Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 January 14

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.

January 14

Coins and their colours/colors

US, Canadian, and British coins for the most part have the same basic color for each denomination of their coinage. Pennies are copper colored and everything else is silver. (I'm not including the two pence piece since the US and Canada don't have a similar denomination.) Is this by design or coincidence? Is it a matter of the various metals and their values? By that I mean that copper just sort of makes economic sense for 0.01 value pieces but nickel makes more economic sense in general for larger pieces. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 05:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's just based on their relative values. Of course, gold is more valuable yet, and then there's platinum. I suppose pennies could have been made out of small nickel coins, and 5 cent pieces out of larger copper coins. Also, there were steel pennies during WW2, in the US, due to a copper shortage. So the whole "brown money cheap, white money valuable" idea breaks down all over. StuRat (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

In the current US coins, as per their articles here, cents are made from copper and zinc, and all the other denominations are made from copper and nickel. No more silver. So at this point their sizes are merely traditional. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Sizes, yes. But what about color? Dismas|^(talk) 06:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

That's also tradition. The common coinage metals in all the three countries were copper-based alloys for the lowest values, silver for middle values, gold for high values (although after the Canadian dollar was established, gold coins were used in Canada only for a short period). Later the US decided that its smallest silver coins (3 and 5 cents) were inconveniently small and substituted a fourth, cheaper metal, a 25% nickel alloy, allowing the coin to be larger; Canada eventually copied this change, introducing 100% nickel coins instead. And since then the sizes and colors have generally been kept even though the content of the coins has changed. Small coins are colored like copper, middle coins are silvery colored like nickel or silver (with the 5-cent denomination in the US and Canada larger than the 10-cent because it used to be nickel). Large coins more or less dropped out of use as paper money became preferred, but after inflation led to their reintroduction, a lighter yellow color suggestive of gold was used. (Not necessarily the actual color of gold, but still.) Note that euro coinage uses a similar color pattern as well, although the actual coins only appeared in 2001 and do not relate to specific coins in earlier countries. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Dismas -- Historically, the U.S. quarter and dime contained some silver, and the quarter still weighs 2.5 times as much as a dime. The U.S. nickel and penny were base-metal coins even before silver was phased out, which is why both are bigger than the dime, and the penny is copper-colored. The penny really doesn't make too much sense as a circulating coin nowadays... AnonMoos (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. Now you've introduced another question to my mind though. What does the type of metal have to do with its size? The last two responses have alluded to the nickle being larger than a dime because of the metal used but you haven't really explained why that makes a difference. It's like you assume I know that part of the puzzle. Could you flesh that out more? Thanks again, Dismas|^(talk) 10:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Because with their original metals, the sizes were roughly in proportion to the values of their metals. More silver = more value. Nickel less valuable than silver and more valuable than copper. Now it doesn't matter. Their values are what the government says they are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ — Preceding undated comment added 12:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah! Yeah, okay. That makes sense then. Thanks. Dismas|^(talk) 16:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

To explain a but further, the original idea was to have each coin contain metals with a value exactly equal to the face value of the coin. But, this would mean if you used the same metal for each, then a quarter would need to weigh 25 times as much as a penny, and a $20 coin would have to weigh 4000 times as much as a half penny ! This wouldn't be very practical, so cheaper metals are used for less expensive coins and more valuable metals for more valuable coins. The advantage of using such a system exclusively is that it pretty much stops inflation, as coins can't go down in value, unless the metal they contain goes down in value, since you could always sell them for their metal content. However, the problem is that this limits how much money the government can produce, since the supply of precious metals is limited. A side effect is that shortages of those metals are produced. Issuing paper money, backed up by precious metals (that you could exchange for gold or silver) got by the problem of having to haul heavy bags of money around, but the government still needed to keep lots of precious metals (much at Fort Knox, in the case of the US) to back up the currency. Because of this, they switched to a fiat money system, which means the money isn't backed up by anything, and inflation then became a problem.

