Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 July 22

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 22

Happy Dan the Whistling Dog

In which issue of Cosmopolitan did Ward Greene's story "Happy Dan, the Whistling Dog" (used as source material for Disney's Lady and the Tramp) appear? Has it ever been reprinted elsewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.78.58.9 (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I did a quick google. It seems Ward Greene wrote the short story for a 1943 Cosmopolitan issue that Disney read. Another site says he wrote a book on it in 1939. Another title is Happy Dan the Cynical Dog. I only googled a few pages though. One said that Disney bought the rights because the story was so close.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Why did men suddenly stop wearing hats?

In quite recent history (my grandfather did) all men wore hats and stopped doing so in what seems a very short timespan of like 10 years or even less. That must have felt like a revolution similar to suddenly everyone having a mobile phone, but I cannot recall something like "the great hat-burning event where men from all standings publicly denounced this troublesome and demeaning tradition". They just stopped wearing hats. Who or what triggered this? Joepnl (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

As a guess, I'd say it was mostly the largely care-free attitude of the baby boomer generation toward fashion and style. Hats don't perform a real function the way, say, shoes do, so a lot of people probably just didn't see the need for them. I'd say that your estimate of it happening within the span of a decade or so is quite correct, most likely somewhere between the period 1960-70 is when the tide really started to turn against hats. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It might correspond to the time period when bluejeans became de rigueur. It could be that hats don't go well with jeans. Bus stop (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Huh, "carefree" had little to do with it. There was never a more uptight and self-conscious generation than the babyboomers who stopped wearing hats because they saw doing so as a sign of maturity--i.e., the actions of their fathers' generation. This was restricted mostly to whites in the US. Blacks, being much less uptight than whites, never stopped wearing hats, and still do. See pimpin'. Hence it has become cool again for whites. See Gavin Degraw. μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no mention of hats in Pimpin', a questionable redirect to Pimp. Discussions of the current popularity of hats, e.g. [1] or [2], don't say much about a racial difference. I'm partial to User:Canoe1967's explanation below involving the compact cars of the 1960s which made hats a real hassle. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that there are a lot of different types of hats. Bus stop (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Women stopped wearing, er tablecloth thingies, on their head about 20/30 years before that. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The temporal (and indeed geographical) context is unclear, but if you mean headscarves and consider the UK's non-immigrant population to be within scope, I must partially dissent. When my parents and I (rooted in SE English culture) moved to Yorkshire around 1964, it was the general custom for (native English) women to wear headscarves after marriage. My mother unintentionally attracted opprobrium by not wearing a headscarf in public, as a result of which men would politely pass the time of day or engage her in innocent conversation, which it transpired passed for flirting by 1960's Tyke standards. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it happened because cars got to low for them around 1960. Checker cabs still has cars that fit a full top hat, I think.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

"Bull. Reference needed. Edison (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you have cause and effect mixed up there. After huge hats went out of fashion, cars didn't need as much headroom. StuRat (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I would love to see data on the prevalence of hats and sports cars year by year. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 07:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Except for protection from the weather, hats always seemed rather useless, to me. A tie is another useless men's fashion accessory, but, unlike hats, you don't need to find a place to hang them every place you go and worry about them blowing away and giving you "hat hair". Of course, even ties have gone out of fashion, too, except in rather formal offices or on special occasions. StuRat (talk) 05:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That must make me unfashionable, then, because I'm wearing a tie now, as I do every day in the office as well as on many less-than-formal social occasions. I find it to be a useful temperature regulation device, as well as serving to express my personality (see, for a fictionalised take on this, Jack Vance's classic story The Moon Moth.) Oh, and kindly vacate my greensward :-) . {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Many people who were around while the change was happening were confused as to why it was happening, so I'm not sure that we'll solve it retroactively at a distance of almost 50 years. However, getting rid of men's hats eliminated the whole somewhat complicated issue of "hat etiquette" (when men were supposed to remove their hats, or tip their hats to passing ladies, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

