July 29

Why is the Italian flag and Ireland flag the same way and color? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DefiantKnight (talk • contribs) 04:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They don't. The Irish flag is green-white-orange, and the Italian flag is green-white-red. They are both of the same style of flag, called a vertical

Tricolour. That article has a history of that kind of flag design; it dates from the French Revolution. The specific history of the Irish and Italian flags can be found at Flag of Ireland and Flag of Italy. --Jayron32 04:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

This reminds me of an office I used to work in - we were having some sort of multi-cultural celebration and lots of flags were up, with the names of the relevant country with each one. Everything went well until somebody noticed that the Irish flag was now the Hungarian flag..... --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most European flags look the same because Europeans suck at flag design. Most of them are just vertical stripes, horizontal stripes, or a cross. Sometimes they put a logo on them, but most of their logos are just a shield, so even some of the ones with logos on them are hard to tell apart. 24.68.50.170 (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not true. Flag designs are essentially testimonies of the historical period in which they were created, fashion is always subjective and varies over time. Notably the latest inventions in Europe (like Bosnia and Kosovo flags) are staunchly different from the older more classical style. --Soman (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess it's the time periods that sucked at flag design, not the countries. Either way, if your flag is the same as the next country over but with one stripe a different colour or the flag turned sideways, then someone failed at creativity. It was also not a very inclusive choice for people with colourblindness. 24.68.50.170 (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what's wrong with simplicity? The flag of Monaco is way more classy than the flag of Belize. As per Canada, it has a nice and aestethic national flag, but some provincial flags are outright horrendous. The flag of British Columbia is possibly the worst flag ever. --Soman (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't take it too far, like Libya did. Googlemeister (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if you ever get a chance to design the flag of your country, stay away from using green, which is a pretty reliable indicator of a second-rate nation. A few countries have managed to be decent places even though there's green on their flag, but don't assume that your country could overcome the handicap. 71.72.155.232 (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I would guess that that relationship is spurious. Countries that have green on their flags tend to not do well because green is one of the Pan-African colours and is sacred is Islam; in turn, African and Islamic countries are poorer for, let's say, historical reasons. 142.104.55.7 (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Green functioned quite well for say Saudi Arabia. Libya is by African standards a very wealthy country, I think second only to South Africa. Red-white-and-blue didn't really ensure wealth and progress for Liberia, on the other hand. --Soman (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or Cuba for that matter. Googlemeister (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Unless you take HDI into account, in which Cuba consistently fares better than many other Caribbean/Latin American states (for example highest in Latin America, excluding the Southern Cone). --Soman (talk) 05:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have a map highlighting countries that have green (or red) in their flags. --Theurgist (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theurgist, you just blew my mind. 71.72.144.39 (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Further evidence that there is something to this theory about countries with green in their flags: In 1984 Australia declared its/her national colours to be green and gold. But did we immediately, or ever, set out to incorporate these colours into our national flag, as might seem the obvious thing to do? No way. And now, finally, I understand why not. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there are stats about colors on flags by decade somewhere on the FOTW site; the main conclusion seems to be that over the last 50+ years since decolonization started to take hold, the proportion of flags with blue has gone down, while the proportion of flags with black has gone up... AnonMoos (talk) 04:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like Monaco's flag, it's a bit too boring, although Belize is worse. I agree with you about British Columbia's flag. The good

U.S. state flags look more like corporate logos for the state rather than proper flags. 24.68.50.170 (talk) 04:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