Many of our coins are now adulterated with cheaper metals, but a penny still costs more than one cent to make, so expect them to be discontinued at some point. This adulteration also makes it less profitable to melt them down for more money. StuRat (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

They've been talking for decades about phasing out the one-cent piece. As long as we continue to use hard currency and insist on net prices that work out to penny amounts, there will continue to be resistance to phasing it out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Canada has tossed the penny. Electronic transactions continue to be accurate to one cent while cash ones round up or down to the nearest five cents. 184.147.128.97 (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The American public would be fine with it if they always rounded down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Except for the part of the public that owns the stores themselves. They don't like getting shorted 4+ cents every transaction. --Jayron32 01:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It wouldn't be 4+ every transaction in any case, but the stores could adjust their prices to fix the pennies problem. --Onorem (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Or the states could have the sales tax round down. Then both store owner and customer would be happy. (If the state's not happy, they can raise the rate slightly, to make up any shortfall.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America - what is the culture like?

I have read about the history of Lutheranism, some parts of the Small Catechism, some parts of the Large Catechism, a biography of Martin Luther's life (and part of the history of early Lutheranism), and a bit about the Pietist movement. I have heard from an ex-Lutheran that all the other American Lutheran denominations perceive the ELCA as "apostate". It seems there is some sort of animosity going on between the ELCA and the other Lutherans. What is the basis of the negative perceptions of the ELCA by the other Lutheran denominations? (Please don't provide a non-Lutheran source that views the ELCA negatively. I want to see how other Lutherans view the ELCA.) Is the bad perception mostly by other American Lutherans or by American and non-American Lutherans worldwide? I am also aware that the American Lutheran denominations are largely descended, theologically and genetically, from the Lutherans in Central and Northern Europe, and this ethnic differences are present in the contemporary Lutheran denominations. In that case, what is the dominant ethnic make-up of the ELCA members? Are they mostly of German or Scandinavian descent? Does the ethnic make-up influence the style of the liturgy in any way? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

A hot potato question, but I'll bite, sidestepping generalities about denominational culture and ethnicity. In the US, the major division, in terms of number of adherents (adherents.com has the somewhat dated statistics), is between the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS) - those Wikipedia pages have links to official sites, with histories, doctrinal statements, and comparisons to die for. ;) Academic comparisons begin with Frank Spencer Mead and Samuel S. Hill, editors, Handbook of Denominations in the United States, which has objective information on these and another half dozen less populous Lutheran synods in the chapter Lutheran Churches (clicking "page>>>" on the first snippet and scrolling up a couple unnumbered pages to "Lutheran Churches" should allow you to read the whole chapter via Google Books). A seemingly well-sourced - and mercifully brief - comparison posted by two Lutherans of each camp (copy and pasted from LCMS & ELCA pages) is the first of many results you get when searching Evangelical Lutheran Church in America vs. Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

Hope those sources help you answer your questions, but for getting a real feel of church culture nothing can beat visiting a couple of representative churches yourself. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hackers and Internet Security

If hackers can break into the United States Government, why do people bother buying computer protection? 49.226.166.109 (talk) 07:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith for this question even in light of your other edit. That said, you're not really comparing similar things. I'm guessing you're referring to the recent hacking of Twitter and YouTube accounts. That's not the same as, for example, the President's email address or the computers at NSA headquarters. Yes, the Twitter and YouTube accounts are government operated but are by no means under the same security as the other examples I mentioned.

And people try to protect their computers because there are different levels of hacker ability, for lack of a better phrase. You might as well ask why banks don't leave their doors unlocked at night if there are still going to be bank robberies. Protection keeps the amateurs out at the very least. Dismas|^(talk) 07:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Or "Why should I eat my vegetables when I'm certain to die?" InedibleHulk (talk) 10:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Trying to understand Western views on Charlie

Hello. I am a young non-Muslim Singaporean. Here non-Muslims and Muslims live together peacefully, usually get along. Today I discussed the Charlie attack with a group of friends, including both non-Muslims and Muslims. Together, we are outraged that Charlie continues to post insulting Muhammad cartoons with support from French society. Of course, we are sad that people died and dislike violence. Here we believe that such extreme racism, if not stopped by the goverment, will lead to violence, which is what happened in France. The West thinking different and support freedom of speech. They say insulting Muhammad is not racist but in France most Muslims are not French race. So I am asking some questions (sorry for bad English) to understand Western views and so the West can understand views from the other side of the world.