---

John Kennedy has been blamed. —Tamfang (talk) 06:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Though snopes says he is no more responsible for the hat's decline than Clark Gable is for "killing the men's undershirt industry". (See "Hat Trick"). ---Sluzzelin talk 07:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

At the end of Du côté de chez Swann Proust suddenly fast-forwards from the Belle Époque to post WW1. None of the men are wearing hats, and the women have small, neat hats without baskets of flowers on top. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Here in the US, I'm fairly certain hats were pretty much ubiquitous up until approximately the mid-1950s. Hell, during the Great Depression even our homeless bums found the time to put on a hat! :) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

A number of them are wearing caps... AnonMoos (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Caps of all sorts are included in our list of Hat styles. I've always known caps to be considered just a more informal type of hat. Perhaps that categorization isn't as universal as I thought. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad we're talking about hats specifically, because there certainly has been no dying off of men's head wear. Virtually all men in the 18-30 age group wear caps that seem almost never to come off their heads. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I've heard that the fact that Kennedy did not wear a hat, basically put paid to the industry.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Jack of Oz has a good point: Hats seem to have been replaced by other headgear, such as the fitted cap/baseball cap or the tuque/beanie. However, unlike the hat, these are not seen to be formal wear, and, as such, they can't be used for 'all occassions' like a hat can.

Another reason could be that one fashion is replaced by another. If your hair is combed very flat, you can easily put a hat on top of it, but if you have a big, fluffy hairdo that's kept in place with pomade (popular in the 50s and 60s according to the article), I assume that a hat could easily ruin it (in addition to the pomade making a mess out of the inside of your hat).

My personal conspiracy theory is that global warming is to blame: as global temperatures increase, it is simply too hot to wear a hat. :-P V85 (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

This BBC article; What makes a man wear a hat? puts forward the theory that it was long hair in the 1960s that killed it off. I suspect that it was already declining before that. My father, who came of age in the 1930s, never wore a hat unless he had to. The new casual open-collared look of the 1930s didn't need a hat in the way that their fathers needed them. An example; in this group of Welsh teenagers in 1933, only their teacher had the urge to wear a hat. Youthful rebellion perhaps. Alansplodge (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Global warming aside, people in temperate countries often don't need to dress up as warmly as before, because it's warmer indoors (thanks to modern insulation, heating &c) and we don't spend a lot of time outdoors (bearing in mind that a modern car, or public transport, almost certainly has adequate heating). One less reason to wear a hat. bobrayner (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The wearing of hats in sunny weather is promoted by Slip-Slop-Slap.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Alansplodge -- the hatless ones in that photo are teenage boys going for a hike in the countryside. Different social expectations would have applied to adult men while working in many kinds of employments, or in various other less casual contexts. AnonMoos (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but even ten years before that, they would all have been wearing hats or (more likely) caps. As suggested above, a 1910s or 20s soccer crowd would have been fully hatted, boys and all[3]. Alansplodge (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

JFK had an elaborate hairdo, unlike Ike. A hat squashed it down and required re-styling. I credit Kennedy with the demise of men wearing hats in the US. I like how in 1950's US cop shows, the officers commonly said to the suspect "Get your hat. We're going downtown." Everyone assumed a man would not leave his home or office without a hat on his head. Is it likely that men with hats had "cooler heads?" Edison (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It's fashion. Why are we looking for logic? HiLo48 (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This issue is dealt with in depth by the book Hatless Jack: The President, the Fedora, and the History of American Style by Neil Steinberg. It's a fairly complicated issue that was the result of years of subtle economic and social pressures. eldamorie (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say the overall trend is a move toward practicality in clothes. Women can now wear pants when conditions warrant it (and those pants might be jeans, for both men or women), athletic shoes are now allowed in places where they would have been forbidden previously, and, as I commented earlier, ties are no longer required in most situations. We also don't "dress for dinner", etc. So, hats now tend to be worn only when the weather requires a hat, and then tend to be practical hats, not a men's stovepipe hat or a ladies hat with a bird's nest on top. StuRat (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

