Humanities desk
< July 26	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 28 >

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 27

Long hair

I've been working on this article and have run into a dead end research-wise. The article has two major holes: it needs more on long hair in non-western cultures, and on more contemporary, popular culture. I'm just at a loss as to where to get this information. Wrad 00:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrad, you might find some of what you are looking for in Hair: its Power and Meaning in Asian Cultures edited by A. Hiltebeitel and B. D. Miller, and Hair: Untangling a Social History by P. H. Jolly and G,. M. Erchak. I'm not sure if this is really your thing, but you might care to note that some of the 'hair history' could do with a trim! The bit about Cavaliers and Roundheads, for example, is not quite right. Clio the Muse 02:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sources. How is it wrong? It's exactly what my source said. Perhaps it's just a small POV problem? Wrad 03:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at him, and him, and him. What have these men in common? Why, they are all 'roundheads'. There were some in the Parliamentary faction who adopted short hair, though not many and only in the early days. It was never a major point of difference, or dispute, between the two sides. In general, the myth of the long-haired Cavalier and the short-haired Roundhead is just that-a myth. There were also many on the Royalist side just as devout as the Parliamentarians-it's just that they expressed their feelings about religion in a different way. Clio the Muse 05:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank god, one thing that bothered me about my support of the Royalists was that the Parliamentarians had much better hair cuts. Now I know they weren't the 17th century's skinheads I can simply dismiss them as boring puritans and regicides! Cyta 07:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For long hair in popular culture, you can't beat Hair (musical), and the title song Hair (song): [1]. You might also want to look up particular styles of long hair, like dreadlocks. StuRat 06:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Pol conspiracy

Does anyone know anything about the Saint Pol conspiracy of the fifteenth century? Sorry to be so vague. Stockmann 11:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This must surely be a reference to the treachery of Louis de Luxembourg, Count of Saint-Pol and Constable of France against Louis XI in the mid 1470s. This was a grand scheme that evisaged the murder of Louis and the sub-division of France between Saint-Pol, the Dukes of Burgandy, Brittany, Bourbon and Namours, the Count of Maine and Edward IV of England.

Saint-Pol was one of France's most powerful marcher lords, ruling over what was effectively a large and semi-independent domain. He was the classic 'over mighty subject', one of the chief political preoccupations of early modern kingship. His disloyalty to the crown goes back to the early years of Louis' reign, and he was prominent in the War of the Public Weal. After the peace Louis made the rebel lord Constable, though he never fully trusted him, and with every justification: Saint-Pol was Machiavellian well before the term had been invented!

The final treason came in 1474 when he approached Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, who had already entered into a compact with Edward IV of England to dismember France in a renewal of the Hundred Years War. Saint-Pol then proceeded to draw other magnates into the conspiracy. The whole thing started to unravel after Louis and Edward concluded the Treaty of Picquigny in August 1475. Angered by this, Saint-Pol was imprudent enough to write to Edward, upbraiding him as a "cowardly, dishonoured and beggarly king". Edward promptly forwarded the letter to Louis, who now had all the proof he needed. A messenger was sent to the conspirator, in which he was informed that the King had 'need of a head such as his.' He was arrested in September 1475, and later imprisoned in the Bastille. Execution followed in December. Philippe de Commynes, the chief chronicler of Louis' reign, was to write that Saint-Pol had been "abandoned by God because he had tried with all his might to prolong the hostilities between the King and the Duke of Burgunday." How are the mighty fallen! Clio the Muse 01:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've adapted some of your reply, Clio, for use in Louis de Luxembourg, Count of Saint-Pol. Sandstein 21:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

symbol for justice

I'm looking on an online image library for an image related to the keyword 'justice'.

among other things, it's thrown up an image which appears to be 2 interlinked 's' shapes - one on top of the other.

can anyone please tell me whether this is a well-known symbol representing 'justice' or 'the law' - or something similar?

thanks 83.104.131.135 12:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Scales of Justice", although not mentioned in the justice article. Lanfear's Bane

I always thought that meant an actual set of scales (ie something you'd use to weigh with) - you're sure we're talking about the same thing? I can try to give a link to the image if reqd. thanks 83.104.131.135 12:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also the article on Section sign (§). ---Sluzzelin talk 12:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, that works for me. thanks guys (or gals). 83.104.131.135 12:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Justice herself likes to hold onto the scales. In the justice article she is holding a book which will teach me not to assume there will be a pertinent picture in the article next time. Lanfear's Bane

