Humanities desk
< August 3	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 5 >

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.

August 4

Agricultural maps of England & France

Does anybody know of any good websites with maps of English & French agriculture, showing where certain kinds of livestocks and crops are raised and grown, on a shire or provincial basis? Extra help if these are middle ages conditions--are there any maps of agriculture for pre-Norman England, such as differences between Wessex, Mercia, East Anglia and Northumbria? I'd assume that livestock such as sheep and cattle to be raised in the highlands, grains and fodder to be grown in the lowlands; pigs and chickens, fruits and vegetables in the cities...hunting and foraging in the forests, fishing and saltworks in the waters. Of course, that's general, so I was looking for more specific concentrations of this or that animal or crop being typical of one region over another. Thank you! 70.171.239.21 (talk) 04:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

for the uk try the first three maps from this search http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&um=1&q=land+use+map+uk&sa=N&start=0&ndsp=20 also http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/03/16170508/10

Offline the times atlas of the world has far better maps of uk land use.83.100.250.79 (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Land Utilisation Survey of Britain should answer 1/4 of your question-unfortunately the links don't seem to be working at the moment.83.100.250.79 (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this will be easily answered online - you need some archaeological books specific to the areas you mention - data as specific as you ask can be got by analysing deposits of animal bone/pollen/seeds etc. It's something archaelogists do, but they tend to write books about it, and the results are localised. I'd suggest by starting with an academic book on britain (and/or france) in the middle ages - with a section on agriculture, and following the references from there.

Alternatively do a search of academic archaeologists by their research interest/publications and see if you can find a department that specialises in this.

Additionally the doomsday book may help for the uk - but you will have to create your own map.83.100.250.79 (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Cities

How does American history, and culture, justify the following; Creation of reservations for Native Americans, The Indian Wars, Trail of tears ect? But then they name so many of their cities with Native American names, eg. Cinncinatti, Chicago, Seattle etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it does - it's unintentially ironic.83.100.250.79 (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't justify it. We simply do it. :) P.S. Cincinnati is not Indian. It comes from Latin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: IP address asked the same question on the Misc. page and I gave the same humble answer. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just an idea: the guys who come up with ideas like wars with the Indians and Indian removal, etc; are off in the federal government over in Washington but the name of a city or region gets decided by the people living there. Duomillia (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

((copied from duplicated post))

Please ask questions at one reference desk at a time. You just asked the same question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Also, judging from your edit history I wonder if you are genuinely interested in getting answers or if your intent is to provoke other users into an emotional or disciplinary response.Sjö (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a snappy answer: We don't justify it. We simply do it. :) P.S. Cincinnati is not Indian. It comes from Latin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What, so even the Romans were oppressing Native Americans? That's just not right! ;) Franamax (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not american but for some deeds to land the title says basically 'By right of conquest'. Dmcq (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some European courts during the colonial period did not generally accept as valid deeds to land in the present U.S. (excepting the portion acquired from France or Spain) "by right of conquest." The deed needed to show a purchase or granting of the land by the native inhabitants. It can be argued that land title was a foreign concept to the Native Americans, and they did not understand that they were permanently giving up all rights to the land. It can also be argued that the sellers may not have been empowered by their tribes to conduct such sales, or that they may not even have "had title to the land" since they were hunters moving through it rather than permanent residents of the district. This need to have "bargained and purchased" the land may be why Peter Minuit paid $24 for Manhattan in 1626, according to legend. (Of course if the $24 had been invested at 6% compound interest since then, it would now be worth $4,900,000,000). Edison (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Way wrong. It'd be worth $4.9 billion at only 5.123% compound interest. At 6% it would've passed $5 billion in 1955 and today would be worth over $118 billion. --Anonymous, 10:15 UTC, August 8, 2009.

Oh, now I see what you did. You meant 4.9 billion times as much. --Anon, 10:21 UTC.

