Judeo-Christian religion gave us our obsession with time (monks not wanting to be late for those morning prayers) and our 7 days per week with 6 days of labor and 1 day of rest—}we only got an extra one when enough people complained. (There is, of course, the "disagreement" on whether the Sabbath or Sunday are the "correct" day of rest, fortunately we've got both covered.) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about a more worldwide perspective? Our Workweek and weekend mentions that Muslim-majority countries typically have Friday off (although there is a considerable amount of variation on what the official work-week is, and whether it's five or six days). On a slightly different note, I know that France has recently moved to a four day school week (with Wednesdays off), where it used to be typical to have school on Saturday mornings [1]. It's interesting that our Education in France article doesn't mention this; maybe I'll find a good source and work it in somehow. Such a week would be unthinkable to a student in the United States (though I was surprised to find that some districts are moving to 4 day weeks to save money [2], so maybe it's not as surprising as I'd thought). Buddy431 (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that until the mid 20th century the work week in Britain was commonly 5½ days, including Saturday morning. --Anonymous, 04:35 UTC, Sunday, September 26, 2010.

Sunday is a regular weekday in Israel (8th paragraph, beginning with "The blast went off at 8:30"). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also of interest: Soviet calendar. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I was at school in the UK in the late 1950s and early 1960s (actually at

Hastings Grammar School) we worked on Saturday mornings and had Wednesday afternoons off. Such an arrangement would probably be unthinkable today as everyone expects to have a full two days off at the weekend. --rossb (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I dissolved my corporation and submitted the final tax return, but I need it again. Can I open up the same corporation? Does anyone know the form name or number? Or could I re-apply with the same name? Thanks to all for the help :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.33.234 (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The California Secretary of State's office can probably answer this for you. I don't see the question in their FAQ but they are the ones who process the forms so they should know. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I heard somewhere, and cannot remember where, that a totally new US flag is hoisted on the White House every single day. Is this true, and if so, how expensive is that, and what happens to the " old " flags ? Are they given to schools or someone honoured, and if so, are they recorded with the date they were on the White House ? I don't think we could afford that for the Beehive. Thanks

When I made Eagle Scout, I was given a US flag that had flown over either the White House or the Capitol. So, yes, they're given to people who are honoured for one thing or another. Dismas|^(talk) 06:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I found some ordering instructions here. It looks like my troop had to pay for the flag and not the American taxpayer. Dismas|^(talk) 06:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's more than once a day, for both the White House and the Capital building, otherwise there's no way they could keep up with demand. I'm sure they hand out far more than 730 flags every year. --Ludwigs2 07:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I was told at the time by my (pedantic and buzz killer) father was that they have a number of flag poles and put flags up on each one. Then go back to the first, take it down, and put another up. They continue on to the second and so on. "Cool! A flag they flew at the Capitol!", "Well, you know they only fly them for a few minutes.", "Thanks, Dad." Dismas|^(talk) 07:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, it's the social obligation of fathers to make certain that their sons have a proper degree of self-centered cynicism. Can't send a bunch of idealistic hippie-types out into the world, you know; very embarrassing. --Ludwigs2 08:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His father spoke the truth, though. You can see it happen in this documentary, from 54:25 on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the documentary, its between about one second and a few seconds at most if you are lucky. The flags are not properly attached to the mast either, and are flown in an inconspicuous place with other flags undergoing the same process. If it wasnt the US government doing it, I'd say it was a rip-off. 92.15.9.254 (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When my elementary school received from our Congressman a US flag which had "flown" over the US Capitol, I did research (in the pre-internet age) which informed me that such flags "flew" for a few seconds only, just enough time for the wind to unfold them. after which they were lowered and folded by the hard working military detachment charged with such "flying." They could probably "fly" hundreds of flags a day over the Capitol or the White House. Edison (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent a fair amount of time in downtown DC, and I must say I have never seen anyone hard at work out there at such a task. What would the tourists think of groups of military personnel running flags up and down all day outside the Capitol or White House?! I don't know how they work it, but I have a hard time seeing it produce "hundreds of flags a day"! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm counting only four flags flying above this picture (the fourth is not visible, behind dome;). Note that there is no one in the vicinity of the flag-poles. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks ! That was more than I expected ! Fancy that ! For sure, and one would rather have a flag that flew a whole day, or if the President or some other national hero gave it them in a ceremony, but I guess even a few seconds and they can say, " It did still fly at the Capitol, or George and Martha's ( Mt. Vernon ), or something. Are these flags like embroidered as well ? I have a US flag on my wall at home - under my New Zealand flag, and for six dollars, it was a pretty good buy, but it is not fancy. It appears the flags they give widows of service men killed - or at least from what I have seen on fictional TV type portrayals thereof - are like as if each star is sewn on and such. ( For sure she would much rather have her husband ), but that is an interesting custom also. Would they do so at the Washington Monument, which I understand has fifty flags round it ? I can imagine in a country of 300 million the demand could never cease, but then, if too many people got them, where would the rarity be ? Doubtless flag makers are the ones not complaing at all - a very worthy profession. Thanks again.