But getting men (and people generally) to wear hats has been the subject of many campaigns aimed at reducing the incidence of skin cancers, melanomas etc, particularly in countries with lots of sunshine, like Australia, and particularly where the population is dominated by people descended from the fair-skinned nations, again like down here. The practical thing would be for adults to wear hats without ever being cajoled or persuaded into doing so; but despite all the "slip, slop, slap" etc campaigns of the past 40-odd years, most adults still do not wear hats as a matter of course when outside. We put on a hat if we're going to the cricket, for example, but if we're just outside in the garden for an hour or so, or at a barbecue - which is way more than enough time to get a serious sunburn - we tend not to. Fashion still rules. Practicality still comes a distant second. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

They had to make laws to force kids to wear bike helmets. I remember when those laws came in, and my kids, like everyone else's, complained that they made them feel and look like "dorks". But the law prevailed, and now it's completely normal for kids to wear bike helmets. This law was not about revenue raising, it was about safety. Just like the compulsory wearing of seat belts. If skin protection and community health and reducing the massive burden of cancer on the health system is their thing, maybe they should enforce the wearing of hats, on pain of some monetary penalty. That would certainly make people think twice about leaving the house uncovered. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I meant immediate practicality, like being comfortable, not preventing cancer. You could also argue that Victorian swimsuits (which looked more like wet suits) are more practical than bikinis. Of course, the answer, in both cases, is to wear cool clothes (the bikini and no hat), and use sunscreen if you will be out for a while, with a possible exception for bald men. (Most hats don't completely protect the face, in any case, so you could burn the tip of your nose.) StuRat (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Comfort is a relative thing. The most comfortable clothing is no clothing at all (assuming the weather's right), but few of us would feel all that comfortable about turning up at work naked, even if it were legal. People often talk about feeling "undressed" if they don't have a handkerchief, a coat or whatever. Exactly the same thing used to apply to hats. No reason why the wheel couldn't turn full circle: when it comes to fashion, it usually does, sooner or later. I'm just waiting for the day when men can wear those puffy shorts they wore back in Sir Francis Drake's day. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

They already came and went: [4]. StuRat (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the main reason we don't wear hats so much is that we just spend less time out of doors. Not only do more of us work indoors, we walk less and take cars everywhere, so there's less need for a hat to keep the rain or the sun off. It was raining when I left for work this morning, so I took a coat and (fleece) hat with me, but only because I planned to go for a walk at lunchtime - I didn't even put them on, I just threw them into the back seat of the car. As it happened, the rain had stopped by lunchtime, so I went for my walk bare-headed. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

For rain, I use a rain jacket with a hood. Does a hood count as a hat ? StuRat (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it is vanity or perhaps it is comfort, but my husband always wears a hat when leaving the house. When he had hair, it was usually a baseball-style cap but now that he is without he had a veritable wardrobe of trilbys, porkpies, fedoras, and scally caps. While this is unusual compared to his peers, no one ever remarks on it negatively. But I have noticed that hat are darn expensive these days, maybe because so few people are buying them. (FWIW, I wear hats too!) Helene O'Troy - Et In Arcadia Ego Sum (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hitler's policies in regards to Hungary, Romania, France, and Bulgaria

I have a question--why did Hitler occupy Hungary in 1944 when their leader attempted to make peace with the Allies but did not occupy Romania, which also had a "Jewish problem" in Hitler's view and whose leader also attempted to make peace with the Allies in the late stages of the war? Romania had a lot of oil, and thus seemed to be more strategically more important for Nazi Germany to occupy than Hungary. Also, considering Hitler's mentality and views, why did Hitler not pursue the Final Solution much more aggressively in France and Bulgaria, where the overwhelming majority of the Jews survived World War II? Futurist110 (talk) 06:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It's very difficult to second-guess dictators. But at the risk of oversimplifying, Hungary was nearer to Germany and smaller, while Romania was about twice the size and distance. See Hungary during World War II and Romania during World War II. France was not going particularly well for Hitler by 1944, and antisemitism wasn't as popular there. (German military administration in occupied France during World War II). The Bulgarian resistance movement during World War II was fierce and completely outnumbered the Nazis in Bulgaria, where antisemitism was even less popular than in France. Dobri Bozhilov was a subservient Nazi puppet in all respects, except that he flatly refused to deport Jews to extermination camps. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Even Hitler knew he had to pick his battles, and trying to massacre every Jew in Europe at the same time would turn too many against him. Depending on the time frame, for example, he might have been trying to keep the US out of the war. (In the end, of course, he still managed to turn too many against him.) As to why he chose which country for genocide and not others, that has many causes, like local politics, presence of Western media, etc. Of course, Hitler planned to win the war, and with total control of Europe, could then commit genocide at his will. So, in his mind, he was only deciding on the timing of killing off each population of Jews, not making a decision to spare some. StuRat (talk) 07:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

For France we have a bit of info in The Holocaust in France and Timeline of deportations of French Jews to death camps. But Hitler wasn't really interested in getting rid of all the Jews everywhere, just the ones in Germany (and the areas of Eastern Europe that he thought should be German). If somehow he had been successful, I'm sure he would have paid closer attention to France. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's set aside the unsupported statement that "Hitler wasn't really interested in getting rid of all the Jews everywhere, just...[etc.]" and look at how many Jews were eradicated by mass slaughter in the abovementioned countries (based on a table prepared by Prof. Yehuda Bauer, in raw numbers and a percentage of each country's Jewish population on the eve of WWII):

• Hungary: 569,000 (69%)
• Romania: 287,000 (47%)
• France: 350,000 (22%)
• Thrace, Macedonia, and Eastern Serbia - occupied by Bulgaria: 11,300 in 1943, transported to the Treblinka extermination camp by Bulgaria's agreement with Theodor Dannecker. The 50,000 Bulgarian Jews were subsequently not deported.

That's about all I have time to provide at present. Otherwise, I'd say that the failure of the Nazi regime to eliminate more Jews was primarily due to limits on its expenses and resource allocation in having to fighting a war at the same time. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that Hungary and Romania had more Jews than that at the start of WWII. Lucy Dawidowicz's figures state that there were 600,000 Jews in Romania and 650,000 Jews in Hungary at the start of WWII. I think your figures for Romania are for the Jews killed during WWII, not for total pre-war Jewish population. I want to point out that the overwhelming majority of Holocaust deaths in Romania occurred in Northern Transylvania (which Hungary controlled between 1940 and 1945) and in Moldova, which was captured by the U.S.S.R. in 1940 and then recaptured by the Romanians and Germans in 1941. In "rump Romania" (essentially Romania within its 1914 borders), the overwhelming majority of the Jews survived World War II, though they did suffer large amounts of discrimination during the war. Also, in regards to France and Bulgaria, most (in the case of France) or all (in the case of Bulgaria) of the Jews that were killed were not French/Bulgarian citizens. Futurist110 (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

When it came to oil, Hitler had other plans: He wanted Azerbaijan, but the Germans never got that far, due to the Battle of Stalindgrad. V85 (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but if the Nazis can't capture Azerbaijan, wouldn't it have been more of an incentive for them to hold on to Romania at all costs? Futurist110 (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but do people act rationally at all times? V85 (talk) 03:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