On the subject of ugly flags, I think the 2001-2003 flag of Georgia (US state) is quite possibly the worst ever. It probably would have been okay with just the seal; whoever decided to include the "Georgia's History" part should have been fired. There is an NAVA survey somewhere that backs up this opinion. I like the Flag of the British Indian Ocean Territory, it uses the wavy blue lines much better than British Columbia does. Xenon54 (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Vexillologists hate all "seal-on-a-bedsheet" flags, and a considerable number of U.S. state flags fall under that category... AnonMoos (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That comment led me to review the

flags of the U.S. states, and I see what the Vexillologists mean. Then I was curious about the thin blue strip in the flag of Tennessee, and went to the article to find out what it signified. The article quotes Colonel Reeves, the flag's designer: "The final blue bar relieves the sameness of the crimson field and prevents the flag from showing too much crimson when hanging limp." I love Wikipedia! ---Sluzzelin talk 22:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The state of Washington's flag is worse than the arms-on-colour flags, but not as bad as state of Georgia 2001–2003 (WOW, that one is bad). Also, what's up with Maryland's flag? It's not too bad, but it certainly draws attention to itself. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 11:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Maryland flag is a heraldic banner of the arms of the noble family involved with the founding of the original colony... AnonMoos (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What, you mean to say that you can't tell the Flag of Slovakia and the Flag of Slovenia apart?? The French vertical tricolor was an example for many countries in central and southern Europe, the Danish Dannebrog was an example for most Scandinavian flags, and the horizontal tricolor of the Netherlands influenced the German flag and (through the Russian horizontal tricolor) the flags of many Slavic countries. However, the flags of Switzerland, Greece, Czech(oslovakia) and the United Kingdom do definitely depart from basic horizontal or vertical bicolors/tricolors or Nordic crossses... AnonMoos (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Tricolors are often a reflection of 19th-century nationalists' and republicans' (anti-monarchists') identification with the French First Republic and the earlier Dutch Republic. Many crosses originated with Crusader flags. The flag reference books compiled by Whitney Smith (Flags through the Ages and Around the World, 1975) and Alfred Znamierowski (The World Encyclopedia of Flags, 1999, 2006) both have individual pages devoted to themes such as the star, the cross or the tricolor, and how they spread to different flag designs. ¶ As for any similarity between European flags, I think there's just as much (if not more) similarity among Latin American flags and among African flags (partly reflecting Pan-American or Pan-African histories and hopes). It's definitely true of Arabian and North African flags, inspired by Arab nationalism, i.e. the hope that the Arabs would one day form a single powerful nation with a single flag (cf. the United Arab Republic). —— Shakescene (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The flag of Indonesia differs from the flag of Monaco only in being longer, and the flag of Chad differs from the flag of Romania only in having a darker shade of the blue. --Theurgist (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All and much more in Gallery of flags by similarity. I just knew there had to be a Wikipedia article like that and it was the first hit on my first search: similar flags. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend reading "Good Flag, Bad Flag" by the North American Vexillological Association. — Michael J 21:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

some are glad, and some are very, very bad. Why are they sad and glad and bad? I do not know, go ask your dad. Some are thin, and some are fat. The fat one has a yellow hat. From there to here, from here to there, funny flags are everywhere. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 09:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Some are thin, but others are even thinner. --Theurgist (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of new flag, see

U) 15:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

To go back to the original question of the OP: The difference between the Italian flag and the flag of the Irish Republic. The Italian flag (as far as I know) has the colours: Ivy Green, White, and Venetian Red. The Irish Flag: Deep Green, White, and Orange. The Irish Flag has strict law regarding its formation and use. See: Flag of Ireland, Flag of Italy. To be precise: The Irish Flag: Green 347, White "safe", Orange 151. Italian Flag: Fern Green, Bright White, Flame Scarlet. MacOfJesus (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is special about the Australian Aboriginal flag? --84.62.215.188 (talk) 12:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen Australian Aboriginal flag? It is all explained, colours and history. MacOfJesus (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen

Eureka flag? MacOfJesus (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Now compare; Flag of Chad, Flag of Romania, Flag of Andorra, Flag of Moldova, flag of Queen's University in Ontaria, Canada ! Confusing for shipping! MacOfJesus (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Ezra Chapter 10: 15 says, "Only Jonathan the son of Asahel and Jahzeiah the son of Tikvah stood up against this matter; and Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levite helped them.” Were the first two guys Kohanim? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is