Here is the page of the Capitol Flag Program. It's clear that the flags that people can get are not the giant big flag from the middle of the Capitol dome but smaller flags that presumably fly from smaller poles above the building. The site says there are 100,000 requests a year, which equals 274 a day. So presumably the Architect of the Capitol has someone raising and lowering flags on a regular basis. With 2,600 employees, I guess the AoC has the manpower to do that. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait, here's this:

US Capitol#Flags (which claims to explain it, but I do not see where that alleged patch of flagpoles is up there). Note that there is no huge flag flying from the dome, there is only Freedom. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I can't speak about the flags that are given out (sold) now but when I got my Eagle US flag (about 20 years ago), it was a nice stitched one and not simply a piece of cloth with the flag pattern printed on it. It's a good sturdy flag. Dismas|^(talk) 04:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is in a similar vein of furious government souvenir manufacture. --Sean 15:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Mwalcoff: There is no flag that flies from the middle of the Capitol dome. That's where the Statue of Freedom is. All the flags that fly from the Capitol are of the same size. —D. Monack ^talk 08:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course -- I must have been thinking of the big flag over the White House. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found this map File:Reichskommissariats-rosenberg.jpg showing the final Reichskommissariat plan by Alfred Rosenberg. It shows parts of the borders of Reichskommissariat Ostland, Ukraine, Moskowien, Kaukasus and Turkestan. Is there a map with the entire subdivision of Russian Lebensraum? Maybe with Reichskommissariat Ural, West-Sibirien, West-Nordland and Ost-Nordland. I'd like to find a map as complete as possible. --151.51.48.46 (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Medieval europe, in what kind of areas would a bishop have power and influence? maybe it varies from various types of religions, but let's say bishops in the catholic church, which was very widespread in medieval europe.

Would a bishop be elected bishop of a city, meaning all cities had their own bishop, or would they be bishops of each their county, or some sort of region, or a province? or would every church have their own bishop?

Although not sure (and that's why i'm asking) i would think a bishop were bishop of entire regions, meaning he was seen as bishop in all churches and cities etc within that region, but i don't know. I'm trying to find answers.

Answers and thoughts on the matter will be much appreciated :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krikkert7 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Each Bishop would have a Diocese, in the same way each Church was the centre of a Parish. He would be responsible for communion, ordainment and other duties in that area. They were arbitrarily defined to give each Bishop a manageable workload, so in a highly populated place they might be small while in a sparsely populated place they would be quite large.--92.251.191.21 (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The

Prince-Bishops of Durham had more power than most. Mikenorton (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Ordainment = ordination. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our

Catholic Church hierarchy. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Things were different in the middle ages. For one thing, land was not owned in the way it is today. Instead, people held large estate on behalf of the King. They where allowed to received the income from this land provided they paid the taxes and supported the king. Bishops often held great estates of land called manors and so where very wealthy individuals. As

Lord of the Manor they also were the local law, thus welded much power that was quite separate from their ecclesiastical power. The OP would do well I think to read up on the social life of medieval England and the feudal system if he wants to understand this aspect. --Aspro (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

There were also decidedly ecclesiastical princes like the archbishops of Trier and Cologne, which in fact ruled the cities themselves. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for lots of helpful answers ! ;D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krikkert7 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, in many parts of the

Archbishopric of Mainz. Marco polo (talk) 01:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The situation in the HRE let to the Investiture Controversy, since bishops had both theological and secular domains, there was a conflict between the Pope, who claimed that he had the right to appoint bishops exclusively, and the Emperor, who claimed that since those bishops would be directly ruling chunks of his land as his vassals, that HE had the right to appoint them. --Jayron32 04:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even today, the