Dvorák Cello Concerto and Brahms Double Concerto

There is a curious statement in our Cello Concerto (Dvořák) article, claiming this work, written in 1894-95, inspired Brahms to write his Double Concerto. I do not find this very likely, as Brahms wrote his Double Concerto in 1887... Is the aforementioned statement plain wrong, or is there a more complicated story behind the two works? Thanks in advance, Dr Dima 13:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Dr_Dima.[reply]

The statement is wrong; I'll fix it in a minute. Influence, if any, went the other way. If Dvořák's music sometimes sounds a little like Brahms, there's a reason. You are correct about the dates: Dvořák wrote his concerto in New York in 1894 and finished it back home early the next year; Brahms had written his double concerto seven years earlier.

Brahms's Double Concerto was actually his last work using the orchestra. Its main influences are probably the Mozart Sinfonia Concertante (for violin, viola and orchestra) and the Beethoven Triple Concerto (violin, cello, piano and orchestra), but definitely not Dvořák's work. Antandrus (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rich vs Poor

Apart from Rich Dad, Poor Dad, which may be largely anectdotal and fictional, have there been any books or studies published which contrast the differences between wealthy, privileged people and poor folks? In this same light have there been studies comparing people of the same class in different cultures, such as the wealthy in India vs the wealthy in the USA, or the poor in Mexico vs the poor in England, for example? I'm not particularly interested in lifestyle so much as attitudes, aptitudes, philosophy, political ideals, etc. --JAXHERE | ^Talk 15:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read David Landes' The Wealth and Poverty of Nations? It offers an explanation for failure and success in different economies, though it may be pitched at a slightly grander level than you desire.Clio the Muse 03:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally I have Landes's book and have partially read it. Still, as you comment, Clio, it does not seem to deal that much with the personal individual's attributes which I'd like to see examined.

Possibly works similiar to The Children of Sanchez might be what I'm seeking providing they either delve into the lives and thoughts of rich and poor --hopefully in works which contrast one with the other. --JAXHERE | ^Talk 14:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it specifically literary accounts you are looking for, Jaxhere, along the lines, perhaps, of The Jungle or Love on the Dole? Clio the Muse 23:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also check out Up series 68.221.7.63 16:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Up series seems to have a lot of the elements I'm interested in, however, as the article states, the involvement of individuals in the series has influenced the lives of the participants. I'd much rather see or read about people who haven't been influenced in such a manner. I also note that the other items mentioned by Clio seem to focus on the poor. It brings to mind a novel I read a few years ago which followed the life of an Indian immigrant to Trinidad, (A House for Mr Biswas.

All said, I'm left feeling that little, if any, material has been published which gives much insight into the attitudes, philosophy and practices of the wealthy. Is is because they do not permit themselves to be so analyzed? I'm sure that there are considerable differences between the wealthy and the poor in these areas and studying thoses differences would be fascinating for any number of different reasons, but where do we find the material? JAXHERE | ^Talk 14:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is always, of course, The Great Gatsby and just about anything by F. Scott Fitzgerald for an 'insight' into the lives and mindset of the wealthy. But I am sure you are mindful, Jaxhere, of Fitzgerald's exchange with Hemingway: "The rich are different from you and me." Yes, they have more money." Clio the Muse 22:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was another popular book that studied dollar millionaires with some statistics, called the Millionaire Mind as far as I recall. 80.0.104.224 21:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The study of the wealthy from an anthropological viewpoint is called "studying up" afaicr. "Up" is of course used in the punning sense of "up high". 203.221.127.67 14:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goya

Goya allegedly said, "Imagination abandoned by reason produces impossible monsters; united with her, she is the mother of the arts and the source of her wonders." Can someone please provide a citation for this preferably from a book. Thank you. Philc 15:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the subtitle of his engraving known in English as The sleep of reason produces monsters, plate 43, from his Caprichos. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a book citation, use Google Book search: in English, in the original. Wareh 19:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Philc 16:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chamberlain and Appeasement