In many cases, we didn't name the city. We simply reused the Indian name for the place - badly spelled and mispronounced, certainly but simply continued in use not granted in honor of. See Chicago, Michigan, Mackinaw. Others were named in honor of Natives who were actually held in high regard. Like Chief Seattle. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in some cases, we actually "bought" land from the Indians. They found this rather amusing, since they did not feel like it was theirs to sell, but if some European-ancestried sucker was willing to give them money, they weren't going to turn it down. P.S. This philosophy still lives today, in the Native American instutions called "casinos". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases it literally wasn't theirs to sell. Manhattan for example was famously sold for marchandise worth some small number of dollars, but to Indians that didn't live there. It was basically a scam both ways. See Peter Minuit APL (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Plymouth colony there were strict laws against buying land from the Indians without specific permission from the local government. The specifically wanted to avoid having people take advantage of the Indians lest the Indians get pissed and get organized and start attacking the colony. Unauthorized settlements were one of the major causes of King Philip's War among other conflicts. Of course, by the later Indian wars, we Americans basically cleansed the land and simply took it. Not a pretty part of our past, and yet here we are... --Jayron32 03:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History topics regarding Shanghai, China

What is an interesting, engaging topic for a 6-8 page essay about the history of Shanghai, China? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.44.49.138 (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you narrow it down to an area of interest - architecture, foundation of, parks of, geography, foreignors in etc. How about one on the port of shanghai.83.100.250.79 (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shanghai was one of the primary places for the May Fourth Movement, a group of young writers who used literature to encourage social change, including famous writers such as Lu Xun, Ding Ling and many more. Now, Shanghai is still fomenting change in its business and fashion oriented society that encourages change (whether good or bad) away from the revolutionary government towards a Chinese version of Western capitalism. Steewi (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New Culture Movement is also important in that idea. Duolun Road is a side track that I loved when I visited Shanghai. Steewi (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to hosting the May 4th (1919) Movement, Shanghai was occupied by triads in 1853 and 1927; partly run by foreigners from 1854 to 1945; (unknowingly) hosted the 1st National Party Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (1921); witnessed the Nationalist Party's blood purge (1927); and was the main geographic power base of the Gang of Four during the Cultural Revolution. Aside from the famous Soong family -- Ai-ling (1890), Qingling (1893), TV (1894), and Mei-ling, 1897 -- Shanghai natives include Lu Xun (1881), Chen Yun (1905), Tung Chee-hwa (1937), General Xiong Guangkai (1939), Yang Jiechi (1950), Joan Chen (1961), and Yao Ming (1980). DOR (HK) (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary buildings in Ancient Greece

What might the building have been like which hosted a symposium of about 400 BC? In particular, what kind of window arrangements, if any - empty rectangular openings, some kind of shutters? - and what would the floor be like - a mosaic, wooden boards, stone slabs? 81.131.21.44 (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a private residence it would have been held in the andron, a room away from domestic areas and workrooms and probably off of a central court. Archaeologists identify these rooms by the elevated platforms around the walls for the couches (kline), and off-center door. Most would have been square, with space for seven couches—each wall about 4.5m which would fit two couches plus the butt end of one on the adjacent wall. The door would be in the space otherwise occupied by a couch, giving rise to its offset position.

The walls would have been mudbrick covered in plaster, clay, or limewash and the floor either earth, plaster, pebbles, or paved. Windows (if any) would have been high enough to block the view of passersby and those in neighboring buildings.

In civic buildings or sanctuaries the hestiatorion may have been a group of similar rooms, possibly larger and with more varied dimensions.—eric 01:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I asked this because I'm making a bit of 3D-rendered artwork, which so far contains the legs of a kline, a breaking jug (which I'll change to a kylix) spilling some watered-down wine, a mosaic floor (it looks nice, but I guess I'll change it to pebbles), and some interesting shadows cast from a window. There is a kind of meme that Roman windows have a criss-cross grid of wooden bars, so that's the kind of window I'm using, but is this even correct for the Romans (how would we know?) and, more to the point, is it a plausible window for the andron? 213.122.65.168 (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WWII