Co-Prince of Andorra, along with the President of France.John Z (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

How would I cite a paper by Galileo in an academic paper? Our article's citation just gives Galileo's name, comma, and the title of the book in English. Is this sufficient? Should I find a page number? 85.181.146.8 (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our Citation article links to several resources on how to formally cite a paper. You may be able to find publishing information, etc, for your citation online, see eg. Galileo at Google Books WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should, of course, only cite a paper you have read. Since Galileo originals are very rare, it's probably in some collection. In that case, I'd cite it as "G. Galileo, "Sidereus Nuncius", 1610, in Jorkelman, Schrivenden (eds.), "Collected writings of Galileo", p.151-167, Someplace, 19XY", or similar. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous. I haven't read it, but I'm stealing an idea from it. (I know, because the place I read the idea cited it.) Should I steal Galileo's idea without attribution? Should I cite the secondary source? I could just steal the idea and get away with it you know, I don't have to give it to Galileo, I'm being nice to him. So, how do I do it? I am NOT digging out his ms85.181.146.8 (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

? "the place I read the idea cited it" -- so why not just cite that? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also: "Our article's citation just gives Galileo's name, comma, and the title of the book in English." Could you point to the instance of that? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't cite it because it's Wikipedia. We have a whole article on the book I would like to cite. The bottom of that article does not cite the book. Another of our articles does, as: "Galileo Galilei, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" 85.181.146.8 (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Yes, you don't want to cite Wikipedia academically! Last time I heard... Here's this for now in case it helps any: Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems at Google books. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in academic circumstances, most people would frown far more on someone citing a work they obviously didn't read, then someone citing what they actually did read, even if it is wikipedia. At the very least, you should make clear you didn't actually read the work, but are relying on a citation of said work in another source, see [3] & [4] for example. If you don't what you're doing could easily be considered plagiarism. Note the idea is that wikipedia as an encylopaedia/tertiary source is not something normally suited for academic works (although it does depend on the circumstance), but you may use it as a starting point to find sources that you can use an actually read and use. The idea is not that you use wikipedia and then pretend to have read and be using the cited sources when you didn't and aren't. Nil Einne (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I added the link above to the article: you may well want to buy that book or check it out from your library. The external links section of the article may also be helpful. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "responsible and respectable" thing to do is to take a look at the original book in question to confirm that the Wikipedia article is a faithful accounting of it. (Don't just trust Wikipedia on this. It's often not a good source and can have a very idiosyncratic reading of old books. If it is wrong — as it often is, in my experience — the fact that you got your information from Wikipedia but didn't attribute it as such is grounds for academic misconduct charges.) If it is, cite the original book. If it isn't, well, at least you know. I write this as a tired reader of many bad student papers that crib from Wikipedia without properly attributing it. A Wikipedia-style point of view is pretty easy to spot if you know the subject matter in question. If you think your grader doesn't know or can't easily look up Wikipedia, you are almost certainly wrong... --Mr.98 (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's too pretentious; that's what "original research" actually is. For Wikipedia, which is just a readers' guide, after all, this will do just fine: "Galileo, Title (date), noted in Name, "Article" Journal Vol. (year:page)" You also make no false claims this way.--Wetman (talk) 10:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it needed to cite Galileo at all? Surely his works are out of copyright by now. Googlemeister (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion seems to be getting confused. In response to Wetman The OP referred to an academic setting so 'original research' is often welcome and what should be the normal way of citing here on wikipedia isn't likely their concern. In response to Googlemeister, it is needed to cite whoever you got your ideas (or whatever) from, particularly in an academic setting but even on wikipedia. Copyright has nothing to do with it. If you're wondering why it's necessary to cite Galileo (or whatever) when you've taken the idea from another source who is citing him, well again copyright has nothing to do with it. It will depend precisely on the case, but usually if what you're taking is an idea (or whatever) which another source has summarised from a primary source, then what you're actually interested in is the idea from the primary source even if you're citing it from another source. If you're interested in citing what another source has said, you don't have to cite the references they use since you're actually citing that source not their references. Either way copyright never comes in to it. Nil Einne (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright doesn't matter for source material (except that it might prevent you from reading it in the first place). Research papers don't take text from their sources, they take ideas, which aren't copyright-protected. The information provided by citations is vitally important for other reasons; they tell the reader whether some assertion has been peer-reviewed, they make it possible to navigate the literature, and they allow the writer to gloss over details that the reader will know to look in the cited source for. Paul (Stansifer) 14:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totally, totally unrelated to the citation issue, but: many of the standard translations of Galileo (into, say, English, like the Stillman Drake ones) are not out of copyright at all. Galileo in the original is out of copyright. Galileo in English is generally not. Translations of public domain material are still copyrighted, if the translation was more recently done. But again, this has nothing to do with citation practices. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely recall reading/hearing the occasional reference growing up to other countries who copied from the

