioned the most in the above answers, but from what I’ve gathered based on the answers & further research; it seems that maybe the answer would be between Florida & Georgia about which state would be the most “Northern” of those states that left the Union during the Civil War (Correct me if I'm wrong or if I missed something). So, which state in the South would it be?

In terms of urbanization, I read that Miami has the 3rd largest skyline in the U.S & the largest skyline in the South, & the 15th largest in the world. In terms of tourism from Northerners & from overseas, I know that Orlando would be a touristic center of the South as well as Atlanta. In terms of economic status, I found out that Florida is the nation’s 4th largest economy (Texas is #2). Atlanta, Georgia is the #1 financial center of the American South as was mentioned in one of the replies, but Charlotte, North Carolina was also mentioned in one of the replies as the chief financial center of the South. In terms of social & cultural values, Atlanta, Georgia is also the cultural center of the South as was mentioned in one of the replies & I found out that it has one of the highest percentages of GLBT in the U.S. after San Francisco & Seattle. In terms of immigration, there are a lot of Cuban exiles in Florida & a lot of cultural & ethnic diversity as was aforementioned in one of the replies. In terms of attractiveness to Northerners, a lot of Northerners retire to Florida & many Northerners in the winters escape the cold to Florida as was mentioned in one of the replies above. In terms of attractiveness to African Americans, Atlanta is where African Americans have the greatest influence & political power in the South. I read that many African Americans are returning to Florida after leaving the state during the Great Migration. In terms of population, Florida is the most populous former Confederate state after Texas, as was mentioned in one of the answers. Willminator (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, if you're looking for a single right answer, there may not be one. StuRat (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What about Florida? It seems that state has been mentioned the most here. Willminator (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Florida is not the "New South" because it's not the South. Hasn't been for a long time.  Northern Florida might be the South, but not particularly "New". --Trovatore (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Except that it is really hard to find an entire state which could qualify; Florida only counts because of South Florida; however the area of North Florida is among one of the most traditionally "southern" areas of the country and still is. It isn't that the Confederate areas of Florida changed and became more progressive, its that South Florida literally didn't exist at the time of the Confederacy.  It was basically a vacant part of the state, aside from a few hundred Seminole hideouts, South Florida might have simply not existed prior to the 20th century.  Nothing much changed in the parts of Florida that had existed as part of the confederacy.  Consider that Miami, the hub of South Florida, was founded in 1896 with a population of 300 (see History of Miami), and it is clear that South Florida had nothing to do with the confederacy.  -- Jayron  32  19:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * But, nonetheless, it was an official part of the Confederacy. Also note that many parts of Florida not in South Florida, like Orlando, are also quite "Northern". StuRat (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * So, Florida could be the answer? Willminator (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure. StuRat (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Constitution of the United Kingdom
Why doesn't the United Kingdom have a written constitution?

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Because it's an old country. This means it slowly developed what is known as common law.  Any attempt to replace that with a single Constitution would incur risk that some rights might be lost and other rights added which aren't appropriate (the right to free beer ?). StuRat (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There is an article titled Constitution of the United Kingdom which explains it quite well. To put it simply, the U.K. does have a written constitution, in the sense that everything has been written down somewhere.  It just lacks a single, seperate, and distinct document called "The Constitution" like the U.S. and some other countries have.  To put a finer point on it, there is a difference between the constitution (small c) of a country and The Constitution (big C).  Every country has a constitution, and every country in history has had one, even if it didn't use that word.  That's because the concept of a constitution is basically the principles which organize the governance of the country.  Who gets to make the rules, who enforces them, how justice is handled, etc. etc. are all constitutional matters, and every government has a set of primciples which define how it operates, and those principles are the constitution of that government.  Some countries have chosen to create a document which they have chosen to title "The Constitution" where all of those ideas are written in one place.  Some countries have such a document and call it something else (for example, Germany calls theirs the "Basic Law, see Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany), and some countries don't have all of those principles in a single document (like the U.K.).  Note that even for countries with a Constitution, not everything in the document titled The Constitution is strictly constitutional (i.e. related to the organization of the government and its rights and responsibilities) and not every constitutional princple is codified in The Constitution.  For example, the United States has what is called judicial review, which says that the courts have the "constitutional responsibility" to review and possibly nullify laws which aren't actually legal.  Nowhere in the document titled The Constitution of the United States is that right established explicitly, and yet it is still considered a "constitutional principle" because it relates to how the country is governed.  Contrawise, the U.S. Constitution has had some laws which, strictly speaking, are simply run-of-the-mill laws, and strictly speaking, don't relate at all to governance, c.f. the now-repealed prohibition of alcohol.  -- Jayron  32  02:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Because Parliament is Sovereign. This means that Parliament can pass any law it likes, so that any formal, written constitution would be meaningless as the next Parliament could just change it. The only (possible) exceptions are where UK law is subject to EU law, or EU law has been incorporated into UK law. Thom2002 (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't that argument apply to those countries that do have a written constitution? I guess you're alluding to the principle that Parliament cannot bind itself, but the USA, Australia and other countries have provisions that make it impossible for their Congress/Parliament to unilaterally change their constitutions.  They have to also get the direct approval of the people and/or the states.  --  ♬ Jack of Oz  ♬ [your turn]  00:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't apply to those other countries because they don't have parliamentary sovereignty. Parliamentary sovereignty is just part of the British constitution, it isn't a universal law. --Tango (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Possibly, though I imagine that the UK Parliament could just vote to withdraw from the EU. They're not supposed to be able to, but real politik being what it is, what would be done to stop them?  -- Jayron  32  00:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Parliament can vote for anything it likes - but as laws of government are not laws of nature, only some of these would actually take effect. Parliament could repeal the European Communities Act (and screw us all), which would have the effect of repealing the duty to implement European law.  The only way others could respond to this would be by whacking on tariffs, diplomatic rhetoric, etc, but it would take (horrible) effect.  Parliament could repeal the Canada Act, but the idea that Ottawa would acknowledge this and dissolve itself in favour of Westminster law, is ludicrous - it would not take effect.  Some Parliaments can bind their successors on some issues, regardless of the theory.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.230.34 (talk) 09:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Bill of Rights
Why doesn't Australia have a bill of rights?

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you read the article titled Constitution of Australia it succinctly and clearly explains why in the section titled "Protection of rights". There is also a sepererate article titled Australian constitutional law which has a more detailed section also titled "Protection of rights".  -- Jayron  32  02:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * We have next to nothing on the subject in WP at the present time, but here's a good summary of some notable attempts that have been made to create an Australian Bill of Rights. These have by-and-large been instigated by the Australian Labor Party and opposed by the Liberal-National coalition parties.  The last significant attempt was by the late Lionel Bowen in 1985.  There's a great deal of material available on the backgrounds to all these campaigns and why they have all failed, just waiting to be accessed and cited in an appropriate article.  --  ♬ Jack of Oz  ♬ [your turn]  03:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Australia is a common law country, with a written constitution adjudicated by a High Court. The High Court has constructed legal rights, such as freedom of speech in relation to elections, as a result of cases hinging on sections of the constitution.  As the written Australian constitution is a guide for running a bourgeois parliamentary government; and, not a revolutionary document forced upon a bourgeoisie by a population in revolt; it is unsurprising that it contains no "rights," of individuals.  For attempts to "force" rights, I'd suggest looking at Australia's White armies which were the paramilitary organisations designed to enforce the beliefs of the authors of the written constitution about what the actual constitution meant in case of the ALP using parliament against their interests.  Cathcart's Defending the national tuckshop is good on this.  On the whole, Australia has lacked revolutionary movements forcing bourgeois conceptions of rights on the government.  The ALP and Communist Party's union sections have tended to conceive of rights as temporary, political, and a result of economic power—and as such must constantly be renewed in struggle.  Correspondingly, attempts to restrict the rights of Australians in Parliament have usually floundered either upon:


 * The attempt to restrict rights being illegal in the constitution (as the State lacked the power), or illegal in the form of law; as policed by the High Court
 * The attempt to restrict rights requiring a constitutional referendum, which are designed to fail on the least (geographic) opposition; and, as such haven't been implemented
 * The attempt to restrict rights was passed at law, but was not enforced effectively by police or ASIO; or,
 * The attempt to restrict rights was passed at law, and enforced, but has had little impact on the actual exercise of rights.