Hi.. when I was 16... forty years ago I took a trip from Canada across the county and down through California. Just above San Francisco, it may have been a part of the Bay, I'm not sure, were miles it seemed, of former WWI Naval boats. There must have thousands of them just docked in the water there. Leftover from the war. I was wondering what had happened to them all. It's been a long time mystery to me as I have tried to find out before and didn't know where or how to look for the information. If you have any information on this where can I look for it. Were they scrapped did they take out to the ocean and sink them. How do I find out? My email is <e-mail address removed>. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.138.235 (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your e-mail address, 96.229.138.235, to protect you from spam. Any responses to your query will be made here. Deor (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These were ships of the National Defense Reserve Fleet at Suisun Bay. You can look for the disposition of a particular ship here, i image most were sold for scrap. Haven't yet found a table w/ overall numbers, but will keep looking.—eric 19:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Plantagenet Inheritance

Hm. That header sounds like it would make a good title of a novel. :)

OK, my question: Richard I of England died with no children. His younger brother John took the throne after Richard. But Richard had had another brother, Geoffrey II, Duke of Brittany, who died before Richard did. Geoffrey was older than John. Geoffrey had two children, his posthumous son, Arthur I, Duke of Brittany, and Arthur's older sister, Eleanor, Fair Maid of Brittany. Arthur was Richard's rightful heir, being the son of the next Plantagenet brother in line, but John had Arthur executed and Eleanor locked away for her entire life. My question is, did Richard ever acknowledge Arthur or John as his rightful heir, prior to his death? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously he must have told John83.100.250.79 (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. He may even have told John not to do it. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - being a bit silly (too much BlackAdder as a child).

Proper answer : Those times, as you know where a bit rough, and the rule of force was as much a factor as the rule of law - specifically without a direct heir the inheritance (from any king) would be in doubt. Angevin Empire#John's reign and the collapse (1199 - 1217) makes it clear that other parties saw the lack of a direct descendant as a chance to increase their states.

Even if Richard had told someone it probably wouldn't have made any difference. (With the possible exception of the pope).

According to the article :"Richard I" quote (about John) "Richard forgave him when they met again and, bowing to political necessity, named him as his heir in place of Arthur, whose mother Constance of Brittany was perhaps already open to the overtures of Philip II."

, also at his death he quote "Richard then set his affairs in order, bequeathing all his territory to his brother John and his jewels to his nephew Otto" - both those are from wikipedia's articles, and annoyingly don't directly cite themselves.

However one thing isn't clear - whether or not these are from contemporary accounts, or (if you are of a suspicious type of mind) from accounts written during John's reign. (which would be suspicious for obvious reasons) - however on the surface he clearly name John as heir.83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur I, Duke of Brittany was only one of the unlucky Arthurs in England's history, being an Arthur in line for the throne would seem to guarantee you wouldn't get it. See also Arthur, Prince of Wales. I remember a history professor of mine making the point that the name became somewhat cursed among the English royal families, and they specifically stopped naming their kids Arthur because of it... --Jayron32 03:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, John became unpopular for kings also. Our John from above was not exactly a rip-roaring success as king, John the Blind and John Baliol had unhappy ends to their reigns, so Robert II of Scotland's son John reigned as Robert. Gwinva (talk) 03:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot John the Good. I wonder if there are specific monarchs which the present Queen or her previous Throne holders in the direct line, actively tried to negate or conversely, express distaste towards to disown such ancestors. I assume that the example of not naming any sons John is one case. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There weren't many Matildas around (Matilda, Duchess of Saxony, granddaughter of the infamous Empress Matilda, being the last Matilda), not to mention how there was no Jane after Lady Jane Grey. Surtsicna (talk) 10:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And there is the current Prince Charles, who has indicated that he might choose another regnal name, when his time comes, to avoid association with Charles I and Charles II. Gwinva (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was to avoid numerical issues with the Young Pretender, much as there hasn't been another James. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 05:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt he's gone to the extent of stating why he might prefer George VII, just that he might. The reasons are still in the realm of speculation. There's nothing official about his reported private musings on the issue anyway, and he could still be Charles III. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I remember reading (long ago), when someone suggested that it would be nifty if Charles Philip Arthur George were to reign under his third name, that he was known to be happy with his first. —Tamfang (talk) 06:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George V had a son John, who died young. —Tamfang (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Culture of Privacy in Britain