As for the statement that "Hitler wasn't interested in killing all Jews everywhere", it's true that Hitler wasn't particularly interested in killing Jews in the U.K., the U.S., Canada, and Australia (not because he had sympathy for those Jews, but because they were out of his reach). However, Hitler was (or appeared to be) extremely eager in killing as much Jews as he could in areas under his control. Hitler still exterminated most Jews in areas which he did not want to permanently annex to Germany in the unlikely event of a Nazi WWII victory, such as Hungary, Greece, Yugoslavia, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Northern Italy. France does seem to be an exception to this rule, and it's pretty surprising considering that based on my knowledge, there were a lot of Nazi troops in France and thus they could have killed a lot more Jews even without a lot of cooperation from the French locals and Vichy French officials. Futurist110 (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit discomforting to hear people say "Germany didn't kill that many Jews in France" or "as much." Even killing one person is enough. But I highly recommend that everyone take a look at the article on the Vel' d'Hiv Roundup.

The Vel' d'Hiv Roundup (French: Rafle du Vélodrome d'Hiver, commonly called the Rafle du Vel' d'Hiv: "Vel' d'Hiv Police Roundup / Raid"), was a Nazi decreed raid and mass arrest in Paris by the French police on 16 and 17 July 1942, code named Opération Vent printanier ("Operation Spring Breeze"). The name for the event is derived from the nickname of the Vélodrome d'Hiver ("Winter Velodrome"), a bicycle velodrome and stadium where many of the victims were temporarily confined. The roundup was one of several aimed at reducing the Jewish population in occupied France. According to records of the Préfecture de Police, 13,152 victims were arrested[1] and held at the Vélodrome d'Hiver and the Drancy internment camp nearby, then shipped by railway transports to Auschwitz for extermination. French President Jacques Chirac apologized in 1995 for the complicit role that French policemen and civil servants served in the raid.

Also, I believe that there were maps and globes found in Hitler's rooms with a big "X" on countries such as USA, basically the entire world he wanted to conquer, Pacific, Atlantic, etc. He just didn't get to USA in time, but if he would've, he certainly would've attempted to exterminate the Jewish population there.

Also, keep in mind, that when Hitler got into France and set up the Vichy government, he was dealing with a lot of conflicts at that time, he was fighting a war on multiple fronts and also faced resistance in France from French resistance members, as opposed to Poland which he conquered immediately and was able to exterminate most of the Jewish population. Interestingly, the Jews who had the best luck were those in North Africa. Even though Italy controlled them and was an Axis power under Mussolini, Mussolini did not hate Jews as much as Hitler and did not have a systematic process of extermination. --Activism1234 21:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not see my statement as discomforting, considering that I was simply stating facts--it's a fact that the Jewish death toll in France as a % of the total pre-war Jewish population during WWII was fortunately much lower than that of other Nazi-controlled areas. Obviously it is a huge crime and atrocity to have even one Jew killed by Hitler, and for the record I had a lot of relatives who were killed in the Holocaust (including two of my great-grandparents), so the Holocaust took a large toll on my family as well. I looked at the killing/deportation numbers in France and it's surprising how the killings/deportations were usually (with a few exceptions) conducted at a constant rate of about 1,000 or so Jews every week, two, or three weeks, in contrast to other Nazi-controlled areas where the Nazis simply killed or deported the overwhelming majority of Jews right on the spot when they got there (Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic States, Northern Italy, etc.). It's interesting how even in Northern Italy Hitler deported all the Jews that he could once he occupied the area in 1943/1944, even though by that point the German war effort was facing a lot of strain on numerous fronts. I'll take a look at the Vel d'Hiv Roundup page in a minute. Even if Hitler wanted to conquer the U.S., I do not see how he would have been able to do this, considering that he couldn't even conquer the United Kingdom, which had a much smaller population and was much closer to Nazi Germany. Also, Hitler considered the British and Americans to be Aryan/Anglo-Saxon countries, and actually wanted to make peace with Britain (at least during the early stages of WWII). And yes, I know that the Jewish death toll was much lower in areas that were controlled by Nazi allies (Italy, Hungary (pre-1944), Bulgaria, and Romania) than by Nazi Germany itself, considering that most Nazi allied countries weren't as crazy about exterminating all the Jews that they can like Hitler was. Futurist110 (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't referring specifically to you. I was just saying it's discomforting to hear statistics being compared in a manner of "Less people were brutally murdered here than there, only tens of thousands were murdered here and there it was hundreds of thousands." That was what I was referring to. And while Hitler couldn't conquer Britain, that wasn't exactly his goal now, was it? He didn't simply bomb London for the fun of it. He tried to conquer and thought he could, but couldn't. He'd try again another time if he wasn't stopped. Also, the Nazis attempted to build a nuclear bomb during WWII - imagine how this would've impacted the results if they succeeded. Hitler's "peace" with Britain in the beginning doesn't mean much; he made peace and a military alliance with the Soviet Union which he hated bitterly and then invaded them. To him, a treaty is just a piece of paper (which is true). Speaking about the Vel d'Hiv Roundup, it was in the news recently. Check out what French President Hollande had to say about it.