1. How racist is French society?

2. Does freedom of speech include being very racist and blasphemy?

3. Does freedom of speech mean that victims of racist and blasphemy speech cannot retaliate?

--Orang Perancis Adalah Perkauman (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You must be the IP (175.156.188.218 (talk · contribs)) that posted roughly the same question earlier. Your premise is grossly flawed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

And now 219.74.60.146 (talk · contribs). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Being called a troll by a troll is something of a badge of honor. >:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Once again "How racist is France?" is a loaded question and irrelevant to the Muhammad cartoons. Pointing out that we have multiple users editing a question might be better placed at talk, but it's not an attack, and doesn't need hatting. And personal experience and a satirical movie don't count as "references". μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

[Hatting by and a huge amount of text in response to the now indeffed OP was removed after the OP was blocked. μηδείς (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)]

I'd like to elaborate on "Does freedom of speech mean that victims of racist and blasphemy speech cannot retaliate"

- you correctly point out that freedom of speech (in the USA at least) is about governmental interference or retaliation. And of course the rule of law disallows murder. But here is an example where it's perfectly legal and perhaps even ethical to "retaliate" against someone who says bigoted things. The guy on the TV show "Duck Dynasty" said some very anti-gay things. The shows producers didn't like that, and fired/suspended him. This is described at Duck_Dynasty#GQ_Interview. Now, some people defended the guy, saying that he has a right to free speech and his homophobic views. And they are right. However, the TV producers also have the right to fire anyone they want, for (mostly) whatever reasons they want. So, while we have the right to say whatever we want in the USA without fear of governmental action, private people and businesses can still react in any legal way. So firing someone for saying horrible things is legal, while killing someone for saying horrible things is not. If someone gets fired for saying racist things, that is not a violation of their free speech rights. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you get to speak for the OP. I was using the normal English definition of the word "retaliation", and trying to correct what I see as a common misunderstanding in the USA, while elaborating on your good response. Put simply: some people seem to think that getting fired for saying something inflammatory is a violation of free speech rights, but it is not. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, it's probably only reported there that Charlie is anti-Muslim, while in reality they satire all religions, including Christianity. This is protected free speech, and many others do this, too. See the piss Christ.

We should also explain exactly why the West believes in the Freedom of Speech and what the limits are. First, some history: Martin Luther expressed his extreme displeasure with the Catholic Church of the time with his 95 Theses. The extremely corrupt Pope tried to have him arrested and executed for this, but much of Northern Europe agreed with Luther and protected him, starting the Protestant Reformation. This led to the idea that you shouldn't be able to kill people who disagree with your religious views (Freedom of Religion) or who state those views publicly (Freedom of Speech). The formation of the US, in particular, was in part due to people who would be persecuted due to their religious views if they remained in Europe.

Another reason for Freedom of Speech (and Freedom of the Press) is to expose government corruption, and hence end it. You will find that nations without these freedoms have more corrupt governments, and anyone who opposes the government ends up in prison.

But what are the limits on Freedom of Speech ? Generally, encouraging violence is not protected. For example, prior to the genocide in Rwanda, a radio station called for it to happen, and they were put on trial for this.