Let's see... there's the French Constitution of 1791, the Constitution of Uruguay, the Swiss Constitution of 1848, the Argentine Constitution of 1853, the Cuban Constitutions of 1901 and 1940 (source: [5]), and just about every other constitution in Latin America for that matter, the Constitution of Japan, the Constitution of India, and of course the constitution of the United Federation of Planets. LANTZY^TALK 22:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also

Montesquieu, and others. The document became a benchmark for republicanism and codified constitutions written thereafter.

and discusses the historical influence of some other national constitutions, too. (The Constitution of Japan was largely written at MacArthur's behest after WWII, probably the instance of the most direct US involvement in another country's constitution, but even still it is far from being a just a "copy" of the the US Constitution). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Please provide a link to the text of the "British Constitution," as ratified. Or does such a thing exist at all? Figment of the imagination, much? Edison (talk) 02:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the phrase "British constitutional system" I quoted above may refer to what began with the Magna Carta, the article for which says: "It influenced the early settlers in New England and inspired later constitutional documents, including the United States Constitution." WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do, you know, have an article on the

British constitution. It is not written down, but most Britons, I believe, consider it to exist. Looie496 (talk) 04:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Many national constitutions are similar in form to the U.S. Constitution, with separate articles for the executive, legislative and judicial powers and an equivalent to the Bill of Rights. Considerably fewer countries have adopted the same system laid out in the U.S. Constitution for their own government. Many of those are in Latin America, where U.S. influence is strong. See presidential system. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is also important to remember that there is a distinction between a little-c "constitution" and a big-c "Constitution". Just as The White House is different from a white house, so are the difference between the constitution of a government, which is the set of foundational principles under which the state operates, and The Constitution, which is the document that defines those foundational principles. All countries, by definition, have a constitution, insofar as they have a government which operates by a set of defined principles. Not all countries have, or have always had, a Constitution, that is a single document which defines those principles. Even in the U.S., where there is near hagiographic worship of The Constitution there are foundational principles, which are not written down in the Constitution, but are still considered constitutional principles, such as judicial review and the right to privacy. --Jayron32 04:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Scott Brodies's "Our Constitution" (Brodie, Scott (1999). Our Constitution. Franklin Watts Australia.

Mitch Ames (talk) 06:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some elements of the current German constitution from 1949 was also heavily inspired by the American ecquivalent. The Federal Constitutional Court for example. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you can provide sources stating that it was heavily inspired by the American equivalent. Both articles (

Federal Constitutional Court of Germany) don't mention this issue at all. Flamarande (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I can. Here: "With the end of World War II, American influence was dominant in the preparation of the new basic charters of West Germany and Japan [...] The study of American constitutionalism after World War II led to a near-universal interest in the role of the U.S. Supreme Court in determining the constitutionality of legislation. This function was likewise performed by the Supreme Court of India and the Supreme Court of Australia as well as by other common-law countries. Constitutional review could not be exercised by the Latin American nations because their judicial structures were based on the civil law system. However, these nations wanted to include the process of judicial review. The solution was the establishment of constitutional courts. The first of these were in Germany and Italy, and they have since proliferated throughout the world." --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodesia's 1965

I am not able to look for the citation now, but I believe

talk) 10:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes and no, check for yourself here. The beginning was inspired by the US document but the other parts were not. Flamarande (talk) 11:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian Senate was partly modelled after the US Senate, so, to the extent that the US Senate's way of being is specified in the US Constitution, Australia's Constitution is partly modelled after the US one. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ...