Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 March 9

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.

March 9

Nootka Crisis

So I've read through the Nootka Crisis article and I understand it, but it leads me to a broader question. How relevant was the Pacific Northwest at the time, internationally? Was the Nootka Crisis really well known at the time be the general population of England, Spain, or even the US, who also apparently has stakes in the area (insofar as the general population has any knowledge of international events)? Mingmingla (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The US didn't exist at the buildup to the crisis, and had the Revolutionary War to worry about during much of that period, then the formation of a new government. So, what was happening clear on the opposite side of the continent wouldn't have been much of a concern, except perhaps for it's potential to draw British forces away. StuRat (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the Pacific Northwest was very relevant at the time, in terms of international politics in Europe or the brand new United States. There is a story (can't find a ref quickly offhand) that when the British Prime Minister, William Pitt, learned of the crisis at Nootka, he had no idea where this "Nootka" was. Being from the Pacific Northwest and interested in its early history, I've read a lot on this topic, and it seems to me that most people in Europe (and the US, such as it was at the time) had little to no knowledge of the Pacific Northwest, with a few exceptions. The region was of strategic interest to the Spanish and Russian Empires. The Spanish king and the Russian czar had many other things to worry about, and the details of expanding imperial control over the PNW was largely left to the Viceroy of New Spain and the Russian fur trading companies (later the Russian companies would be put under direct imperial control, but were not at the time of the Nootka Crisis). British and American (US) interest was mostly restricted to a small group of merchants interested in tapping the fur trade opportunities, word of which had spread only a few years earlier. Before the Nootka Crisis the Pacific Northwest was little known or cared about by most people. Except that the PNW was still believed to potentially have a Northwest Passage—an ocean link between the north Pacific and the Atlantic (perhaps by way of Hudson Bay). Even after the crisis a number of serious naval expeditions were sent to the region to search for such a passage. Spain and Britain were particularly interested in determining whether such a passage existed. If it did, it would be of tremendous strategic importance and both Britain and Spain were very eager to find it first, even as the possibility of its existence grew smaller and smaller.

News about the Spanish-British clash at Nootka Sound reached Europe in 1790 and sparked a major war mobilization. In England at least the event certainly became well known and used as a rallying cry for a general war with Spain. The whole thing was resolved peacefully and soon overshadowed by the Napoleonic Wars, but for a brief time the Nootka Crisis was common knowledge in England. I'm not sure what the average Spaniard knew or thought about it, although people must have known it had something to do with the impending war with England, I would think. In the US it was probably not widely known or cared about, except among the sea trade oriented companies of New England, New York, Philadelphia, etc. The emerging "North West Trade", and its links to the China Trade, was one of the few economically positive things during the general depression following the Revolutionary War. And the fact that Britain and Spain were caught up in war mongering made it easier for the Americans to take over the trading opportunities on the Pacific Northwest coast. Still, it was probably little known or cared about by Americans outside the sea trading companies. It was, however, of interest to the US government, especially people like Thomas Jefferson. The American takeover of the Northwest coast trade after the Nootka Crisis, along with things like Robert Gray's "discovery" of the Columbia River, laid the foundation for American claims to the Pacific Northwest and work to further those claims, such as the Lewis and Clark Expedition.

The Nootka Crisis and its resolution also became an important milestone in the international laws regarding imperial claims, and thus was known to people interested in such things. In short, it put an end to the notion that an imperial power could claim land simply de jure or "by prior discovery" (as Spain's claims to the Pacific Northwest were largely based on); rather, de jure claims had to be backed up with de facto settlements, land purchases, actual occupation, etc. Having lost the stand-off over the Nootka Crisis, Spain was forced to abandon its claims of the entire coast north to Alaska, ultimately accepting a boundary not too far north of its northernmost de facto occupation at San Francisco (actually Spain made a pretty good deal with the US, getting the boundary set at 42 degrees north, quite a bit north of San Francisco—in exchange for losses elsewhere). If I understand right, the Nootka Crisis was fairly well known in England not just as an excuse for war with Spain, but for its role in opening up the vast territories claimed but unoccupied by Spain. The ramifications of this change in what constituted a "legal" imperial claim was quite important for not just Britain and Spain, but all imperial powers (including the US). Thus it was certainly well known to people interested in such things, but not to the general public so much. In England the Nootka Crisis was big news for a couple years, when it nearly led to war with Spain. But political changes in Europe quickly overshadowed it. Before the crisis was even fully resolved Britain and Spain had become allies