It's common knowledge that Britain has a love affair with CCTV. Every single day the average Londoner is filmed a multitude of times in the CCTV capital of the world. 20,000 cameras are now being installed in private residences to monitor children in antisocial families. [1] It seems that the will of the people of the Isles is for privacy to become obsolete in favor of security. Culturally is there a reason that Britain is, ironically, motivated to move toward the world of the thought police? Sappysap (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out CCTV and policing: public area surveillance and police practices in Britain, and I am sure Google Print will have some more info on the subject - that's just the first I spotted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would take that news story with a pinch of salt. It is all over the tech media, but I can't find any mention of it in the mainstream media. I can't believe something like this would be announced and not be all over the popular press. --Tango (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to consider the gap between "the will of the people", and "the will of the government". Contrary to the views of Downing St, those two are not synonymous --Saalstin (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet even most anarchists can't shake the lamentable habit of calling the state "we". —Tamfang (talk) 06:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FFS. There is no plan to install 20,000 cameras in the homes of antisocial families. That's a stupid wired story based on an even stupider Daily Express story. See MeFi's take on it. Debates about privacy versus security don't start well when started from false premises. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is dissonance between Britain being where the government's cameras watch everyone more than any other country, and it being the country where restroom toilet doors and stalls form a complete seal from bottom to top, for utter privacy, compared to the U.S. where the doors and stall partitions stop a foot from the floor. Any U.S. Senator with "a wide stance" would be out of luck in London. Edison (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is an insane generalisation, and one without any basis in reality. The majority of toilet stalls in Britain "stop a foot from the floor" as well. Try basing your claims on empirical evidence rather than internet hearsay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.52 (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent time there, so it is observation of toilet designs that are common there and never seen in the U.S., not "internet hearsay." Provide evidence that the totally enclosed toilets are NOT found in London and the no-privacy toilets are common. Edison (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bogs in that blog (see what I did there?) are mostly older or higher class. Go use a loo in a modern cheapskate-built office or public convenience in a station or hospital and the "I can see your ankles" game is back on. --Dweller (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bus station in Indiana even went to the extent of placing a large window in each toilet door. Perhaps they wanted to ward off Senators with wide stances from being indecent. I just recall that totally enclosing doors were much more common in restaurants or other public accomodations in London than in large U.S. cities. Edison (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I contest the OP's opinions. Britons detest CCTV, but the police and businesses (who install it) and occasionally frightened householders find it useful. And even if it were true, that has nothing at all to do with thought-police - I think you've misunderstood the concept of the latter. --Dweller (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But what is interesting is that while people complain about the invasion of privacy, police state etc etc, as soon as they are mugged/beaten/victim of a crime they call the police and are quite delighted when they find it's caught on CCTV and the evil criminals can be caught and punished (or, more likely, moan that the police are useless, are uninterested in solving crimes, and didn't have any CCTV footage). Gwinva (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet this is the country where, just the other day, a woman was forbidden the right to photograph her grandchildren at a public swimming pool due to privacy concerns: [2]. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet what? Is this a question or just a general "let's bash Britain" thread?

I'm very disappointed that people have seen fit to feed this troll, and even more so that it has been used as an excuse for people to make irrelevant proclamations about toilet cubicles and swimming pools. Any more vaguely sneering generalisations you lot'd care to make about the UK? Get a grip. Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

90% of content is created by 10% of editors

I vaguely recall hearing such a rule in relation not only to Wikipedia but the Internet in general, but I cannot recall its name, nor can I google it. I am pretty sure somebody here will :) Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For wikipedia, see Academic studies about Wikipedia, which has stats such as "the top 10% of editors (by edit count) were credited with 86% of persistent word views — the number of times a word introduced by an edit is viewed." I very much doubt that the ratio extends to the whole of the internet, where the vast majority are readers and the minority are authors. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though it is almost certainly true that there a vast ratio of difference between content providers and content readers/users. On the other hand, the ratio is probably much, much better than one would see in any other media (e.g. television, where the ratio is probably closer to a million to one or something like that). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While true, I don't think that was what the statistic was getting at. I think it meant to show that despite it's millions of editors, most of Wikipedia is written by a relatively small number of them (say a couple thousand people). TastyCakes (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that; I was referring to the other discussion about "the whole of the internet," as was asked about by the OP and discussed above. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe 1% rule (Internet culture), aka 1% of lurkers in a virtual community will participate, though The Guardian mentions "an emerging rule of thumb that suggests that if you get a group of 100 people online then one will create content, 10 will 'interact' with it (commenting or offering improvements) and the other 89 will just view it." - Banyan Tree 01:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pareto principle.--droptone (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that what was I looking for, but thanks everyone for other links and comments! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death of one person = death of the world