WP:OR, but I don't think so. The text is usually quite careful to give people their honour when they are Cohanim and Leviim - see Shabbethai in the same verse and Ezra himself in the verse that follows (although it often skips Ezra, for obvious reasons). Rashi is no help - I've currently no access to any other commentators, but I wouldn't really expect them to help either. --Dweller (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Why would you think that they were Kohanim? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing a review for a book that theorizes the Kaifeng Jews are descended from a group of disgruntled "priests, nobles and levites" who disagreed withe Ezra's divorce proclamation and headed east. My review already punches holes in several of the author's other theories, I just want to make sure I am covering all of the bases. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how either side could be substantiated when the biblical comment is made so flippantly and no significance to who they were is really mentioned. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In short, the inscriptions left by the Jews mentions Ezra last in a long line of prophets and that they still knelt during prayer as late as the 17th century. As I mentioned above, the author theorizes the group who disagreed with Ezra left for the east. Since kneeling was prohibited by Jewish sages sometime after the fall of the Second Temple, the author reasons the group who parted with Ezra brought this practice with them to the east. This is total conjecture on the author's part. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That hypothesis seems quite implausible for a number of reasons, including that there was no real direct or semi-direct trade/travel route between the Mediterranean and and Far East until Hellenistic times. To put it another way, why would there have been Judaism in China before there was Buddhism in China?? Ezra being last on the list could reflect that he's the last prominent authoritative religious figure (though not really a "prophet") mentioned in the historical narrative of the Hebrew Bible... AnonMoos (talk) 05:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The stone inscriptions erected by the Jews state their religion was transmitted from India and the first ancestors settled in China during the

Song Dynasty

.

The author of the book I am reviewing suffered heavily from

Ferghana. Because of their facial features, the author believed these were Jews. On the other hand, I did research into this report and found out that it was actually describing the Dayuan

, who were of Greco-Bactrian descent.

I agree with your reason for why the Jews listed Ezra last in the inscriptions. You may be aware of how some Jews refer to Ezra as the "Father of Judaism" for his efforts in reviving Judaism after the exile. Even the stone inscriptions refer to him as the "Patriarch of the Correct Religion".--Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been searching the Internet with Google for several days trying to find the date on which Pope John Paul XXIII issued an apology prayer for the Jewish people.

Here is the prayer that I copied from a reference somewhere. It is late and I cannot remember or research the URL of the source at this moment. I am hoping someone is familar enough with the prayer that the URL is not needed. If it is needed I will do the research for it tomorrow and edit this question. I am sure the prayer itself is in the public domain and not copyrighted to anyone.

"The mark of Cain is stamped upon our foreheads. Across the centuries, our brother Abel has lain in blood which we drew, and shed tears we caused by forgetting Thy love. Forgive us, Lord, for the curse we falsely attributed to their name as Jews. Forgive us for crucifying Thee a second time in their flesh. For we knew not what we did."

I need to know the exact date this prayer was released to the public.

Thank you, Dcroose (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While you're waiting for a forthcoming reply to your particular query (with which I'm unfamiliar), you might pursue readings related to

Nostra Aetate that came out of the Second Vatican Council, that's highly pertinent to Pope John XXIII's approach to defusing (as opposed to diffusing :-) historical antisemitism in the Catholic Church. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

According to The Council of Centers on Jewish-Christian Relations, "The prayer was written by Pope John XXIII shortly before he died. He expressed the hope that it would be read in all Catholic Churches." However, in a footnote by the webmaster of that site, it states, "The prayer attributed above to Pope John XXIII is unattested." That website does not give the exact date of the quote, however. It does give what it claims to be the full text of the prayer:

“We now recognize that for many centuries our eyes were covered with blindness, so that we no longer saw the beauty of Your chosen people and no longer recognized the features of our firstborn brother. We admit that the sign of Cain is on our forehead. For centuries, Abel was lying on the ground in blood and tears because we had forgotten Your love. Forgive the curse that we unjustly pronounced over the name of the Jews. Forgive that we crucified You again in their flesh."

However, the website "Jews, Jesus and the Bible" states "Pope John XXIII prayed the following prayer of repentance, shortly before his death June 3, 1961." (John XXIII actually died on June 3, 1963.) It also gives a slightly different version of the prayer:

“We now recognize that many, many centuries of blindness have covered our eyes so that we no longer see the beauty of Your Chosen People and in their face no longer recognize the features of our first-born brother.

“We realize that the sign of Cain is marked on our forehead. For centuries, Abel was lying in blood and tears because we forgot Your love. Forgive us the damnation we pronounced unjustly upon the name of the Jews.

“Forgive us for having crucified You a second time in their flesh. For we knew not what we were doing.”

It appears that there is some uncertainty over the exact wording (although if it was originally in Italian or Latin, translation might account for the discrepancy). And if he said it shortly before he died, that would put it in the first half of 1963.

Good luck in your continued search. — Michael J 21:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a church in Paris, on Rue Saint Honoré called

The Tetragrammaton was a common church decoration in the 16th-19th centuries (see a lot of photos at commons:Category:Tetragrammaton, and a six-pointed star of two triangles can be called the "star of creation" or "Creator's star" in a Christian context. Not sure about an apparent heavy concentration of Jewish symbols in a church, though... AnonMoos (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these older churches had people "sponsor" artwork. Is it possible that one or more of the sponsors was Jewish and simply included a few aspects of Judaism in the artwork he requested? Googlemeister (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, or maybe it was stolen from a synagogue, and then 'christianized'? -212.194.13.84 (talk) 07:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ark of the Covenant is considered lost by most people of the Abrahamic religions.

I think that the simplest explanation is that the use of Jewish imagery is just an acknowledgement of Christianity's Jewish heritage. Paul (Stansifer) 13:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm.. I doubt it. It was always my understanding that Christianity wasn't proud of its Jewish heritage until Pope John Paul II called Jews the elder brothers of Christians. Or at least until the formation of Israel. I could be wrong though. -212.194.13.84 (talk) 07:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denying the Jewish heritage of Christianity is what is traditionally known as the "Marcionist heresy"... AnonMoos (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get the idea that Christianity wasn't proud of its Jewish heritage until the formation of Israel? It seems a strange connection in my own experience, but obviously your experience includes something that makes this look likely. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always understood Jewish/Christian relations to be pretty bad until recently. A lot of things happened in that time, the holocaust had just ended and had recently become public knowledge, Christian Zionism gained popularity, and the Dead Sea Scrolls were found right around its formation. Since the Dead Sea Scrolls mention a lot of the same things that Jesus did (and many were from before he lived), it helped the Church embrace its Jewish heritage. So it wasn't just the formation of Israel that affected the relationship. After that, things started to change, with the Second Vatican Council, and John Paul II. It's just my impression, though. Nothing too researched. -Solid Reign (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I always got the sense that, while Jewish/Christian relations were pretty bad, that didn't actually prevent Christian churches from celebrating their Jewish heritage. That the prevailing view would hold that Jews after Jesus showed up were, in some way, culpable or abandoned, whereas Jews before Jesus showed up were part of God's chosen people, living out his plan. So a church would happily include references to and imagery from Judaism as represented in the Bible, while simultaneously saying and doing horrible things to and about current Jews. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. It's akin to U.S.-American Indian relations. Historically pretty rocky but that didn't prevent the U.S. mint from putting Indians on its coins (e.g.

Indian Head nickel & Indian Head cent). —D. Monack ^talk 01:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

P.S. -- See File:Basler Muenster Christus.jpg... AnonMoos (talk) 12:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a book called the Portable Seminary that in essence claims to be seminary in one book - is this the only book of its kind, or are there others like this. If there have been other book that claim to be all of seminary in one book; what are their titles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.137.73 (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compare Jacques Paul Migne's library, still used. --Wetman (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the reviews on Amazon, they stress that the book claims to be an overview of seminary stuff, not the equivalent of going to seminary. In particular, it's hard to imagine anyone suggesting that you can have a good understanding of the subject of Christian theology without reading

at least one other book. (But even people who have a sola scriptura attitude recognize the necessity of hearing from authority figures; it's just that they think the Bible is the final authority.) Paul (Stansifer) 18:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