Finally, the events at Nootka were important to the subjects of British North America (ie, Canada), to the point where Nootka Sound was incorporated into Canada's unofficial anthem, The Maple Leaf Forever. Pfly (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

In my A Level history course in the 1970s, which covered British and European history from 1750 to 1950, the Nootka Crisis wasn't mentioned at all (in fact I had never heard of it until a couple of minutes ago). We covered many seemingly inconsequential colonial disputes, such as the War of Jenkin's Ear, the Dispoilation of the Begums of Oudh and the Don Pacifico Affair, but not Nootka. If it was well known then, it seems to be almost entirely forgotten now. Alansplodge (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Embalming heads of state for display

So apparently Venezuela's gonna put Hugo Chavez's body on display for eternity, just like Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Ferdinand Marcos and the Kims of North Korea. However, one thing that I noticed is that, in many of the cases where the bodies of heads of state were embalmed and put on display, this was against their wishes (for example, Lenin wanted to be buried in St. Petersburg, Mao and Ho Chi Minh wanted to be cremated, while Marcos' family wants him to be buried in the National Cemetery). However, some of those who had their bodies embalmed may have wanted it (like maybe Stalin, although he was later buried, and maybe the Kims, although I'm not sure).

So this is actually a set of questions regarding a similar topic:

1. Did Hugo Chavez ever state that he wanted his body to be put on display, or what he wanted people to do with his body after his death?

2. Did Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il request that their bodies be put on display at the Kumsusan Palace of the Sun?

3. Did Stalin request to have his body be put next to Lenin?

4. In the cases of Lenin, Mao and Ho Chi Minh, why did their Communist government decide to put their bodies on display despite being against their wishes?

5. Aside from the former leader of Bulgaria (whose mausoleum was later demolished), who are other notable examples of heads of state/government whose bodies were put on display in a mausoleum?

6. Why is this practice especially common among dictatorships? Does it have anything to do with cults of personality?

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

6) Yes, with the cult of personality they are revered as if they were gods. So, just like we would probably do something special with Jesus's remains, if we ever managed to find them, so do they. This also gets to item 4, where the government does it to remind people that they are the successors to a "god". Since those governments frequently don't have legitimacy by having won votes, they have to find it in other ways. StuRat (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hence the interest in alleged relics connected with Jesus, and especially with the Turin Shroud. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

6. No. Nothing to do with socialism. (It's a shame you conflated that with cult of personality.) HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes I'm perfectly aware that not all "socialist" countries are what the west normally calls "socialist" (for example, Scandinavian countries tend to have socialist governments and yet have good standards of living). I'm even aware of the fact that North Korea is actually "Juche" and not exactly communist. What I meant to say is that the practice is especially common among "communist" states (which are actually not yet communist, only socialist). I did not mean that socialism = cult of personality (Mussolini's Italy was anti-socialist, but he had a cult of personality) In response, I've edited my original question. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Cool. It's not easy finding universally accepted, one or two word labels for different ideologies, is it? HiLo48 (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

While Mussolini indeed had a cult of personality, the people eventually got wise to him, and he and his pals were shot and then hung by their heels in a public place. Unfortunately, too many Commie countries don't display such wisdom. We can probably expect Castro to be put in a glass case also, once he croaks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

To answer question 4, i suspect it is for propaganda reasons. People like Lenin were regarded as national heroes, and by being able to do a sort of 'pilgrimage' to visit the grave of a national hero is good for morale purposes. ★★RetroLord★★ 05:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

And for question 2, I doubt they had much say in the matter. The administration that takes over will decide what is best for propaganda purposes in places such as North Korea, and since the final wishes of these leaders aren't usually released, I doubt we will ever know for sure. ★★RetroLord★★ 05:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Juan Perón kept his embalmed wife Eva at the dinner table. See Eva Perón#Final resting place. Just to add to the list. Don't cry for me Argentina, indeed. --Jayron32 05:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Catholic churches in Bavaria and their bells

What's the point of having the bells toll 24 hours a day, every quarter of an hour? Such huge noise pollution disturbs the sleep of... well, almost the entire population without sound-proof windows and walls. Are the people there OK with that? --Immerhin (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

See de:Glockengeläut for more info. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I grew up with that, London suburbs, and the sound of trains. You get used to it all and miss it when it's gone. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The original point was that before mass-production, clocks and watches were for rich people, everybody else relied on public clocks. Now it's a tradition that most people (presumably) want to continue. If you really don't like the sound of bells, you could always buy a house out of earshot. Alansplodge (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not that loud, and usually just one chime stroke per quarter hour. As Judith said, many people like it. When I lived in Bavaria some 15 years ago, there was much resentment among the population towards city people who moved to villages and then sued the churches to stop the chimes. — Sebastian 18:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