I've been told that both Judaism and Islam teach that the death of one human being is as the death of the whole world. Would anyone know where in either or both religions' holy texts this particular philosophy is expressed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.138.181 (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While neither Jewish nor Muslim, John Donne (a Christian scholar/poet) wrote the famous and oft-quoted lines

"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

in his Devotions upon Emergent Occasions which mirror that sentiment. Gwinva (talk) 00:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in the Bible, and I don't think it's in the Qur'an. In the form "Whoever saves a single life, it is as though they have saved the whole world" it's apparently attributed to Rabbi Judah in the Mishnaic portion of Talmud Sanhedrin. AnonMoos (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Orwell, though not a Jew or Muslim, wrote in his short story A Hanging, "...in two minutes, with a sudden snap, one of us would be gone — one mind less, one world less." Tempshill (talk) 06:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it is from the Qur'an: "For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind....." [Surah 5 Verse 32]". At least thats what a quick google brought up. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Ma'ida, 32, though "corruption" is fasad, more commonly translated as "mischief". Note that it is specific to "the Children of Israel", apparently the Jews. - Banyan Tree 09:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi Judah predates the Qur'an by about 500 years. Traditional understanding of his statement is that by killing a person, you also kill all that person's potential descendants. I struggled to understand that, as it would bar the maxim applying to (for example) people beyond childbearing age, but on further thought, an elderly person can still save lives or help create them (by, for example, matchmaking). --Dweller (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but from the quotes it seems as if the form of "killing a person" is only in the Qur'an, while the "saving a person" is in both. In regards to the OP the Qur'an quote seems more relevant. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt there a quote inn the talmud that states "he who saves the life of one man, saves the world entire". Basically for every person who has died, the world's ended for them. --Thanks, Hadseys 10:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THERE IS NO INFORMATION ABOUT COPAS FARM , LONDON

Hi,

My name is IMRAN i am resident on UK, London. I had recently visited COPAS FARMS in Slough London, It is a very big farm of fruits and vegetables the entry fee is just 2 pounds and it is located in a village It is a very famous farm and about 100s of people visit there every day, And there is an old history related with this farm.

I am shocked to see that there is no information at all in WIKIPEDIA regarding this beautiful farm You may visit the website of this farm http://www.copasfarms.co.uk/newsite/home.htm

I would be verymuch thankful to you if you kindly pelase include the information regarding this beautiful farm, and make our WIKIPEDIA the global resource of knowledge,

THANKS AND REGARDS,

Imran.S.Maredia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.30.177 (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly there does not appear to be anything about the farm that makes it notable enough to be included in wikipedia. Still, I'm glad that you had a great day out there. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slough is not in London. That is all I have to say on the matter. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it's not notable but I'm a bit surprised how little there is in Wikipedia about pick your own or farm shops or anything along those lines, see the rather small Rural economics for instance and how little it even lists. I guess nobody interested has bothered to spend a bit of time writing an article. Dmcq (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smallholding has a bit more, but small scale agriculture appears to be one of those topics with which the type of people who write online encyclopedias as a hobby have little familiarity. - Banyan Tree 09:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although some sometimes like nothing more than throwing manure about or even writing shit (?).--Radh (talk) 10:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to agree that currently COPAS farm is not notable enough to warrant an article. see WP:Notability 83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact we only seem to have one farm that has been considered sufficiently notable for inclusion. By contrast, we have a dozen fictional farms.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kostroma Moose Farm although maybe that's more like a ranch. Googlemeister (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]