I would be interested to know something of the evolving debate on Neville Chamberlain and the policy of Appeasement. S. J. Blair 19:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SJB. This is an enormous quagmire absolutely swimming in differing perspectives. Chunk on perspectives in Appeasement. A few positions advocate the following: that appeasement caused WW1, that Hitler caused appeasement, it would have been an extremely successful policy under Gustav Stresemann, Germany's pre-Depression foreign minister, and that it was the only logical policy at the time. Certainly for most of the time it was practiced, it was broadly supported by mainstream media and many British politicians.martianlostinspace 22:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have come a long way since the publication of Guilty Men, the self-satisfied 'I told you so' polemic of the 1940s. No serious historian would now consider dismissing Chamberlain and Appeasement in quite the same terms as the Cato conspirators. History is not created in looking back but in working forward. Appeasement has to be viewed from the perspective of 1919, not 1939. Yes, it seems obvious from the standpoint of 1945, when history was torn up by the roots, that one had to be terribly deluded to attempt any form of reasonable compromise with people quite as monstrous as the Nazis; but at the time of the Munich Agreement this was not the common view. What was the alternative to Munich? Should a half-ready Britain and a half-hearted France have gone to war the could have had an outcome even more disastrous than that of 1940? For the Fall of France is unlikely to have been followed by victory over the skys of Britain.

By the 1930s most people in Britain had come to accept that Versailles had been an 'unfair' settlement: Appeasement thus has to be viewed in that context, a reversal and a remedy to the supposed errors of 1919, which denied the Germans the right of self-determination, granted to so many others. There was nothing to suggest in 1938 that Hitler wanted war for the sake of war, and every indication that international diplomacy could be pursued down normal channels. But even while Chamberlain talked with the dictator he speeded up British rearmanent, though such a move had been vigorously opposed by the strong domestic pacifism movement and the demand for disarmament, embraced by people like Michael Foot, one of the Guilty Men authors. Appeasement could conceivably have continued after March 1939, when Hitler unilaterally occupied Bohemia and Moravia; at least this is the view promoted by A. J. P. Taylor in The Origins of the Second World War. But for Chamberlain it was a step too far, and the British guarantee to Poland followed.

Appeasement bought time, though this was not really Chamberlain's chief intention, which was to solve a problem, redress a wrong and secure the peace. Since the 1960s, and the controversy surrounding Taylor's book, scholars have made serious attempts to analyse the whole thrust of British diplomacy in the broadest possible terms, free of the glib judgements and moral outrage of the past. I would particularly commend The Realities Behind Diplomacy and The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, both by Paul Kennedy. Here we have three principle grounds for the rationality of Appeasement: Britain did not have enough skilled workers to produce rapid rearmament without endangering the whole process of economic recovery; military chiefs advised the politicians of the country's lack of preparadness for a major international conflict; and public opinion was consistently opposed to a strong stand against the dictators outwith the League of Nations. The whole rationale is simple enough: there was nothing to be gained for England economically, strategically or politically in fighting a Second World War, a conclusion fully borne out by what followed after 1945.

I have to say that my favourite treatment of the whole subject is Maurice Cowling's The Impact of Hitler, partisan and hugly entertaining! Cowling places the whole thing in a far broader explanatory context than had been attempted hitherto. In his estimation Appeasement was a policy that made perfect sense, because it was the only way to preserve the integrity of the Empire and British power in the world. It's an interesting perspective, though the chief emphasis shifts away from international relations towards domestic economic concerns. For an alternative view one could do no better than refer to the work of David Dilks. Here Appeasement is essentially a consequence of the failure of the peace of 1919; or the failure, to be more precise, in securing the peace against a possible resurgence of German power. Chamberlain's action was thus informed by two things: a recognition of German grievances, and an equal recognition that Britain lacked the economic and miltary resources for war. In Dilk's words he "hoped for the best and prepared for the worst." He talked, he compromised and he rearmed. In the final months before the war British spending on armaments reached a peacetime record. Chamberlain was no dupe; Appeasement made sense. Clio the Muse 03:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O'Keefe and Merritt

Does anyone have information about the founders of the O'Keefe and Merritt Stove Company that was based in Los Angeles, California? Or suggestions about where I might find such information? I have tried searching Wikipedia, the internet and Google Books to no avail. 63.166.226.83 19:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello questioneer: I searched NASDAQ, NYSE, USPTO, WIKIPEDIA, L.A. California info sites, and Canada History sites trying to find out something about the makers of my cooktop and wall-oven set, (And could not find a single thing that indicated that the company ever even existed.); And that is when I noticed your question; So once I did find something worth shareing, I came back to share what I was able to find.