 * In chief you're going to want to look at the Communist Party Dissolution Bill, the ASIO Acts, and the constitutional issue of "boat people". Fifelfoo (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't you, Fifelfoo, ever grow weary of viewing the entirety of human history through the singular filter of a dying philosophy?  Not every single issue in the world is about the relationship between the bourgeois and the proletariat, "classes" which don't even make sense in a post-industrial society.  Does it make the injustices perpetrated by the Australian government right or justifiable?  No, but your narrow worldview restricts the discussion in ways that don't allow a full exploration of the issues involved.  Is it sometimes about the privileged classes mistreating those who are less well off?  Sure, sometimes.  But when it becomes the answer to every conflict, issue, or injustice, and especially when it is couched in the language of Marx to the exclusion of greater principles (words like "bourgeois" make little sense in the modern world), to the point where even if you are making a valid point (which you may be, sometimes) it is so soaked in the rhetoric of single-minded Marxism that it becomes obscured and ignorable.  -- Jayron  32  04:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you don't like the manner in which Australian historiography occurs, I suggest you obtain a doctorate and overturn the standard historiography, or go whinging off to John Howard for a black armband. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As a real answer, the American Bill of Rights, was not exactly an expected thing. In fact, it grew out of a certain paranoia from a class of founding fathers. And thank god. It has, imho, grown to be the most enduring, and important statement of individual liberty since the English Bill of Rights. I wish Australia had the same sort of list of liberties, but by the time Australia gained its independence, the British had learned a gentler touch. Shadowjams (talk) 08:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Bill of Rights grew not from paranoia but from a need to get the Constitution ratified. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The glib answer would be to tell you to refer to your previous question. Shadowjams (talk) 08:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The historiography with which Ph.D. candidates at my graduate school are working is strongly anti-Marxist; are Australian historians substantially more Marxist than American historians? Nyttend backup (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Significantly so as far as I can see. Australia maintains a large labour history tradition, of which much historiography is implicitly Marxist—at least in the sense of class relations in the form of class war and accommodation being a central category of analysis.  The history of Australia itself has been conditioned primarily by debates about class formation and the development of productive capitalism (Noel Butlin, Ken Buckley, Humphrey McQueen, Raewyn Connell, Terry Irving, Brian Fitzpatrick, Sheila Fitzpatrick).  Partly this is probably because of the absence of a "liberal" intelligentsia in Australia, particularly one that would deal with Australia as an object.  Partly it is probably to do with the CPA's nationalist turn in the 1940s.  Partly it is probably due to the absence of an official Labor Party ideology, meaning that non Party marxists had some influence over labour left self-conceptions.  Partly it probably has to do with the continuing explanatory power of Marxist analysis in terms of key determinations in Australian history (the convict problem, capital accumulation in agriculture and the bush myth, why we got a manufacturing industry, an award system, the development of 19th century Australian democracy, the stability of Conservative governance at a national level) and contemporary society (see Bob Gould's attempts to explain the concentration of Green votes on the basis of proportion of "social" white collar employees (his term "middle class") in electorates, compared with the failure of the Greens to penetrate blue collar booths).  Australian historians aren't particularly party minded though. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Anything common between Winston Churchill US president Franklin Roosevelt
Just exploring to know if anything common between Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt especially with respect to Rembrandt’s famous painting titled “Night Watch”? I have tried all options of wikipedia and google searches without much success. Hence this question. Would appreciate any help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.228.20 (talk) 07:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * They were the CinC of their respective country during WWII. Night Watch (painting) was completed right before WWII.99.245.35.136 (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If by "right before" you mean "300 years before", maybe...it was hidden away during the war though, maybe that has something to do with it? Adam Bishop (talk) 08:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could help us by explaining why you thought there was a connection? The two figures seem to be totally unrelated to the painting, unless you know otherwise. Our article Special Relationship says: "The first example was the close relationship between Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt who were in fact distantly related." Alansplodge (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I wondered if this was some kind of brainteaser question? If so, these things are often looking for answers from lateral thinking. I'm too lazy to do the research, but I wonder if both men suffered from insomnia? --Dweller (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a little known fact that both guys liked to dress up in 17th century Dutch clothing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's so little known that not even you know it, Bugsy. And neither did they.  --  ♬ Jack of Oz  ♬ [your turn]  12:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but at the moment it's the best answer I've seen here yet. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But the Germans who were tapping the undersea cable that carried all those messages between them did know, and planned an unexecuted and hitherto-undiscovered operation (Kase VanRijn) exploiting this sartorial affinity to discredit or blackmail the Allied leaders. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The question comes from today's The Strategist Quiz (#249) in an Indian business newspaper: "3. What is common to N. Chandrasekaran, CEO of TCS, Winston Churchill and former US president Franklin Roosevelt? Get the clue from Rembrandt’s famous painting titled “Night Watch”?" Alansplodge (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Both Winston Churchill and FDR had American mothers. See Lady Randolph Churchill. StuRat (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, but how is that related to The Night Watch (painting)? (Btw, I've moved it from Night Watch.) --  ♬ Jack of Oz  ♬ [your turn]  19:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Lawrence Holofcener. Kittybrewster &#9742;  20:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. He painted Churchill and FDR, but did he paint Chandrasekaran? And what's his connection to the Rembrandt? --Dweller (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * He certainly SCULPTED both on a bench. Just guessing. Kittybrewster &#9742;  20:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Churchill and FDR were both related to Diana, Princess of Wales, and therefore to each other. But that doesn't help with Chandrasekaran or Rembrandt's painting.  --  ♬ Jack of Oz  ♬ [your turn]  21:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I raised the question and thanks for all the replies but none really answered my question. I continued with my search (google news for a change) and got the answer in non-english page. The answer for the benefit of all : There is a prize (rather medal) called Frans Banning Cocq medal which has been awarded to people who contributed in a big way to the city of Amsterdam. Since TCS has a big presence in Amsterdam and since TCS is the sponsor of Amsterdam marathon, Mr N Chandrasekharan (TCS CEO) was given this medal recently. The "night watch" painting featurs Frans Banning Cocq. That is the connection. But still i could not locate any source suggesting Churchill and Roosevelt were given the medal. Must have been awarded — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.244.183 (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There's no mention of the Frans Banning Cocq Medal here. There's no mention of it on Banning Cocq's pages in either English or Dutch Wikipedia.  There are no ghits for Natarajan Chandrasekaran, Winston Churchill or Franklin Delano Roosevelt winning any award that's called anything like this.


 * The one and only mention of it that Google can find is here.  It is said to be an Order of Merit awarded by the City of Amsterdam, and "one of several decorations the Amsterdam municipality people receive for serving Amsterdam during a period of at least 10 years.  People decorated with this Order of Merit usually sat in councils or were on committees and have done and meant a lot for the City of Amsterdam. This was exactly the case with Yke Vermeiden, who had functions on the Board of the Amsterdam Ports Association (Airports), the Chamber of Commerce, Scheepvaart Vereniging Noord (now ORAM), Havenraad (National Harbor Council), and was active on several other committees".


 * So, it's about recognising that sort of local community involvement and minor government service, not some grand international honour awarded to statesmen. Now, given the involvement of the UK and the USA in defending the Netherlands in WWII, it's not completely impossible that Churchill and FDR could have been honoured by the award of this medal as a grateful city's way of saying thanks.  But if it goes back to at least as early as 1945 (when FDR died), how come there's no other mention of this medal anywhere on the entire internet?  A lot of people could have been awarded in in 67+ years.  I give the Strategist Quiz question-setter the benefit of the doubt and assume they didn't just make it up to make sure nobody got all the answers to the quiz, but they got the info from some printed material that has never found its way online.