The overall view is that we all need to be more tolerant of those who differ from us, and not try to kill them for any differences we have. In the case of Muslims in countries that don't hold these views, you not only get them killing non-Muslims, but also each other, like Shia versus Sunni, Sunni sects versus each other, and more strict Muslims versus more secular Muslims. If there's no Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion and Freedom of the Press, bad things happen. Look at what ISIL does, and how the Taliban blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas. StuRat (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Other respondents to this question have given their opinions, but it is important to recognise that those views are not necessarily shared by everyone in "the West". There are many strands of opinion in "the West" - by no means a homogeneous entity, of course - as to whether magazines like Charlie Hebdo should publish material that can be interpreted as racist or blasphemous. For example, one range of opinions - in a broadly left-wing British newspaper - is here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope that the original questioner realises that your personal opinions are certainly not 'shared by "everyone in the west". Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, the Eastern IP's claims about Western thought are certainly incorrect. 70.53.70.99 (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed the idea that 100% of people of a very large population share a certain ultimately fairly narrow idea is almost always nonsense, as it is here, unless you're following a No true Scotsman argument. There is of course a big difference between a possibly very large majority and everyone/100% which may have been missed by the IP (who deleted their comments in a huff, but not apparently because they realised they were wrong). The funny thing is it isn't even particularly hard to prove here it's nonsense. The perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo attack were born and raised in France, somewhere widely accepted to be part of the West (and in light of this question, surely so). They may have been influenced by people who may be considered having came from the West, and apparently had some feelings of connection to places which aren't part of the West, but it's offensive to suggest they weren't people from the West. Clearly they didn't share that view otherwise they wouldn't have undertaken their horrific attack. Okay, they're dead now so you can say they aren't an example of people in the West who have that view any more, even if they were about a week ago. But it's ridicilous to suggest they were the only people in the West to have that view (I suspect you can find people in prison who have that view and can be considered to be from the West for example). I'm not denying that's a fairly extreme example of a counter view only shared by a tiny minority, but it's a moot point in response to the IP's claim. And reading more (like with links already provided) will easily prove there are other's with a less extreme view but who do have more nuanced views of freedom of speech. Nil Einne (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I was reading something somewhere to the effect that there have been plenty of religious organizations unhappy with Charlie, including the most vocal voice of support for the Catholic Church in America. The difference is that they "retaliate" to "blasphemy" with words rather than bullets. And the other day, Bill Maher got himself into another swirl when he declared that "hundreds of millions" around the globe approve of the shootings. Which may not be far off the mark. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello. As a young non-muslim Singaporean, there is no way you would have heard about a French weekly cartoon newspaper that issues only 60000 copies at most (more often 45000) and that sells about 35000. Except if you travel to France. That you can be offended there in Singapore, on the other side of the world where they don't even speak French, because of one single obscure publication that only 35000 French people buy and read and only in France, in itself asks many questions, I think. Akseli9 (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Another aspect that may be strange for non-Westerners is the idea that the state will not enforce or in any way even give recognition to religious "laws". See Separation of church and state. Acts such as blasphemy are not a crime and the idea that any such rules can apply to non-believers is regarded as absurd. A person's religious beliefs are regarded as personal and private, if I blaspheme against my god it's my personal problem. My religious community/congregation might have something to say about it but they cannot punish me in any way that affects my life outside of the congregation, so for example I can be barred from attending religious occasions or entering the church/temple/mosque but they cannot tell my employer that I'm a terrible sinner and should be fired. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

And note that the approach taken in many Muslim countries requires that you have a homogeneous population that all believes the same thing. In the modern world, this is becoming less and less possible. People themselves now move all over the world, and they can't expect that people wherever they go will have their same beliefs. This seems to be the problem with many Muslim immigrants, or even converts, who then expect the society they live in to adapt to them, rather than them adapting to where they live.

Then there's improved communications, which means now people around the world see what others are thinking and saying. There was a time when people living in a tribal region of Yemen didn't hear anything that would upset them from around the world, but now they do, and so decide they must kill anyone who does anything that upsets them, no matter where they are. StuRat (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that racism is only realized in the west when certain groups are targeted. So you are free to stereotype ethnic groups as murders or claim racist conspiracy theories of domination so long as pick the correct groups to hate. 70.53.70.99 (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Charlie has also been complained about by the Catholic Church for mocking Catholicism. Is that also "racism" and "blasphemy"? Or is it that you're not Catholic, so you don't care about it? Also, guess what you can do to combat the "stereotype" of Islamists as murderers: Stop them from murdering. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

That would be cool, but would perpetuate the stereotype that "they" are "ours" to stop. Or start. Or lead, revolutionize or otherwise control. Murder stops when people stop themselves from murdering. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

In the case of the French terrorists, what would have motivated them not to commit murder? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Happiness, generally. I don't know, specifically. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

What if they think they are happy and "acting in good faith", to coin a phrase. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Then murder won't completely stop. Still, less murder is cool. I suppose murdering one person to save two or more will have to do for now. But a hundred million hippies can't be wrong about world peace getting here someday. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No, "everyone" is NOT "fine" with blasphemy. The Catholic church organization in America has vigorously criticized Charlie. And how do you imagine Bill Maher is regarded when he says "all religions are stupid and dangerous"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

His name's Pope Francis and he's here to say, respecting all religion is the only way. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Goes beyond ethnicity. Here are "5 Everyday Groups of People Society Says It's OK to Mock". Thankfully, they left out the Amish, because that joke's as old as electricity. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

In the interest of East/West balance, here are "5 Things You Learn Hanging With the Taliban". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a great quote from Voltaire which more or less describes the ideal of freedom of speech in western society: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it." Many of us in the West do have serious reservations about the types of things media of all types do here in the West. This includes several Christian groups, I think largely Catholic, which seriously object to the depictions of sexuality and other matters in the media. But, at the same time, for the most part, these Western groups will support the right of the media involved to do that, even if they themselves disagree with it. The idea of state (or any other) absolute control over media is more or less very much looked down on in the West, given the number of religious wars, including many associated with the Protestant Reformation, that we have had and the slanting of media during them. But, to add my own appendix to Voltaire, many of us would not only disagree with what someone has to say, but be willing to defend their right to say it, they would also request that others similarly defend their right to criticize those who make what in their eyes stupid statements, and defend to the death their right to take appropriate action, not to the point of impacting the rights of others, to seek to get those who are expressing those opinions to change them, or, at least, to change the way they are presented and how often they are presented. This would include the effort mentioned above to terminate the individual from the Duck Dynasty TV show and other, similar acts of basically peaceful ways of expressing discontent with the offensive statements of others. John Carter (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I was just about to cite the exact same quote. Unfortunately, it's apocryphal, but it's still an excellent expression of the sentiment. Since you've used it up now, let me quote a more recent writer, both famous for offending and for defending the right to offend: "My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, anyplace, anytime. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass." Not being offended is not a human right. Being able to speak freely is. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Just as a point of language, as the questioner may be honing his skills: not all bigotry is racism, and not all prejudice is racism. Racism is specifically discrimination against a race, not against a nationality or a religion. So there is no "French race", and prejudice directed against a religion is not racism: there's no Muslim race or Islamic race. I would also note that some Western nations are more advanced than others in their support of free speech, and none are perfect; I think, for example, the fact that Britain permits private prosecutions for blasphemy is quite scandalous. - Nunh-huh 23:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Blasphemous libel as an offence was abolished in England and Wales with the passing of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. The laws of Scotland and Northern Ireland are different, but in practice the Human Rights Act 1998 would make further prosecutions unlikely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Note that the OPs username translates roughly to "French people are racist" Nil Einne (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

What's the French for "the OP is clueless"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

A user that labels himself "French people are racist" is not likely to be operating in good faith. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The last question, question 3, reads: "Does freedom of speech mean that victims of racist and blasphemy speech cannot retaliate?" Certainly, retaliation is permissible. But shouldn't that retaliation be limited to speech? Bus stop (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said, even if you AGF that the question is genuine, which isn't something my comment touched on anyway, it doesn't mean the translation of the OPs username should be hidden. At the very least, if the OP does request an unblock or comes back under a different username (as they were blocked in response to BB's UAA report), it will help people to understand why. It will also help people to understand why the OP is currently blocked and why their username was deleted from the edit log. More to the point, as I've also explained, this specific username may also be a key point of information in understanding the OP even if you believe the question was in good faith. Ultimately of course, AGF only requires that people behave in a certain way if they choose to respond. It doesn't force people to respond to a requests for volunteers if they are unwilling to AGF (and this includes giving a far lesser answer than they would have if they were fully AGF). It's entirely resonable people may wish to know that a person choose such an offensive username, even if they masked it by writing it in a different language (intentionally or not). And it doesn't even require people don't AGF anyway. A person is entitled to ignore or respond in a lesser fashion to a question from someone they feel they don't wish to deal with, such as one who chose a username which may be offensive to them or their friends or family or whatever, even if they feel the question is genuine. Remember this isn't some sort of WP:outing, or even a contrib history issue. This is entirely relating to the username the OP used to post this question, including to sign the question. In any case, you've also succeeded in detracting from the question much more than my simple message (and BB's admitedly somewhat pointless reply) ever could, and likely ensured people who never would have seen my comment anyway saw it. And yes, I'm perfectly fine with AGF that you genuinely felt you were helping, even if you're actually made things worse for the OP and their question. Nil Einne (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

if you guys blocked OP congrats, you went from having a chance to learn from someone who politely starts "Hello. I am a young non-Muslim Singaporean. Here non-Muslims and Muslims live together peacefully, usually get along" then clearly explained "Today I discussed the Charlie attack with a group of friends, including both non-Muslims and Muslims" -- from a largely islam culture -- which is insanely rare and useful in the present context, and went on to state the world's most reasonable "So I am asking some questions (sorry for bad English) to understand Western views and so the West can understand views from the other side of the world" and followup questions..... to not having this opportunity. You can take a handful of daily newspapers reporting, and not have this kind of cultural access to someone young and willing to learn about our culture and explain their perspective. Well, you've blocked that opportunity. yay for you. Looks like I'm the only one around here who actually wanted to learn something. I've deleted my own contributions and answers from the above in protest. (Including hats I had helpfully added to keep things on topic.) 212.96.61.236 (talk) 04:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You wanted to learn from someone whose username is "French people are racist", you were bound to be disappointed. I can guarantee that if you travel around the world and talk to people from other countries, 99.9% will not start by accusing everybody in your country of racism. --Bowlhover (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

he started by stating "Hello. I am a young non-Muslim Singaporean." 212.96.61.236 (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And his questions were shady, as they made predetermined assumptions on the order of "are you still beating your wife?" And he was blocked for his username. Most blocks are placed on the user behind the username, so if a user then edits under a different name or an IP then they are evading a block, which is against the rules. Username blocks are a bit different. Usually someone blocked solely for an offensive username is free to create a new, non-offensive username, and can resume editing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

we'll just have to agree to disagree. I thought interacting with him was fine and found his question well-written and not leading. The fact that other constructive editors also responded with further interesting and good references shows this as well. 91.120.14.30 (talk) 12:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

All three questions, and the username, carry the same basic allegation that the French are racist. That does not qualify as "good faith". You're right that some of the responses are useful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

AGF is a prescriptive policy, not a description of what qualifies as good faith. For example, this is why no matter how hard you troll when you're bored, we continue to treat all of your questions at face value (despite any level of evidence to the contrary). This isn't just people being nice - it's official Wikipedia policy and we have to do it. There really aren't limits, and it's not about interpreting something. 91.120.14.30 (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If some new user came along with the ID "Malaysians are racist" or "Hungarians are fascist", would you consider that to be OK as a user ID? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes of course, I would never comment on it. It's just a username. On Reddit for example people typically pick very obscene and offensive ones, even the ones leaving civil comments and participating normally. A good solution would be to put in large red letters on the registration page that User Names should be inoffensive and encyclopedic, and that content submitted by editors will be judged on the basis of their user names, with the contributions of editors using unencyclopedic names being removed or blocked. This would solve this particular non-issue. Feel free to submit this comment to the appropriate area - I've instituted good updates like this to Wikiepdia in the past but don't have time to track down the right area just now. Thanks. 91.120.14.30 (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I created my user ID, but I'm fairly certain it indicates the rules about what cannot be used for a username. And you might not report it to WP:UAA, but there's a good chance someone will. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I always "assume" good faith, until the editor demonstrates otherwise - which, in this case, didn't take long. And you should read Wikipedia:AGF is not a suicide pact. If it were, no one would ever be blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

you totally misunderstand. AFG isn't about trying to guess whether someone's intentions are pure. It has nothing to do with this. It's a prescription about doing so. For example, woudl you say AFG applies to considering whether some of your specific edits are in good or bad faith? No. It's not about judging your intentions (which are obviously in many specific cases in bad faith unambiguously). We still assume good faith because it doesn't matter that you demonstrate bad faith. You should try to understand the policy better - stevebaker explaiend it very well somewhere, and he is an excellent contributor. 91.120.14.30 (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That stuff DOES matter, and that's why we have WP:UAA, to report unacceptable user ID's. And why we have WP:AIV to report vandalism, and WP:ANI to report user misbehavior, and so on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to learn something, perhaps it would be helpful to check out Demographics of Singapore. While I can't speak for the OPs specific background and culture, Singapore isn't "a largely islam culture". According to our article, the percentage of Muslims there is about 15% which I suspect is about right. Because of history and other factors, Islam has a bigger influence there than you may expect solely from their percentage of the population, but I don't think many would suggest Singaporean culture is "largely" Islamic.

BTW, you seem to forget that I spent a big chunk of my life (still a majority, although that includes years when I was too young for it to be of significance or remembered) in a country with many similarities to the OPs, and a far more Islamic cultural influence (although my secondary schooling years included only a few Muslim peers and actually little interaction until my final two years).

I can't comment on what goes on at Reddit or elsewhere, but the reality is in most places giving yourself a highly offensive bigoted username is likely to lead to a block and most people with much experience with the internet (or life in general) would know that. Yes there may be some gray areas which will be acceptable in some places, but not in others, but a username "French people are racist" is far from that.

If instead, you believe it's normal for Singaporeans not to appreciate that calling yourself "French people are racist" will generally cause strong offensive and is liable to lead to people ignoring or blocking you, you're quite mistaken and actually that's far more offensive than anything the OP did.

I can't and am not ruling out the OP not appreciating that the username is offensive since the may be a small minority of Singaporeans who wouldn't, even if the alternatives seem far more likely (whether trolling, a misunderstanding of free speech resulting in boundary testing or an attempt to prove hyprocricy or what, intending to cause offensive, an outlet for their anger, or whatever).

None of this means that you can't learn something from the OP if you wish, but the lessons you learn are likely to be flawed if you don't understand the OP isn't necessarily representative of Singapore culture or beliefs. (I'm not actually saying anything the OP said may be far from the sentiment in Singapore, more the need to be wary and in particular, not make bizzare and offensive assumptions about Singaporeans.)

And let's not forget the OP can come back at any time if they wish to, it ended up being a username block so all they need is a rename or new account.

P.S. The username creation page does link to our username policy although only in a fairly indirect way. The primary purpose for wikipedia is to create a free encyclopaedia and that's fundamental and never going to change, so all our policies will always be based around that. The fact that we use the CC and GFDL (both of which have attribution requirements) is also linked from every edit page. The fact we have a publicly visible edit log which shows the username or IP, is of course also fundamental, as it is with most public wikis and mentioned in our terms of use linked from every page.

So beyond the fact that as a collaborative project that needs interaction and therefore wishes to avoid excessive immediate offensive between contributors and also wishes to allow people to address one another without having to repeat offensive things, it shouldn't really be surprising that highly offensive usernames just aren't suited for a project like us which aims to create free content albeit with attribution requirements that may require said usernames (although you only need a link, people ultimately need to be able to see the usernames).

Nil Einne (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

A few notes on the posters country: They are 150th in the Press Freedom Index. Extensive censorship usually goes hand in hand with the ruling party being declared the overwhelming winner of every election. This is no exception. In the latest parliamentary election the People's Action Party got 93% of the contested seats, and that was their worst result in 50 years. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The right of free speech is something that is difficult for non-westerners (and indeed many westerners) to fully grasp. Not only do publishers like Charlie have a fundamental right to say (or draw) something offensive... there is (intentionally) no protection against being the subject of such offensive speech (or drawing). No one is exempt. No topic is "off limits". MOST French people find Charlie's cartoons extremely offensive (and not just the ones that feature Mohamed). But they also strongly feel that Charlie has the right to publish them anyway. Evelyn Beatrice Hall (often mis-attributed to Voltaire) summed it up well... "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's it, don'cha know. Those who were raised in highly authoritarian countries are used to conformity, and are baffled by the apparent anarchy (i.e. "Freedom") allowed in countries such as France. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

They don't have much of a sense of humour either, they banned Disneyland with the Death Penalty ;-) Dmcq (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see where the OP is coming from. Are they really saying Muhammad would be insulted to be shown as being against the terrorists? Not showing him is just some convention Muslims have, it doesn't appear anywhere in the Koran. Would he really wish to not show himself in this circumstance? Dmcq (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

To understand just why "freedom of the press" is so important in America (and thus in France as a result of a 1789 event) one needs to understand the case of John Peter Zenger. Collect (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hence the old saying: "Never sue - they might prove it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Just how old? —Tamfang (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

To answer the questions simply

1. How racist is French society? Some French people are (too many), but not those who draw the cartoons, they were very well-known for their anti-racism. They criticize Islam because it is an idea (the idea that Muhammad speaks the word of God). Islam is not a race.