Speaking from the site of the former stadium near the Eiffel Tower, Hollande told a gathering, which included Jewish leaders, that the crime "was committed in France by France. Not one German soldier, not one was mobilized during this entire operation," Hollande said.

pasta history mystery

While reading wikipedia about pasta, I noticed the history included the origins as likely to be a 5th centruy Arab invention of making the food for long distance travel. Makes sense, but later the article mentions ancient Romans cooking pasta by boiling or frying. Ancient Romans had an empire well before Christ and into the 300's AD, all before the 5th century, so how did the Arabs "invent" pasta? I figure it still probably came from there, because it's a logical reason to invent it, but as usual something was written about human history and left there slightly tangled and, well, not really answered. Sorry to be blunt but I don't like to "sort of" know the history with ends that loose... I realize it's impossible to get it perfect, but I don't think the article should be attempted when it seems we are far from knowing the origin. At least write it as a mystery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Movierealist (talk • contribs) 21:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you're misreading the narrative of the pasta article. The Romans are cooking fresh pasta. The Arabs adapted it to make dry pasta, for travel. It doesn't claim anyone "invented" it, really, it just talks about the "first record of," which isn't the same thing at all. I don't know if any of that history is actually true, but you're mixing everything up terribly, which is why you are confused by it. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

China had millet noodles around 2000 BCE per Noodle#History. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

And note that something as simple as pasta is likely to have been independently invented in multiple places and times. StuRat (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Colours not part of national flag colours as soccer uniform

So far, Orange is the colour of the Netherlands national football teams' uniform because Orange is the colour of House of Orange. Blue is the colour of Italy's House of Azzuri. Is there any national team whose uniform colours different from their national flag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.33.18 (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The England football team kit features a lot of blue (or has done in the recent past),[5] while the Flag of England is only red and white. All Australian national sports teams are on a green / gold colour scheme[6] although neither colour appears on the Flag of Australia. New Zealand is heavily into black,[7] again absent from the Flag of New Zealand, although I think their main soccer strip is now white. Alansplodge (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Australia uses green and gold because they're the National colours of Australia. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the flag that's wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It's got a little version of ours in one corner... Alansplodge (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That's what makes it wrong. The UK is a foreign power to Australia, our High Court said so. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Germany play in White shirts (home) and Green (away), Japan play in Blue. Nanonic (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Toronto, Ontario... what a surprise. Anyway, there's no such thing as the "House of Azurri", the Royal House of Italy was the House of Savoy, maybe it helps you with your huge book on races, ethnicities, religions, countries, flags and such. 109.99.71.97 (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Even non-existent (non-)entities have their correct spelling: it's neither Azzuri (OP) nor Azurri (you), but Azzurri. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Scan National colours for other candidates. Northern Ireland use green in soccer and Commonwealth Games (see flag of Northern Ireland for complicated discussion). India play in blue in soccer and cricket; Fiji have black and white in rugby and soccer. jnestorius^(talk) 17:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)