January 4

The ones at the invention of printing would've only been about a century old at the invention of the modern verse system. Not valuable or old enough a copy to discourage rich clergy from defacing it with chapter and verse numbers, right? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source says that is the case only in poetry. In the prose elements of the Hebrew Bible, which is a huge proportion, there is no such division in ancient texts. --

old fashioned! 14:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Incidentally, I'd dispute even that suggestion. The

old fashioned! 16:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I have never heard of such a thing, or seen an example like that - which isn't proof that it never happened. I think it is unlikely - why would someone go through the long and tedious task of adding the numbers to a manuscript when it was so easy to buy a printed version with the numbers already included (especially as they would need the printed version to identify where the numbers should go)? Wymspen (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might be someone's idea of passing time. Like knitting. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the importance of 4th January in United States? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Anas Nawaz (talk • contribs) 03:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 4 is not very important in the United States, though some historical events happened there on that day. July 4 is Independence Day for the United States. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, dates are commonly written M/D/Y. Elsewhere, it is far more common to write them as D/M/Y. So, 4/1/XXXX would be April 1 in the United States, but read as January 4 elsewhere. Therefore, it is possible that the actual date of concern is April 1 or April Fools' Day. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See January 4: Some specific examples are: Samuel Colt sells his first revolver pistol to the United States government. United States President Richard Nixon refuses to hand over materials subpoenaed by the Senate Watergate Committee. A massive ice storm hits eastern Canada and the northeastern United States, continuing through January 10 and causing widespread destruction. The 110th United States Congress convenes, electing Nancy Pelosi as the first female Speaker of the House in U.S. history. Carter Glass born, American publisher and politician, 47th United States Secretary of the Treasury (d. 1946) Eddie891 (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See [[1]]DOR (HK) (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikipedia team,

I am researching information to discover historical details regarding the origins of "The Pledge of Allegiance." I looked at your article at Pledge of Allegiance#Balch and Bellamy pledges, and I found a section about a Balch version. I have found no other general article about this topic, other than this Wikipedia article, that even mentions Balch at all in discussing the pledge's history.

That being the case, the above mentioned article contains links to footnoted publications that expand a bit on Balch's version. When writing about this, would I be able to cite without copyright violation your segment on Balch, with links to those footnoted publications?

Thanks in advance for any information.

Best regards, Jexplore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jexplore (talk • contribs) 04:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Balch family wiki, with a page on the guy.[2] I haven't seen the Wikipedia page, so I can't say if one copied from the other. His version of a pledge is different enough that I'm not sure why it's in our Pledge article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to using Wikipedia material, see Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. Alansplodge (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And some further references that are viewable online:

• Buffalo Bill in Bologna: The Americanization of the World, 1869-1922 by Robert W. Rydell and Rob Kroes (pp. 56-58).
• American Civil Religion: What Americans Hold Sacred by Peter Gardella (p. 87).
• Pledging Allegiance: The Politics of Patriotism in American's Schools edited by Joel Westheimer (an e-book, so unable to identify the page or even the chapter).
• To the Flag: The Unlikely History of the Pledge of Allegiance by Richard J. Ellis (pp. 44-49) - "snippet view" only.

Hope this helps. Alansplodge (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why had the UK any interest in protecting Poland back then during wwii days? Couldn't it just have Germany get away with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123abcnewnoob (talk • contribs) 14:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our

old fashioned! 14:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Balance of power (international relations) also likely plays into some of the background... --Jayron32 16:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also

Anglo-Polish military alliance which basically is the reason why the UK declared war on Germany after the attack on Poland. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Is there an echo in here? --Jayron32 18:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an echo in here? --Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an echo in here? --69.159.60.210 (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an echo in here? --0.0.0.0 (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an echo in here? --0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an echo in here? --0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0, tertiary adjunct of unimatrix 0001 (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that while the British declared war on Germany, as the treaty demanded, it was a

Remilitarization of the Rhineland, annexing Czechoslovakia, and the Anschluss with Austria. Had they only invaded Poland (along with the Soviet Union invading it), then it might not have been the "last straw" it was in our history. StuRat (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