2. Does freedom of speech include being very racist and blasphemy? Freedom of speech in France does not protect you if you are racist, it is illegal to incite racial hatred, but it covers blasphemy, yes, because religions are ideas, they are not "the truth" (otherwise, how could they possibly all be correct?). Also Freedom of speech covers criticism of all historical characters (do you have freedom of speech if you cannot criticize the great conquerors of history like Ceasar, Muhammad, Napoleon, etc?) and all imaginary characters (like Greek gods, Hindu gods, Norse gods and more Abrahamic gods).It also covers living characters, as long as you don't lie about them.

3. Does freedom of speech mean that victims of racist and blasphemy speech cannot retaliate? Retaliation is permitted, and supported and is considered healthy, as long as it is with words, drawings, publications, debates, speeches, peaceful protests, even strikes, etc. Retaliation using death threats or actual physical violence is punished by the law. --Lgriot (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Best (survey-type) phrasing to self-select out non-respondents

Sometimes in forums I would like to post a question in the format, "do you know of an (x,y,z)." How can I phrase this so that those for whom the answer is "no" do not write me multiple paragraphs about why they do not and what they do know (I could do the same). For example, suppose I wanted to know whether anyone knows of the existence of a laptop I can buy that has a 15-hour stock battery life in some configuration, perhaps with a battery in an expansion bay (instead of disk drives, etc). How could I phrase this so that people do not respond "no, I don't" but in 5 parapraphs? (but simply self-select out of answering). What is the best standard phrasing for achieving this effect? (E.g., "If you know ____, please respond" would be quite a direct way of stating it but I don't know if that's best.) Thank you. 91.120.14.30 (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd think you'd need to explicitly list those things you don't want to discuss. You have to understand that many people ask questions based on incorrect or incomplete assumptions, and it's part of our job to root out those underlying assumptions and correct them. For example, perhaps carrying multiple batteries with you and swapping them out is a solution to your question that you hadn't considered. If you have, and can't do this because your application means you can't turn the laptop off to swap batteries, then you need to state this explicitly. StuRat (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I actually wasn't asking this about here (the Wikipedia Reference Desk) at all, I was interested in general phrasing for another forum. e.g. survey methodology, if you don't want people to respond if they don't know. I agree that listing the things that are excluded (that you don't want to discuss) keeps people from responding with them. But you cannot guess everything that doesn't match your criteria. 91.120.14.30 (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

In an electronic survey, you can have a check box, and only ask follow up questions when they pick Yes. For example, many restaurant surveys say "Did you experience a problem during your visit ?". It you say yes, then they ask you to explain the problem you had, and if you were able to resolve it. If you say no, then they don't.

In a forum, the best you might be able to say is "If yes, then please answer the following...". That, along with explicitly excluding things you don't want to discuss, should at least cut down on extraneous answers. StuRat (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Apology

I apologise for the comment I made on the 'Thanks' section in this reference desk. It was a stupid thing to do. 49.227.209.174 (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It didn't survive long, but good on you for seeing the error of your ways.

Now for your penance, say 10 Hail Mary's and 9 Glory Be's. Go in peace, my child, and sin no more. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Also 8 Days a Week, The Magnificent 7, At 6's and 7's, 5 O'Clock World, 4th of July, 3 O'Clock in the Morning, Tea for 2, 1 Is the Loneliest Number and Christmas at Ground 0. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, but I never apologize.... :) KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 01:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Ranzo?

In The Wild Goose Shanty there's a chorus "Ranzo, Ranzo, weigh hey!". What/who is Ranzo? I know there's a city in Italy by that name, but that seems to be entirely disconnected from the rest of the shanty lyrics (You can see lyrics here [1]) Zarnivop (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe to do with a song called "Reuben Ranzo"?[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

That looks like it's the same character, as for the name "Ranzo" ... in his Shanty Book, Richard Runciman Terry wrote: "Who Ranzo was must ever remain a mystery. Capt. Whall suggests that the word might be a corruption of Lorenzo, since Yankee Whalers took many Portuguese men from the Azores, where Lorenzo would have been a common enough name. " (Well, Lourenço would have). "Capt. Whall" is Captain William Boultbee Whall, author of Ships, Sea Songs and Shanties (see also List of works by Veronica Whall).

Terry later mentions Ranzo as an example of the sailor's "mythical heroes" ---Sluzzelin talk 00:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

My thanks, hearties! Zarnivop (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)