Humanities desk
< July 24	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 26 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 25[edit]

Government Crop Incentives[edit]

Where can I find informaton about government crop incentives that enable a farmer to make a profit. I have tried looking, but I haven't really found anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler123459 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And would you fancy giving us a clue about the country for which you want this information? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might get in touch with your state or federal grain board/body/growers association relevant to whatever crop the farmer is producing, they might help you. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Europe the phrase to search for is 'crop subsidy'

In fact crop subsidy may be a good search term in the US as well http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=crop%20subsidy&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 87.102.86.73 (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 Secord Avenue[edit]

When did the fire on 2 Secord Avenue happened and where can I find full news articles on that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.50 (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried searching, like this? -- kainaw ™ 03:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Searching Google for "2 secord fire" reveals many results, including [1]. --Bowlhover (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

three meals a day?[edit]

Does anyone know the origins of breakfast, lunch, and dinner? I read where the terms come from, but why is it that humans decided on three meals a day? Evaunit♥666♥ 04:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget second breakfast ! I imagine that in situations where food supply is adequate, the human digestive and metabolic cycle will establish a preferred interval of five to six hours between meals, and thus three main meals in a day. However, the timing and relative size and importance of these meals varies with culture and period in history - see this article from History magazine. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under meal there's this link[2]. By humans I take it British type humans because others like the French have more, such as eight in Singapore, and less than three. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous laws?[edit]

I need a few examples of real, ridiculous laws. Preferably non-American examples.

For example, I heard that it is illegal to tie an alligator to a fire hydrant in some states of the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.11 (talk) 09:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A well-known British example is the law that forbids people from dying in the Houses of Parliament. DAVID ŠENEK 09:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to check http://www.dumblaws.com/; however please note that the whole field of obscure and ridiculous law is replete with poorly researched and arguable claims. For example, the 'law that forbids people to die in the Houses of Parliament' is not a law (either statute or common law), but a legal fiction which exists in English common law: no non-Royal may have their death recorded within a Royal Palace. In the event that someone does actually expire within the precincts of a Royal Palace, their death certificate will state that they were discovered dead on arrival at hospital. The Snopes site has a better-researched Legal affairs section. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to keep in mind is that it's not at all ridiculous to forbid tying alligators to fire hydrants. I'd certainly want anyone who was going around doing that to be locked up. It would be ridiculous to specifically forbid it, but often these items only say that it's illegal (as in your example). -- BenRG (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify with an example, suppose the law said, "No person may tie an animal to a fire hydrant." That's a reasonable law that would draw little notice. It follows from this law that you can't tie an alligator to a hydrant, so the book authors write, "It's illegal in Foobar, Iowa, to tie an alligator to a fire hydrant." True, but misleading, and written to make the law sound ridiculous. (You could do the same thing if the law said, "No person may possess a dangerous animal within the city limits.") -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that many of the "ridiculous laws" are just urban legends. Could you point me to a list of verified examples? How would I check whether a ridiculous law (for example, dumblaws.com says that it is illegal to climb trees in Canada) is actually true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.11 (talk) 11:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most dumb laws you'll find are not actually the laws but interpretations of them. For example, the law where I live states that you cannot drive faster than 55mph over our new bridge. I can interpret that as "We have a dumb law that states you can't drive a golf cart faster than 55mph over our new bridge while wearing a pink tutu." That, basically, is the basis of the laws. In your example, the law may state: "No animals may be tied or leashed to a fire hydrant." So, someone said "Here's a dumb law: No alligators can be tied to fire hydrants." -- kainaw ™ 12:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some dumb laws are also old laws that no one ever bothered to take off the books. Example: In Omaha every house must have a hitching post out front. Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have to tie your alligator to something. -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try this book Ludicrous Laws and Mindless Misdemeanors by Lance S. Davidson. Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also some supposed dumb laws don't seem all that dumb. This article from July 1st 2009 (sic) "It is illegal to park a car on railroad tracks" (I should sure hope so) and a bunch of others seem resonable [3] Nil Einne (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can remember many years ago, when the Notre Dame Fighting Irish defeated the Alabama Crimson Tide in football, the Alabama legislature passed a law making it illegal for Notre Dame to score against the Alabama team. Corvus cornix_talk 21:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Cleveland, Ohio, you need a hunting license to use mousetraps. Spencer^T♦^C 14:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, this is a misinterpretation of a basic law. First, Ohio law states that you do not need a hunting license if you are hunting on your own land. So, even if you needed one for mice, you wouldn't need one for your own house. As far as the "using mousetraps" part of this misinterpretation, it is a stretch of the definition of "animal trap." So, what is the law? You must have a hunting license to set animal traps in Cleveland (intended to outlaw people from trapping dogs, coyotes, birds, etc... without a license). So, someone read this law and said "What about mice? You need a license for a mouse trap?" That evolved over time to be the claim that you need a hunting license for a moustrap - which is a much different device than an "animal trap" - a cage that shuts when the animal enters. -- kainaw ™ 18:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a real live Australian one. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Dumb laws. In the AFD for that article [4](it was kept), I said "If this were an article mindlessly repeating the fake or misrepresented "dumb laws" circulated by lazy newspaper columnists or uncritical emailers, it would be a good candidate for deletion. As it is, it provides encyclopedic information to show that such laws are often nonexistent or grossly misrepresented. An example is a book claiming that a city has "an ordinance against tieing alligators to fire hydrants"[5] when the actual ordinance prohibits tieing ANIMALS to fire hydrants (a 'gator is an animal, right?). As references, there are such sources as the Snopes debunking of sorority houses being banned in some small town as brothels. The article as it exists could be renamed Dumb law hoaxes to more accurately represent it. Or it could have a section on actual dumb laws in addition to the hoaxes. There have been and are some genuinely dumb laws, like the "no snowball law" [6] [7]. If a legislature calls some laws "dumb laws" and moves to repeal them, then it is likely the laws really exist [8]. which could be included if 1)a printed source exists to call it a dumb law and b) a citation to that actual law is provided. The American Bar Association Journal and its counterparts in other countries sometimes include such material in a somewhat humorous but verified way. Some "dumb laws" are actually just old laws which had no sunset provision, such as actual law from my town from circa 1900 which required that an automobile be preceded by someone walking along ahead to assure that horses were not frightened." Edison (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about these examples? If the information in the articles Military use of children and Legal drinking age is accurate, then at 16 and a half you may join the military of the United Kingdom. In the USA it is even more funny: you may enlist in the military at 17, and depending upon local legislation, buy a gun at 18 and drink a beer at 21. It really must be safer to hand a gun to a teenager than a beer :). Flamarande (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I heard in Cleveland the law states that women aren't allowed to wear patent leather shoes. -LambaJan (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)~~ Nevermind. I thought that one didn't fit the pattern but now I think it does. -LambaJan (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your information is incorrect. In the U.S., you can buy a gun, enlist in the military, and purchase/drink alcohol all at the age of 18 (enlisting at 17 is done by the legal guardian with the understanding that the child will not begin military duty until he/she is 18). That is Federal law. State laws have increased the drinking age to 21 to reduce deaths - far more people die from drunk driving accidents than gun accidents or military-related deaths. If you are not in an area governed by state law, the drinking age is 18 - which is why the bars on military bases are popular (they aren't just there to see those guys out of uniform). -- kainaw ™ 02:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - just found out that in 1997, all bars on Federal property went to 21. You can tell I haven't been to any of them in a very long time. Regardless, my point about the reason for a higher drinking age is valid. More people die in drinking-related accidents than gun or military-related deaths. -- kainaw ™ 02:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iran's religions vs. ethnic groups[edit]

I remember there was a map of Iran where there was crescents representing Islam, the dark green ones were Shi'a and the white crescents were Sunni. There would colours indicating ethnic groups and languages they spoke. Where is the map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.229 (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the one at the top of Religion in Iran? Fribbler (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removal of all edits and external links[edit]

Hello, I edited an article today and added external links, but a little later all was removed. Some earlier edits are still there, but very few of them. I would like to know why clarifying edits and external links are removed, and why soo fast. Especially because the edits were clarifying and the links external. And of course because the article should have as many contributors and data as possible without exceding a reasonable length. 192.38.110.236 (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC) Taodeptus[reply]

Which article was it, 192.38.110.236? Nothing's showing up in your contributions history, but maybe you were at another computer? In general terms, you might get more respect for your editorial edits if you were to create an account. Without seeing the links you added, we can't say what it was about them which led to their being taken out. Xn4 (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And adding an edit summary is also important. Many people might assume that an edit with no summary by an anon I/P is vandalism and remove it. Also, I've noticed the database has been locking up a lot today. If that happens when you edit, you should get an error message, but maybe you missed it. Can you tell us which article you edited so we can investigate further ? StuRat (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the links looked like they might be advertising, they might have been removed for that. Or maybe someone just didn't think the links added much to the article, it's difficult to say without seeing them. --Tango (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at who is doing the editing and ask them on their talk page for their reasons. Also some link edits are done by bots (which has happened to another person on a article I'm working on). Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has apparently been resolved. Matt Deres (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]