It wasn't very "phoney" if you were involved in the Battle of the River Plate or the Battle of the Heligoland Bight. There wasn't much else the British could do apart from an all-out assault on the Siegfried Line, which was scheduled for 1941. After being nearly bankrupted in the First World War followed by years of recession and public antipathy to rearmament, there was a lot of catching up to do. Alansplodge (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The German raiding which led to the Battle of the River Plate sounds foolish. Why pick a fight with the British Navy prematurely? Had anyone forgotten that "Britannia rules the waves"? What was Germany's motive in Commerce raiding at that point? And then to be lured into scuttling your own ship? I can't help but say "LOL", though I know that isn't very refdesk-like. Eliyohub (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The options for waging war between the UK and Germany were severely limited in 1939 and the British merchant navy was an easy target. Both sides wanted to impede the economy of the other; the Royal Navy immediately put a naval blockade in place which prevented Axis and neutral shipping from reaching Germany, while the Kreigsmarine were able to run amok in the shipping lanes before escorted convoys could be established. While scuttling your own ship would be extremely shameful for a British commander, it seems that it was an honourable option for German officers. Survivors from the Bismark still insist that she was sunk by her own crew and not by the British. In any event, Langsdorff was led to believe that there was no escape from being destroyed in combat, and by scuttling the Graf Spee, undoubtedly saved the lives of most of his crew, although it's difficult to imagine a British officer reaching the same decision. Alansplodge (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The memories of the Battle of Jutland (the last time the two navies had directly met in combat) and its outcome must have still bruised both sides' naval commanders' minds? Eliyohub (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that. The Germans thought they had done rather well at Jutland (which they call Skagerrak) although the original aim of the operation had not been achieved. The horrendous British losses had nearly all been connected with design flaws in their battlecruisers (or rather they were being used in a role for which they weren't designed). There were no battlecruisers at the River Plate action. The Graf Spee might have been thought to have been able to deal with three much less powerful cruisers, however Admiral Harwood's skillful and daring use of his ships resulted in what was effectively a draw but gave the British the upper hand in the longer run. Alansplodge (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What would happen in any general election scenario if nobody bothered to vote. Also what would happen if only a tiny minority of people turned out to vote, say less than 5% of the electorate. In each of these scenarios would an election just be re-run until turnout was large enough to give an outcome. If turnout remained low, would the legislature have to enact compulsory voting legislation? --Andrew 16:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the voting laws in the jurisdiction where the election takes place. Unless there is a specific law requiring a certain turnout, it would be illegal to ignore or redo the election because of low turnout. The chance that literally nobody bothers to vote is practically zero, except maybe in a village with just a few people. - Lindert (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, primary elections routinely have very low turnout, sometimes around 20%. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Posting by banned user removed. –Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't actually know who the candidates vote for, as the elections are anonymous votes and you only have to disclose your decision if you choose to. For all we know, they voted for the opposite candidate.

Repørts 17:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, voter turnout in the United States presidential election has never been lower than 48.9%, so I don't know where you got 20% from, @

Repørts 17:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Can you tell me where I mentioned presidential elections in my statement? I said primary elections. And, in some cases, yes, it is for a primary presidential elections. New York State for example has very low turnout for primaries. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I thought you meant presidential election. Should have read better. Yes primaries have a very low turnout for whatever reason.

Repørts 17:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note that when turnout get very low, there's again a reason to vote. That is, the reason most people don't vote is that "my vote can't possibly make a difference", and that is no longer true when turnout is extremely low. StuRat (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, near me there was a recent election that ended up being decided by a coin toss at the County Courthouse. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• For a concrete example of a national election with extremely low turnout, see the
  England and Wales police and crime commissioner elections, 2012 with a national turnout of 15%. Of course, there was no law that said "Turnout had to be at least X", so the results stood, but it did spark a lot of debate about whether the newly-created role of Police and crime commissioner was legitimate. Smurrayinchester 09:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The premise here seems to be the odd one that there is a duty to vote, which there certainly is not in the US. I Voted for Perot twice and Nader once, even though I did not support them 100% ideologically. I find the premise that one "should/most" vote absurd and unsupported in the Americann system, and it is the OP's duty to demonstrate otherwise. μηδείς (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Voting is a patriotic duty, but it's also not required by law. Anyone who doesn't want to vote doesn't have to. Only then they can't have a bumper sticker saying, "Don't blame me, I voted for [candidate]". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did Homer like the Trojan side more than the Achaeans? The Trojans and their allies come off as much nicer people than the Achaeans in the Iliad, at least it seems that way to me.2602:306:CFC8:DDB0:3C0F:E4C8:4FDA:D753 (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Homer may have just recorded an oral epic poem from earlier centuries, before they had writing. If so, he may not have had any impact on them. It's also possible he modified them to his taste, but we may never know. StuRat (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Gods clearly pick sides in the story, that I must say! Strange beliefs, to most modern thinking, I'd say. The Greeks' beliefs on these matters did later change, with the emergence of Hellenism. Many Greeks started to think that perhaps the Gods were not all-powerful, and could be hoodwinked and the like. Don't have a source, that's just what I've read in Berel Wein's book. Eliyohub (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]