 * Given the above, we were never going to be able to answer this question. --  ♬ Jack of Oz  ♬ [your turn]  21:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The Dutch term "Frans Banninck Cocq Penning" produces more results, but not the answer. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The pagehere I was referring which carries the news of the medal being given to Mr Chandrasekhran. Still I am not able to find any resource on the web about the medal given to Mr churchill and Mr Roosevelt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.244.183 (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

¶ Ignoring the specific circumstances of this particular question, the connection that FDR and Churchill themselves recognized is as a "former Naval person": Churchill was a former First Lord of the Admiralty and Roosevelt a former Assistant Secretary of the United States Navy under Josephus Daniels. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Aren’t German students allowed sleep in class?
I had read a newspaper article saying that a German student doing an exchange project was “astionished” by Chinese students sleeping in class because they are not allowed to do so. I would like to know if it is common in German schools. --58.251.146.129 (talk) 10:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't in good conscience say I've never slept a single second in class during my school days, but generally sleeping in class is forbidden in German schools. Is this actually common anywhere except China? -- Ferkelparade &pi; 10:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if its strictly forbidden, but it's certainly not tolerated in primary education. If you go to a real university, you can probably sleep during large lectures as long as you keep the snoring down (as evidenced by my marginal passing grades in some courses). In smaller groups, the docent will certainly wake you up. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that it is at least frowned upon in most European countries. However, I think the Chinese custom of allowing some sleep for those who may desperately need it is something we could import. Maybe 15 minutes of sleep is a good trade for feeling alert the rest of the class instead of struggling to keep awake and not understanding a single concept taught. --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I have found multiple sources in Chinese about this issue: “before we went to Germany, Our preparation in Shanghai and Beijing both emphasized one should not sleep in class or it will be impolite to teacher; foreign teachers put more concern to it……”(http://www.hznews.com/jy/jszj/200412/t20041220_23583.html) “But I also saw some classmates sleeping in class. It is interesting. If a student sleeps in class in Germany, the teacher would bevery angry!”(http://www.china-botschaft.de/chn/woyanzhongdezhongguo/t839546.htm). I’m still curious about if this is only prominent in Germany, or it is common in European countries or western world?--58.251.146.129 (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I would assume this to be universal with very few exceptions. If a student sleeps in one of my classes, I may be angry (if I think it's due to excessive partying) or concerned (if I think the student has to work three jobs to feed his family), but its certainly not something I would expect or routinely tolerate. If the student needs to sleep, he or she should go to bed, not to class. And if they need my sonorous voice talking about disjoints sets, Skolemization, and counterexample reduction, they can ask me for a mix tape. What's the point of coming to class if you are not fit to follow the teacher? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree that sleeping during class is almost universally frowned upon, although it probably varies whether the learning institution has actual rules prohibiting it or if it is up to the teacher to do what he or she think is most fitting in such a situation. However it looks like sleeping directly after class may be a good thing for learning: link. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

In the UK, falling asleep in class will end with a telling off from the teacher. Worse, it'll lead to some serious teasing from the fellow students. OR? Call it painful personal experience. --Dweller (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If it were a one-off, I would expect most British teachers to just wake you up and tell you to get on with your work. If it happened repeatedly, I would expect the head-teacher to call your parents in and ask them why their child is coming to school too tired to do their school-work. --Tango (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's about right. The response to a one-off is usually amusement, though some teachers might take it as an insult.  I recall falling asleep in a Maths class many years ago (I was bored), and I once almost fell asleep in a class I was looking after (not one I was scheduled to teach!).  Fortunately hearing is the last sense to be lost, so whispered comments from the class prompted me to open one eye!    D b f i r s   21:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is common in Japan - especially in Junior High School - for at least some of the kids to be asleep in class. This is because they finish school at around 4pm, then go to evening classes, then come home and do their homework until about 3am. One Junior High School girl even had a habit of falling asleep repeatedly in my evening classes for about 5 minutes each time, not because she was bored, just knackered. At one primary school I worked at, we had a 12 year old who kept hiding in the cupboard during classes to sleep. So we took the doors off the cupboard. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you serious lol? If they don't sleep until 3am then what time they are waking up at? Is this happening all year long? How can someone lives with this? If you sleep for less than 5 hours a day for a long period of time. It will slowly destroy your health and you probably end up dead after few years of continuously doing that.65.128.159.201 (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting to study the careers of the guys who made so many bad design decisions at the nuke that blew up last year, and see what their sleep schedules were like. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Long time ago - 1977 - probably the smartest guy in a class I was taking was very soundly asleep. So the prof & everybody played a joke & all 30 or so of us tiptoed out and resumed the class in a neighboring room. A half-hour later he woozily came in and asked what happened, of course everybody denied it & said the class was always in the other room. Norbert Wiener was famous for sleeping through lectures and then asking penetrating questions at the end.John Z (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Italian accountability in WWII
Why is it Italy has been allowed to escape its prominent role as a bellicose nation in WWII and in particular the responsibility it shares in perpetrating the Holocaust? Italy under Mussolini was extremely anti-Semitic and had the draconian Legge raziale (Racial Laws), yet people seem to overlook this, especially the Italians themselves, shifting the blame entirely to the Germans. I know this because I'm a resident of Italy. The Vatican has also escaped condemnation. Would someone be able to offer an explanation? Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think a major part of the situation is that, especially by the middle-late years of the War, Italy gets seen as a puppet state of Germany; that is the Italian leadership wasn't making its own decisions, and it was thought that Germany was "pulling the strings". One doesn't hold France as responsible as the Petain-Vichy government was a puppet of Germany, and though Italy's initial autonomy in WWII makes the situation somewhat different, I think that it quickly became apparent that Germany was in charge.  It should be noted that in reality, Italy didn't get off "scott free".  See Aftermath_of_World_War_II which notes financial reparations, some territory losses in Europe, and the loss of Italy's colonial empire. -- Jayron  32  12:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You may also be interested in our article on the stage play The Deputy by playwright Rolf Hochhuth. From the little I remember (having read it 50 years ago in the context of my leaving exam) it was a poorly crafted drama, but then again, it was more a documentary on stage.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Jeanne, the correct answer is extremely inflammatory, so you will have to make a guess and confirm it with Google searches. You're on your own. 188.6.90.231 (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * One (granted, extremely simplistic) reason is that history is written by the victors. By the end of WWII, Italy had rejected Mussolini and joined the 'winning' side. By doing so, they allowed themselves the licence to say that it was not Italians that were responsible for the crimes committed, but Mussolini and his henchmen. The Soviet Union, which also 'won' the war, was similarly allowed to 'get away with' a vast amount of terrible actions. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * They didn't just reject him, on the second occasion, they executed him and hung him upside down from a light pole. If the Germans had done the same with Hitler, we might have been more sympathetic towards them.  The perception of Italian military incompetence might also have made them seem less culpable. StuRat (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The partisans executed Mussolini, but not all Italians rejected him. In fact, there are many people in Italy today who speak of him with admiration.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Right, but we are talking about perceptions here. Americans and Brits see a newsreel with a dead Mussolini hanging upside down, and this lessens their anger towards the Italians, which, in turn, lessens the political pressure to punish the Italians for WW2.  (Also note that the partisans would not have been successful, if not for widespread support from others.) StuRat (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * (that's not it). if you can't figure it out jeanne I can message you it privately at an address of your choice. --188.6.90.231 (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You've got some super-secret knowledge regarding this question that cannot be shared with the rest of us? -- Jayron  32  14:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not super-secret.  Just keep guessing, Google, and see if you guessed right.  If you have any creativity the exercise should take you only a few minutes.  There's nothing secret about it, it's just inflammatory.  We can play 20 questions if you want, and I'll stop answering when it's obvious that the answer would be inflammatory.  Honestly though you should be able to figure it out and confirm with Googling.  (It's not "obvious", in the sense that you can't just sit quietly and divine it, you probably wouldn't expect your Google research to confirm it, but it will.  You really don't have that many guesses to go through - just do it.  Brainstorm and verify until you've found it.)  --80.99.254.208 (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing it has something to do with the Vatican being located in Italy, and the ongoing controversy about what Pope Pius XII did to help Italian Jews (and Jews more broadly) and whether he could have done more.
 * Look, if there are facts you want to refer to in answer to Jeanne's question, and they're supported by reliable sources, bring them to the table and stop playing guessing games. If some people get upset by the facts and make a song and dance, that's their thing and it's not your problem.  Better to have said nothing than what you've given us so far.  --  ♬ Jack of Oz  ♬ <font face="Papyrus">[your turn]  19:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled not to state inflammatory facts when they are asked for. No, it's not related to the vatican. --188.6.90.231 (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, entitled not to participate here. But participating by bouncing up and down going "I've got the answer, but I'm not going to tell you 'cos it's super-secret and offensive!" is pretty much a dick move. Wikipedia is not censored, and if your answer really is offensive (or is easily challenged), the worst that will happen to you is people saying "You're wrong", or "that's a needlessly offensive explanation". AlexTiefling (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't "have the answer" or a monopoly on it. You're also completely wrong about what the "worst thing that will happen to me" is, since the worst thing is that "I" (as opposed to the facts) starts a ridiculous flamewar that benefits no one.  Find the facts for yourself, it won't take long. --188.6.90.231 (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could have a bit more respect for our ability to handle potentially inflamatory subject matter in a mature and objective way... The ref desk covers controversial subjects all the time without any problem. We are all well aware of the facts. The answer to this question isn't a fact, though, it's an interpretation of the facts. We can't know what interpretation you think is the correct one unless you tell us. --Tango (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you haven't been reading what I wrote, because you CAN know what interpretation I think is correct with a simple Google query. It's really simple, just guess and Google.  As for respecting your ability to handle potentially inflammator subject matter in a mature and objective way, I do not.  If you want we can play twenty questions on your user page until you get it, then you will see why I am not engaging in a flame war here. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your brain is not in Google. If we just guess a relevant search term, how can we possibly know which of the results we get (if any) match your private theory? You're yanking our chains. And in any case, we're talking about opinions, not facts. So unless you can be bothered to engage like an adult, I'll assume that you don't know what you're talking about, and in fact have neither facts nor opinions worth sharing. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * One issue was that, in the aftermath of World War II, Italy was occupied by the forces of the western Allies, especially the UK and the United States. By contrast, Germany was occupied both by the western Allies and by the Soviet Union.  Ironically, the Soviet occupation of East Germany gave the West freer rein to suppress organized communism in West Germany and to keep West Germany under western control in the emerging Cold War.  By contrast, in Italy, the lack of an armed Soviet presence and the existence of a nominal government under Pietro Badoglio that had sided with the Allies after the Allied invasion of Italy made it more difficult for the western Allies to control the political process without violating their own democratic ideology.  In Italy, the Communists were strong, and there was a real danger that Italy might make a democratic decision to form a Communist government, which might ally Italy with the Soviet Union and lead to a major strategic loss for the West.  In this context, blaming Italy for World War II or the Holocaust could have provoked an antagonistic attitude toward the West among the Italian population and greater support for the Communists.  Marco polo (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * A NY Times article mentions "the conventional belief that Italians began to enforce anti-Semitic laws only after German troops occupied the country in 1943, and then reluctantly": see History of the Jews in Italy. In contrast, the Vichy French government imposed anti-Jewish laws in 1940 and progressively increased the pressure, rounding many up in 1942. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

is it okay to pick lint balls off wool sweaters?
is it okay to pick lint balls (fuzz balls) off of wool sweaters by hand. 188.6.90.231 (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but you should use a lint remover instead. 70.59.20.190 (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Multiple sources from a quick google search suggest razor instead of pulling by hand


 * (helium.com link not allow, just copy and paste)www.helium.com/items/484144-how-to-remove-lint-or-fluff-from-your-clothing
 * (ehow link not allow)www.ehow.com/how_12049478_delint-sweater.html. Quoting from the first source:
 * You know those "fuzz balls" that gather on a sweater? We call them pills. To remove them, don't pull, since you could pull a yarn from the sweater. Razor them off lightly, and we do mean lightly! Helpful hint: Another option might be to purchase a "sweater shaver." This inexpensive device allows you to remove the pills without damaging the yarn.
 * Royor (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

What is "all payer" health care?