I did find this : = http://www.antiquegasstoves.com/pages/okeefe.html I thought this part of the page was especially facinating : CLICK HERE FOR REPLACEMENT PARTS FOR YOUR O'KEEFE & MERRITT STOVE And I found that the DBA of Antique Gas Stoves ownes www.okeefe-merrit.com , because one of the links at the bottom of the page says: How to contact us at Antique Gas Stoves = http://www.okeefe-merritt.com/

Hope that this helps some. From: someone in Kansas

women in history

I was wondering which woman in history the females among you most identify with? Princess of the night 20:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magda Goebbels-who else? Clio the Muse 22:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boudicca^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emmy Noether! --Waldsen 17:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this is a reference question. Please read WP:NOT. - Presidentman 19:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partition of Germany

I've looked all over for this - what was the specific treaty that partitioned post-World War II Germany into occupation zones? Could someone point me in the right direction? Thanks. -- Sturgeonman 20:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clio would be the gold standard for answering this, but see Allied Occupation Zones in Germany , European Advisory Commission , and Allied Control Council . The postwar division of Germany was discussed at the Yalta Conference and in the Potsdam Agreement. With the surrender of the German military forces, the Allies pretty much ignored the remaining civil government, and after a formal military unconditional surrender, the Allies said "The Governments of the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United Kingdom, and the Provisional Government of the French Republic, hereby assume supreme authority with respect to Germany, including all the powers possessed by the German Government, the High Command and any state, municipal, or local government or authority. The assumption, for the purposes stated above, of the said authority and powers does not affect (here some later sources say "effect") the annexation of Germany. [US Department of State, Treaties and Other International Acts Series, No. 1520.]" per German Instrument of Surrender. Edison 21:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And at Teheran; Yalta was a revision to include France. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer is golden, Edison, and Clio would have flagged up the very pages you have! However, there is one tiny point in your submission which is not quite correct: the British actually did 'play politics' with the last government of the Third Reich, which continued to enjoy a shadowy existence in their zone of control for some three weeks after the German surrender. Churchill, worried by the prospect of an American withdrawal from Europe, was toying with the idea setting the Germans off against the Soviets, in what gives every sign of being a game of diplomatic poker. Karl Dönitz, Hitler's successor as 'head of state', was even sounding off in private about the dangers of the 'Bolshevisation' of Europe, and how Germany was needed to prevent this. The whole farce was finally brought to an end on the insistance of the Americans.

For the benefit of Sturgeonman, it should be made absoutely clear that there was no specific treaty that decided the fate of post-war Germany or Europe as a whole: there was, in other words, no Versailles. Rather, the fate of Germany-and Austria- was decided in face-to-face meetings between the Allied leaders at Yalta and then Potsdam, as Edison has indicated. As early as the Moscow Conference of October 1943 it was agreed between the foreign ministers of the main Allied powers to set up a European Advisory Commission to consider the political shape of Europe at the conclusion of the war. At the Teheran Conference, held the following month, President Roosevelt first raised the possible division of Germany. The Advisory Commission went to work on the basis of this remit. By February 1944 it was agreed that the Soviet Union would receive 40% of Germany's land mass, 36% of its population and 33% of its productive capacity, with Britain and the United States taking the remainder. This was a time also when the punitive Morgenthau Plan was being seriously promoted by the Americans, which would have seen Germany divided not simply into Allied control zones, but into separate states. This idea lost favour at Yalta.

For all those interested in this issue and, more generally, the fate of the Germans, I would strongly recommend the recently published After the Reich: From the Liberation of Vienna to the Berlin Airlift by Giles MacDonagh. For those who believe that injustice and atrocity were all to be found on one side this is a sobering account. For some people the war did not end in May 1945. Clio the Muse 23:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a typo in the text quoted above from the argeement, which practically reverses the meaning. In the last quoted sentence it says "affect" (= alter). That sounds as though Germany is being annexed to some other country or countries regardless of the fact that the Allies are assuming civil authority. What it means, as should be clear both from context and history, is that Germany is not being annexed to any other country even though the Allies are assuming authority "for the purposes stated above". In other words, the less common verb "effect" (= cause) is intended.

I looked for the document online to see if this was a transcription error, and found it reading the same way at two sites you would expect to be authoritative: here and here. I'll write to them. However, this site has a scanned image of the relevant page available here, where you can see that the word is "effect". Note incidentally that the same verb is used a few paragraphs earlier, and this one is correct in all these copies.

--Anonymous, July 28, 2007, 04:00 (UTC).