How do I submit a historical article, title "Birth of Christ Recalculated" to Wikipedia? It is posted on http://www.versebyverse.org/doctrine/birthofchrist.html. Copyright 1998, Maranatha Church, Inc. Please let me know how to do this? Thank You. G. Pellegrini —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.145.57 (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a policies about original research and notability. See

WP:OR and Wikipedia:Notability. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The best way is to get it published in a scholarly journal, then refer to it... AnonMoos (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to find information about a Soviet officer who was supose to press "The Button" of a ICBM launcer when his computer, wrongfully, told him the US launched a first strike against the USSR. He dint do it and ended up saving alot of lives. I read it on wikipedia a long time ago. But I cant find it anymore. Anyone care to help me out?--SelfQ (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lieutenant Colonel Stanislav Petrov would be the man you are looking for. Googlemeister (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --SelfQ (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also

Vasili ArkhipovJabberwalkee (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I couldn't find a noticeboard to ask about images, so I thought I'd try here.

The photo to the right has "1934/III-2/2" typed on it. What does this mean? In particular, does it mean the photo was taken or published in 1934? The uploader is claiming they took the photo for the Greek Wikipedia, so if "1934" is a year then I would strongly doubt it. -kotra (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus Archaeological Museum in Nicosia, so I am guessing that it's a museum photograph and they put that tag there while taking the photo, for their cataloging purposes. It's pretty clear the editor did not take that picture himself. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

A date at the beginning of a museum's cataloguing designation usually indicates the date the item was accessioned, so in this case it wouldn't necessarily indicate the date the photo was taken. Deor (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both! If the conclusion is that the photo was taken as part of a museum's cataloguing, I think we can assume the uploader did not take it for the Greek Wikipedia as he or she claimed. Thanks for your help! -kotra (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What type of plant is this of the leaves of the handbag?

• http://www.flickr.com/photos/pineblossoms/3089278719/
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/pineblossoms/3090115516/

--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These appear to be simple, stylized leaves executed in raw-edge machine applique. Have you considered asking the Flickr user who posted the photo, by means of a comment? -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How big are

In comparison to humans appearing in the pictures, they generally seem a bit taller (1.8-2.1 meters?). However, the most frequently recurring human character (lilla my) is presumed to be short, perhaps also in comparison with other humans. --Soman (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and I think they are an entire species, there's at least four in the family, but I think the books feature distant relatives on visits etc. now and then. --Soman (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see My as a human. I think she belongs to a species (or is it a family?) called mys, and likewise Toft is a toft, Whomper is a whomper, and so on. In some places - Tales From Moominvalley does this a bit - Tove Jansson uses the words like species names, as in "a small whomper", and so on. Then again, Snufkin is apparently the child of

The Mymble* and The Joxter, so I don't know what species or even family name that rather loose clan go by. There are endless Hemulens. Many of these creatures look almost exactly like humans; others (hemulens and snorks) are hard to tell apart from moomins; others look distinctly like small rodents (creeps, for instance). Some of the creatures clearly stand for personality types - fillyjonks (I'm sure it sometimes appears in the plural) are fussy, paranoid ladies, hemulens are loud, boring sportsmen with no self-awareness. (If they are species, some of the fillyjonks must be male and some of the hemulens female, which certainly isn't how they come across. Perhaps they bud. Who knows.) The Moomins seem more like a family, since I don't recall any other creatures called moomins appearing in the books; they have ancestors, one of whom (if Too-Ticky is reliable) is The Dweller Under The Sink, and is small, silent, and hairy, and simply called "a troll". Other creatures (the silk-monkey) are also small, foolish and live in the wild, like animals, although they still talk a bit. Moomins are sometimes referred to in the books as "small animals". They often appear somewhat small when seen next to plants and wildlife, [1] but perhaps plants grow large in Moominland. I think it is all deliberately ambiguous and moomins have no definite size due to the lack of any objects to compare them to which are definitely from our universe. (I've always been curious where the factories are which make their stoves and handbags and mouth-organs and so forth. Do these objects grow in shops, like the Village Stores which appears in Comet in Moominland? Or is there a dark side to Moominland, a grimy city somewhere, full of miserable working-class animals?) *note: there are two Mymbles, completely morphologically different. 213.122.24.57 (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Wonderful reply, thanks. In other words we don't really know. -- SGBailey (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, there never evolved a fan base in the way of

Tolkien, who would codify an entirely alternate universe regarding the Moomins. Btw, Snorkfröken has a brother which doesn't have an article in English wikipedia, but in some others (like Swedish). According to Swedish wikipedia (unreferenced though) snorks as distinct but closely related to moomins, the sole substantive difference is that snorks change skin colour when upset. --Soman (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

It's preying on my mind now that some hemulens are obsessive collectors rather than sportsmen, and also that at one point there is a hemulen aunt, so there are female ones alright. This is all completely outside the scope of your question, sorry ... except it makes me more inclined to think that moomin might be a species. 213.122.18.192 (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and in The Exploits of Moominpappa there is a Home for Moomin Foundlings full of abandoned Moominchildren, so yes, definitely a species ... unless that was changed in the revised version (Memoirs), which I haven't got. 81.131.53.162 (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it 'hemulen' in the English translations? That's a bit weird. In Swedish the species would be 'hemul', and 'the Hemul' is Hemulen. --Soman (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My naive grasp of Swedish makes me think hemulen should be a plural, or you could turn it around and have en hemul, a hemul, but what do I know, very little. Anyway, yes, it's hemulen in English, and it sounds nice that way to me. 81.131.53.162 (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Swedish it would be 'a hemul'='en hemul', 'the hemul'='hemulen', 'hemuls'='hemuler', 'the hemuls'='hemulerna'. --Soman (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly aren't 5cm tall. 82.43.88.151 (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 4 Moomins staying with me are 11cm tall. Pappa, Mamma, Moomintroll and Snork Maiden. Kittybrewster ☎ 02:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did Nazi Germany use the metric system? --138.110.206.100 (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Germany legally switched to the Metric system in 1872. By the time of Nazism, most of Europe had also. -kotra (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Yes. German units of measurement unfortunately does not say when they stopped being used, but this map

indicates that Germany adapted the metric system some time in the mid to late 1800's. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So Hitler didn't abandon the metric system when he came to power? --138.110.206.100 (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Why would he? He hated a lot of things but the metric system wasn't one of them. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So now I have another reason for why the metric system is bad. --138.110.206.100 (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the fact it was invented by the French is reason enough. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You also have some great reasons for why breathing air is bad and eating food is bad. How silly. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because Hitler didn't hate it? Please don't waste our time. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

138.110, I enjoyed your joke, but usually we use the <small> and </small> tags around jokes to make it clear we're not really continuing the thread. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case you weren't joking, please read Reductio ad Hitlerum before making that argument anywhere else. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A corollary to "Godwin's law", which is in the "see also" part of that article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the Metric System had been invented by Jews, he might have considered moving away from it. Hitler gave us the Volkswagen and also, indirectly, the Interstate Highway System. Even an insane hog finds a nugget once in awhile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler loved dogs! Dogs are therefore evil. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He allegedly also loved children. And he loved vegetables. And he loved the German language, as he wanted everyone who spoke it to be united in one country. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler wore khakis. +

A friend told me about a supposed incidence in 1930s Germany where a all trains and busses in revenue strapped Germany were stopped and passengers without tickets were shot. Can anyone verify this? I haven't been able to find any information regarding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.136.22.5 (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's because it is just not true, sorry. Germany under Hitler was plenty bad, but it was not that bad. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they were that bad. The Germans organised

untermenschen", not ethnic Germans, shooting your own citizens becouse they are travelling without a ticket dosn't make any sense from a moral, economical or any other point of view. 89.72.128.27 (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]