I've read that Japan has "all payer" universal health care. There are no all payer, all-payer, all payer health care or all-payer health care articles. What is it and how is it different from single payer? says, "An all-payer system would keep intact the current array of private and public insurers, but would require that they each pay the same price for hospital and physician services," but how would that allow for universal health care? 70.59.20.190 (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Presumably the government pays for those not otherwise covered. Note that not allowing hospitals to charge absurdly high fees to individuals who aren't insured would also make medical care far more affordable to the uninsured.  I believe Japan has implemented price controls on medical services, which can prevent runaway medical inflation (hospitals must find ways to save money if they are to stay profitable; hopefully ways that don't endanger the patients). StuRat (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Health care system in Japan has detail on their system. Everyone is required to buy health insurance, at tightly-regulated prices, and co-payment is required.  All Japanese are required either to be insured through their work, take private health insurance, or to enroll in National Health Insurance (Japan); the rates for the last depend on income.  NHI pays for part of the treatment, but there are still co-payments.
 * In general "An all-payer (AP) system is one in which services are covered and paid for by multiple insurers, but where all payers adopt the same payment methods and rates." Maryland has an all-payer system where the state sets rates for treatment, including for Medicaid treatment (so Medicaid is treated like another form of insurance). --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * <Small>Incidentally, that article is way, way too US-centric. It's supposed to be about the 'health care system in Japan' not 'comparison between the health care system in Japan and the US' Nil Einne (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Capital punishment in USA
I was reading and wondered - are the majority of Americans opposed to capital punishment? If so, our article seems out of date. Kittybrewster <font color="0000FF">&#9742;  19:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Difficult to tell, but there is a trend towards more death penalty free states and fewer death sentences and executions in general. Death sentences and executions are mainly concentrated in Virginia and Texas. 88.9.214.209 (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Difficult, but not too difficult. No, 61% favor it for murder; 35% oppose. Of course you can ask the question in interesting ways and get whatever response you want, but at least some form of capital punishment is supported by the majority of Americans. Shadowjams (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Most people opposed it because it is inhumanity. If we want to teach killing is bad then by doing capital punishment is not a good way to teach it. What good does it do if we killed the murderers? Nothing! The victims are still dead. And if we killed the murderers even though it sounds fair but first: it doesn't good anything good. Second: We aren't much different from the murderers if we killed them. We basically doing the same thing as they did. It is funny how humans have always strive for justice but in the end we are no different from bad people! We need to distinguish ourselves, the good people, from the bad people. We shall not do the same thing as they did even if it is fair! It is just all my opinion after all!65.128.159.201 (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * For a lot of us, it depends on the case. There were no tears shed for John Gacey or Jeff Dahmer. Most of us probably aren't keen on the death penalty in general. But we're also not keen on providing decades of taxpayer-supported room-and-board for evil, soulless beings like those guys. (As they'll end up having to do in Norway, for example.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The death penalty is almost always more expensive than a life sentence. Capital_punishment_debate99.245.35.136 (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's because the convict is given so many more appeal options. They don't just take them out back and string them up or shoot them, as they used to. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, Jeffrey Dahmer was not sentenced to death. He was murdered by a fellow inmate.  --Trovatore (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I wondered if you would pick up on that. :) No small number of folks figured it was divine retribution. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As a point of interest, that may be about the same as public opinion in Europe but under the Euro Convention I believe CP is bannned throughout the EU. Kittybrewster <font color="0000FF">&#9742;  08:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The protocols 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights ban the death penalty in peacetime and in general not just in the EU, but in most of Europe and parts of Asia. All Council of Europe member states except Russia have abolished the death penalty in peacetime (Russia has signed, but not yet ratified the agreement). All but Russia, Azerbaijan, Poland and Armenia have totally abolished the death penalty. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "totally abolished"? According to our article Use of capital punishment by country Azerbaijan, Poland and Armenia have abolished it and Russia has imposed a moratorium in 1997 – so the only European country de facto maintaining the death penalty is Belarus. --Michael Fleischhacker (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the misunderstanding is that these four countries have not ratified Protocol 13 of the Convention, which rules out capital punishment in all circumstances. However, all but Russia have ratified Protocol 6, which bans capital punishment in peacetime.  Why Poland, Armenia, and Azerbaijan have failed to ratify Protocol 13, I'm not really sure - it appears that all these countries have banned the death penalty domestically under all circumstances. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)