If I recall correctly, Ike's assistant Harry Butcher wrote (perhaps in "Three Years With Eisenhower" (1946) [2] that vast quantities of celebratory vodka were consumed around the time the final surrender documents were being executed. Perhaps someone did write "affect" meaning "effect" and it was only caught and corrected a few years later. Edison 06:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys - you've been a great help. -- Sturgeonman 16:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Austria reunified so much sooner than Germany? Corvus cornix 18:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the Austrian State Treaty, Corvus cornix. Below is a copy an answer I gave last December to a previous question touching on this very subject, which may help to explain things a little more fully. Clio the Muse 22:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first and most important point is that at the conclusion of the Second World War, Austria was treated as an enemy nation, in exactly the same fashion as Germany, with which it had united in 1938. There were very good reasons for not treating the country as just another victim of Nazi Germany, like Czechoslovakia. Austrians fought on all of the main battle fronts against the Allies, along with other Germans; the country provided many medium and high ranking Nazi officials, two of whom were tried and executed at the main Nürnberg Trial; and it also provided personnel for the concentration camp system, at both a senior and a junior level. The decision was taken at Yalta, therefore, to divide Austria on the same basis as Germany itself, with the four main allied powers taking control of sections of Vienna, as well as the remainder of the country. The Soviets were not opposed to later re-establishment of Germany and Austria as fully integrated nations; but what they were opposed to was reunification followed by membership of NATO, a move they believed to be contrary to their strategic interests. Germany itself was too central to the defence of the west for Britain, France and the United States to agree to the Soviet plan of unification and neutrality, which led to a major division among the former wartime partners. Those parts controlled by the west combined to form the Federal Republic of Germany, which subsequently became a full member of NATO. The Soviet zone was turned into a separate 'socialist nation' as the German Democratic Republic, and joined the Warsaw Pact, the Communist equivalent of NATO. Austria, in contrast, was not considered to have the same level of strategic importance, and all of the occupied zones combined in 1955 to form a free but neutral nation in terms of the Austrian State Treaty. Clio the Muse 19:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Columbus voyages

How did Columbus's voyage change European perception of geography andchange world economics. In other words, compare and contrast the world view and economies of Europe before and after Columbus's four voyages. Any general ideas?

Umm. New World vs. no New World would be a good general idea of the changes. Good luck on your essay. 161.222.160.8 23:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To say your question is 'monumental' is probably an underestimation of its full scope! It might help you along slightly if you had a look at The First Imperial Age: European Overseas Expansion, 1400-1715 by G. V. Scammell and Spain's Road to Empire: The Making of a World Power, 1492-1763 by Henry Kamen ( a superb historian). You might also consider Ferdinand Braudel's three-volume History of Civilization, depending how deep you really want to go. But these are only a few of the paths that could be traced by your inquiry. Clio the Muse 23:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but are there any online sources that I could immediately read? I'm not exactly sure on the European views of the world before and after his voyages. Does anybody have a link to European economy in the 15th century and after his voyage? Thanks.

Not that I am aware of. There would seem to be no alternative to deep digging! You might, of course, refer to European colonization of the Americas for a possible sampler. Clio the Muse 03:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be referring people to his work an awful lot lately, but you might be interested in Alfred Crosby's Columbian Exchange. Also, it might be worth noting that the influx of American crops, particularly maize and potatoes, is thought to have helped sustain prolonged European demographic and economic growth. They also had a role in the process of industrialisation. To quote Crosby (in his Germs, Seeds & Animals): "Did maize and potatoes play a role in industrialisation? The answer must be yes because industrialisation drew millions of people out of agriculture, obliging those left behind to raise much more food per person than ever before. They met that obligation by increasing yields of traditional crops, and by resorting to the most productive food crops available to them - maize and potatoes. These became staples in the countryside and necessities for many urban workers." Another book that might be of interest is Redcliffe Salaman's The History and Social influence of the Potato, depending on how much you're into taters. There's also Anthony Pagden's and Empires, which focuses on more traditional aspects. It's been a while since I read that book, but I believe he has something to say about the impact of American precious metals on the Spanish/European economy - economic history isn't really my field, but that's worth checking out too. I don't really know of any online sources, but as a general word of caution: the full impact of the Columbian voyages took centuries to develop. The world economy or European world view did not change all that drastically and dramatically right away: Europe in 1493 isn't all that different from Europe in 1491. Random Nonsense 12:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminating the Penny Coin