@Alansplodge: It's not a matter of personal preference towards the beauty of the sound of the bells. It's that humans need sleep to survive and the bells significantly reduce the quality of the process. --Immerhin (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think it is a matter of preference, because if enough people petitioned the town council about the issue, there are probably statutory powers available to silence the bells. The fact that this hasn't happened suggests to me that most people, as Judith and Sebastian say, have grown accustomed to, or actually rather like the bells. One person's "huge noise pollution" is another person's heritage and birthright. Alansplodge (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I rather doubt —and that is not too strong a word— that someone may end up liking not being able to sleep properly. And how can that constitute someone's "heritage and birthright" is simply beyond me. But I guess people can be stupid in many ways. --Immerhin (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Your assumption is that the bells interfere with everybody's sleep. There is ample anecdotal evidence, and I'm sure reliable evidence can be found, that generally people get used to the noises which frequently occur in their environment, so that the noises cease to affect their sleep. Indeed there is also anecdotal evidence that people's sleep can come to depend on such noises, and suffers if the noises are silenced. --ColinFine (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

See Effects of noise from non-traffic-related ambient sources on sleep: Review of the literature of 1990-2010 "Furthermore, the national inventory study of 1998 from the Netherlands was the only study displaying small detrimental effects on sleep emitted from bell and recycling (ie bottle bank) noise." Alansplodge (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

If you manage to develop such a huge resistance to random ringing —very hard to believe— that you are able to sleep through the constant chiming and calls to prayer or whatever rituals are being summoned, then you won't be able to be woken up by an alarm clock or a fire alarm any more, for example. --Immerhin (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that's rubbish. What happens is that you filter out the noises that you have come to expect to occur, and wake up when you hear something unexpected. I used to live next to the East Coast Main Line and became very adept at sleeping through the noise of both local and intercity trains, but the noise of track maintenance trains would keep me awake. And I never (unfortunately) slept through an alarm. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all who answered. From the answers of two people here it is pretty clear that the reason why they do this is that most people are too stupid to realize they're not sleeping properly and when they forget what a good night sleep was they think they "got used to it". --Immerhin (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeees, the stupidity of the common people, that must be it. Eeeexcellent. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Do those bells help people remember their passwords so they don't need four accounts? If so I'm all for it. Nil Einne (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Forgotten passwords can be quickly reset. That is what most people who forget their passwords do. Some choose a different solution, one that requires them to relinquish their very identity. Some do this multiple times, and become the Sybils of Wikipedia. Some of these people are trolls. Others are just extraordinarily forgetful, but still manage to find it within themselves to comment on others who are "too stupid to realize they're not sleeping properly". The world is full of amazing things. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I used to own a clock that chimed every quarter hour. I am a very light sleeper, everything wakes me up, but I grew to be able to sleep through it. Anybody who visited me overnight complained about the clock, but I had so gotten used to it, it never bothered me. And it didn't interfered with my waking up to the alarm clock. RNealK (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

An issue not confined to Bavaria - see Couple demand church bells are silenced at night about a couple who bought a house next to an English village church. Their "plea has not gone down well with many of her neighbours in the East Sussex village. They say the chimes are a treasured part of village life." Alansplodge (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Harper's foreign policy

Why has he turned Canada's foreign policy so anti-Islam and warmongering? He has just said that "Islamicism" and "Islamic terrorism" is the biggest threat facing Canada today. Is it because he's Conservative or why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.178.173.79 (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking at short-term military threats, he seems to have a point. There have been numerous terrorist attacks attempted in Canada, or from Canada to the US, by Islamic militants. In contrast, what would be their next biggest military threat ? That North Korea tries to nuke California and misses, hitting them ? Now, if you consider non-military and long-term threats, you might come up with bigger potential problems, like China dominating the Pacific. And potential threats to the rest of the world, like global warming and peak oil, may actually benefit Canada. StuRat (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that does seem to be a pretty good take on it. Canada has so few enemies that a threat doesn't have to be very big to be the biggest one. One could conceivably bring up Quebec separatism, but that seems to have been absorbed almost entirely into the political process — I haven't heard of any violence related to it in quite a long time. --Trovatore (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

NO. "global warming...may actually benefit Canada" is simply wrong, according to the IPCC reports, Climate_change_in_Canada, and the Arctic_Climate_Impact_Assessment. These documents cover the loss of biodiversity, negative impacts on the economy and energy use/production, and positive feedbacks to global warming. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Do those sources only look at the negatives ? I see no mention of the opening of the North-West Passage to ships year round, for example. This could be a huge boost to Northern Canada's economy, as all these ships will need support facilities. Then there's the potential for new farmland and grazing land to open up (although some of Northern Canada has poor soil). There could also be an economic benefit from Americans buying or renting summer homes there to escape the heat back home. And oil access in Northern Canada may be made easier by warmer weather there. In addition, as has happened here in Michigan, wineries may now be feasible where they weren't before. There are many other ways Canada may benefit.

As for the negatives, they will be relatively mild for Canada. They are out of range of most hurricanes, for example, so damage is minimal. As for rising sea levels, most of their major cities are inland (Toronto, Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa), so not affected, with a few exceptions, like Vancouver. An increase in tornadoes in the central plains might occur, but that area is sparsely populated. StuRat (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at Canada-Iran_relations, as you can see from the article Iran isn't exactly friendly to Canada nor her citizen. Plus Canada is one of U.S' closest ally and there are lot of bad history between U.S and Iran. Royor (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Our deep cover mole is doing his best to shift our involvement in a certain event south of the border. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Iran? And what can Iran possibly do to Canada, besides screaming "I don't like you!" really loudly? Islam is certainly a major threat to the Middle East, but it's simply delusional to think that Islamic terrorists pose much of a threat to Canada, where it's killed precisely 0 people. See rally 'round the flag effect. The biggest Islamic threat to Canada are the barbaric values that some Muslims bring to Canada, but Canadian Muslims are much more enlightened in this regard than those of most European countries: [1]. Since McGuinty prohibited the use of religious tribunals to settle family disputes in 2005 after someone advocated a Sharia-based tribunal, there's been very little trouble from Muslims. The occasional story of a father killing her daughter for being too Western are the extreme exception, not the rule. --140.180.243.114 (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Baha'is in Iran

close trolling by indef blocked user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, I am from Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia and I was thinking of traveling to Iran. I've been learning the Persian language for a while and I'm interested in its history but I am a Baha'i and some have told me that I better stay away from Iran. How true is that? FMicronesian (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC) See "Bahá'í Faith in Iran" and "voy:Iran#People" and http://www.experttravelanswers.com. —Wavelength (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC) You should check what your NSA (National Spiritual Assembly) has to say on the matter. In Australia, the NSA has discouraged travel to Iran, for reasons that I do not know exactly. I have been told there is no danger to the traveller, but it could cause other problems (I don't know exactly what). In Australia, they certainly don't forbid it. I am not trying to tell you what to do, but merely suggesting that it would be wise to find out what your institutions have to say. Yes, it is hard learning Persian, I agree - even though I have dozens of people to practice on, well, they all speak English. You might get exactly the same in Iran, though, for all I know - everyone practising their English on you. IBE (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Iran is a dangerous place for Baha'is at the moment. I'm telling you from inside Iran. --Omidinist (talk) 05:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

China in the 18th century

In the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith wrote:

"China has been long one of the richest, that is, one of the most fertile, best cultivated, most industrious, and most populous countries in the world. It seems, however, to have been long stationary. Marco Polo, who visited it more than five hundred years ago, describes its cultivation, industry, and populousness, almost in the same terms in which they are described by travellers in the present times."

"The poverty of the lower ranks of people in China far surpasses that of the most beggarly nations of Europe. In the neighbourhood of Canton many hundred, it is commonly said, many thousand families have no habitation on the land, but live constantly in little fishing boats upon the rivers and the canals. The subsistence which they find there is so scanty that they are eager to fish up the nastiest garbage thrown overboard from any European ship. Any carrion, the carcase of a dead dog or cat, for example, though half putrid and stinking, is as welcome to them as the most wholesome food to the people of other countries."

Is Smith's description of 18th century China accurate? Did Europe really progress, in 500 years, from being incomparably poorer than China to incomparably richer? Or is Smith just saying that inequality was far worse in China, not that China's upper ranks were also not doing well? --140.180.243.114 (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Europe did have more economic growth in the 500 years previous to his book than China did. However, I also detect a bit of cultural bias in his comments. For example, living on a house boat is not inherently worse than living in a fixed structure. And eating cats and dogs is not inherently less healthy than the meats Europeans tend to eat. In his own time, the Irish were increasingly forced to subsist on mainly potatoes, which was quite unhealthy, especially when the Irish Potato Famine later hit. StuRat (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

140.180.243.114 -- There's an interesting layman's introduction to late 18th-century China in the book The World in 1800 by Olivier Bernier (ISBN 0-471-30371-2). I don't know that China was so much poorer than England, but one thing that was true was that productivity-per-worker was more or less stagnant in China, while England was just starting on a period of rapidly rising productivity per worker... AnonMoos (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind regarding China in the 1700s was that it was profoundly affected by the trans-Pacific silver trade driven by central and South American silver; the trade had profound economic, cultural, and social effects on China, which is not to place a normative value on whether China was better or worse than it was during Marco Polo's life; or that China hadn't economically progressed as much as England or other parts of Europe, but it is profoundly inaccurate on Smith's part to assert that China hadn't drastically changed in those 500 years. The changes my have been different than those in Europe, but they were no less profound. The book 1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created as a very well written section on how profoundly the shifting tides of the world economy affected China. I highly recommend it as a refutation of Smith's thesis. --Jayron32 20:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

These questions are discussed in detail by the economic historians Kenneth Pomeranz (The Great Divergence) and Robert Allen. Pomeranz and Allen disagree about why the industrial revolution occurred in England rather than in China, but they agree that standards of living in China were comparable to those in Britain, possibly somewhat higher. Both take the Lower Yangtze as the main point of comparison, but the Pearl River Delta was also highly developed in the 18th century. Smith didn't have access to the same data; his argument is that gross inequality impedes economic development, which is still often argued today. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The 18th century is often regarded as a fairly crucial turning point in China's economic history. Unprecedented population growth driven by trade surpluses and general prosperity was one of the factors which paved the way towards poverty once global economic climates changed around the turn of the 18th-19th centuries. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Have Muslims, especially jihadists, ever been sceptical of Korans given by non-Muslims?

Like the ones given to them in Guantanamo and prisons. Do they ever get to keep Korans they brought in, after them being checked for contraband probably? Do they check the ones they're given out of distrust/paranoia? How far have they gone with this? Of course they know that anyone who's memorized it will know if a Koran has been altered. And it's only the length of the New Testament, they probably know the jihadist verses very well and the text rhymes, right? They would know that potential "Koran massagers" would be very likely to be discovered causing Islamic outrage to gain only a tiny iota of moderation. Though after seeing Tea Partiers I wonder if captured Islamists all have enough logic? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You'll get paranoid people everywhere and I'm sure there's enough paranoid jihadists who know the Koran by heart who would spot any problems. What's the point of this question? Why would anyone want to tamper with their copies of the Koran never mind that it would be spotted pretty quickly? What made you think this was a worthwhile question to ask? Dmcq (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

That last sentence could apply to the preponderance of questions asked by the OP at the reference desk. --Jayron32 00:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

And to the preponderance of questions asked by anyone, ever, about anything. I can only link to curiosity and hope some people understand. --140.180.243.114 (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

No, some people ask questions because they seek answers. Others ask questions merely as a pretext to stir up trouble. --Jayron32 05:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Sagittarian Milky Way -- Some Muslims think that any version of the Qur'an other than its traditional Arabic-language form is at best an informal crib, and definitely not something which is reliable or authoritative on its own. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. If anything, the late 19th /early 20th Qur'an translations into English (Marmaduke Pickthall etc.) are Islamic-favorable, smoothing over what some see as problematic verses... AnonMoos (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I like to talk irreverent sometimes. I just want to know how much they check them before they really get down to using it. Maybe they could tell if they notice them page turning idiosyncratically and then reading normally and acting more reverant, or if they usually read/chant it aloud (I don't know) but don't at first, something like that. I don't believe Koran or care really if their copies are irregular - well I don't want bloodshed, but there won't be any as I don't believe anyone tried it. But jihadists were brainwashed to believe that the West is the devil incarnate. If I were in their shoes, they almost killed me and then they gave me a Koran I'd be suspicious as to what the heck they were doing. I might feel a bit like Soviet POWs getting Nazi-provided Communist Manifestos or Nazi POWs getting copies of Mein Kampf. Maybe they gave me a sneakily softened one only 99.93% as violent as the original, and hoped I didn't notice? Or a blatently abridged one with all the jihad verses removed? Some psychological tactic I don't understand?

AnonMoos, many can read Arabic, right? Translation wouldn't be a problem for them. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

If they already know Arabic, they don't have to translate. And it can be very difficult to truly capture the essence of a written work when translating it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Translation issues wouldn't be a problem cause they don't need to do it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Just because one is able to read a language doesn't mean one gets the same message from what's written as another person. Otherwise there wouldn't be the spectacle of one lot of Muslims chopping off peoples heads and another lot saying how peaceable and non-violent they are. Dmcq (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)