What are the arguments typically presented for not eliminating the penny coin as a form of currency in the USA? Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 22:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Much like the arguments against decimal currency in Britain: inconvenience. Cash registers would change; sales taxes would have to be redesigned so they came out to a multiple of 5¢; $.99 would no longer be a possible price, and cutting to $.95 would cut profits.... And it would insult Abraham Lincoln, who is on the reverse of the penny. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the 1c and 2c coins were dropped in Australia, prices were still marked in odd cents, such as 67c and 99c. Shopkeepers would round to the nearest multiple of 5c, so you could play the system to your advantage (albeit minor). I think now they just round up to the nearest multiple of 5c, although the Swedish rounding article indicates otherwise.--TrogWoolley 09:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln would be on the obverse of the penny. (Well actually he is on both sides.) We actually have an article on this: Efforts to eliminate the penny in the United States Rmhermen 03:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the long-made arguments is that it costs more than a penny to make it; however, this argument is no longer really valid because the nickel is now more expensive too (see the nickel article). –Pakman044 23:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The real "argument" that preserves the penny, the one with all the expensive lobbying behind it, is continued income for the zinc industry.--Pharos 04:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do the conspirators fly around in silent zinc coated helicopters? Edison 16:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but they're painted black so as not to reflect the moon. Corvus cornix 18:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone from Norway is around, they may be able to shed light on how they did away with (or tried to do away with) what I believe was called an "ore". It was a very tiny and thin coin. When I was in 1991, if I remember correctly, I noticed people throwing them on the floor in front of the cash registers. I asked about it and I was told that the people want to do away with them, but businesses and government want to keep it. It didn't make sense to me and, in the end, I was more interested in the women and beer than those little coins. So, I didn't ask for further clarification. -- Kainaw^(what?) 19:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Norwegian krone article is quite helpful on this. What you would have seen people complaining about would have been 10 ore coins - 1 and 2 ore coins were discontinued in 1972, 5 ore in 1983, and 10 ore in 1992. Since then 50 ore has been the smallest value coin in circulation, equivalent in value to about 5p UK, or 10c US. -- Arwel (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It really is amazing that the US still has the penny, especially since that was originally the smallest unit of currency and US currency has never been devaluated. (There was briefly a half-penny introduced because the penny really was "too much to spend in one place"). I wonder if any other nation retains it's lowest 200+ year old coin denomination (not counting those that have devalued their currencies). StuRat 03:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ever handled a penny? The government's got your DNA! Anyway, Canada still has pennies too, but they are useless unless you want to collect them, roll them up, and take them to the bank for a few dollars. (But we have only had our own currency for 150 years, not 200.) Adam Bishop 04:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of the helpful info! (JosephASpadaro 19:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Toronto 1

In Toronto, which elementary, middle and high schools has the most students who are Bangladeshi or West Bengali and which religion do they follow? Islam? Hinduism? Buddhism? or Christianity? Please take your time to answer this question. Thank you. Don Mustafa 7:12 PM Toronto —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.20 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 27 July 2007

Toronto 2

Hi, My question is different from the first and the question is: Which area in Toronto has the most residents who are Filipinos and which schools-elementary, middle and high school-do they attend? Once again, please take your time to answer this question. Thank you. Jessica Mastodon 7:16 PM Toronto —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.20 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 27 July 2007

According to Canadians of Filipino descent, "Although there is no permanent "Filipino neighbourhood" [in Toronto[ there are large population of Filipinos in the Bathurst/Wilson area and Malvern. There are smaller Filipino populations in the neighbourhoods of Flemingdon Park, Thorncliffe Park and various neighbourhoods in Scarborough. There is also some significant Filipino populations along Steeles Avenue East." As for schools, do schools release statistics like that? Adam Bishop 02:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto 3

Hi there, I am an African-Canadian resident of Caribbean origin and I live in Brampton area. I want to know the truth that is this true that lot of African-Canadians with Caribbean origin, Afro-Latino background, slave ancestry and Hispanics mostly live together in the City of York, Toronto? I want to know because I want to live there and get along with those people. Please, take your time to respond this question.

Bob Stanford 7:20 PM Toronto —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.20 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 27 July 2007

According to the demographics section at York, Ontario, it is not overwhelmingly Afro-Caribbean, but there is a larger percentage there than in Toronto in general. York is also the location of Little Jamaica. Adam Bishop 02:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]