Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 February 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.

February 5

Question for authors

The wikipedia page on "Lysistrata" states that the 1912 anonymous translation is "rumored to be" by Oscar Wilde. There is a link to a wikisource page that gives the same information. Can I contact the author of these pages (I believe the author of the wikisource page is "WillowW") to ask where this "rumor" comes from? The subject is of great interest to me because I am preparing a new version of the play, based on that translation. I'm not acquainted with how Wikipedia works, and don't know how to proceed with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.83.46.29 (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Go to User:WillowW, click on Talk at the top of her user page, and leave a message there. You should make sure you have your email notification activated in your own preferences page. μηδείς (talk) 04:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily. They can discuss the matter on one or other (or both) of their talk pages, which does not require contact by email. --Viennese Waltz 08:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The IP does not have a preferences page and thus can't set an email. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Wilde died in 1900, so I wonder how he managed to translate something in 1912. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The diary of Samuel Pepys was first published 122 years after he died. The full, uncensored version was not finally published until 280 years after his death. A mere 12 years is a trifle. --Dweller (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not really what the OP said, but perhaps he meant it was only published in 1912 but was translated some years earlier. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Bed and Breakfasts being sued

Have there been any cases in England and Wales which rested on whether Bed and Breakfast owners were allowed to refuse to allow unmarried couples to stay in a room with a double bed, or even to share a room? I'm looking only for references to cases that actually went to court. Thank you. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I only have references for unmarried gay couples: [1] [2]. Are you looking for straight couple cases? --Lgriot (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I was really looking for cases with straight couples, or cases with gay couples where their unmarried status was given as the issue rather than their being a gay couple (but that seems unlikely). 86.163.209.18 (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It's still a question of discrimination no matter which way you cut it, so the legal principles that applies is the same. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

That's irrelevant to my request for references, thanks. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

What have you found in Google so far? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried searching in [BAILII], which is a free resource accessible to the public? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I searched "bed and breakfast" "double bed" into a case citator, the following cases may be of interest to you (in decreasing order of relevance):

Black v Wilkinson County Court (Slough), 18 October 2012

Hall v Bull Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 10 February 2012

Greens, Petitioner Court of Session (Outer House), 12 May 2011

Sharif v Camden LBC Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 20 April 2011

Black v Wilkinson seems to be the most recent and relevant case, it may be helpful if you read the judgment and follow up any references there to older cases. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much, that's very helpful. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

has there ever been a lego in space?

simple question. has there ever been a lego in space? --91.120.48.242 (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this youtube video of one going aloft by weather balloon is the highest our intrepid little minifigure friends have ascended yet. Dmcq (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, in 2011, legos/Lego orbited the Earth.-- Cam (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that. I see also there that three minifigures are currently on their way to Jupiter on a mission to boldly go where no minifigure has gone before. Dmcq (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Market cap of Japanese companies

I am interested in figuring out the market cap of Japanese companies, but I, who live in the US and use web sites and services that think in dollars and presumably also think in American share availability, don't trust the data that my various devices are claiming. Let's take Nintendo. The ADR code is NTDOY. As I type this, NTDOY is $11.73 per share, which, Google says, figures to a market cap of $13.4 billion. My iPhone stocks app agrees with the $11.73 price, but claims this yields a market cap of $1.5 billion.

1. Is the $13.4 billion figure correct? 2. Is the discrepancy because only a small percentage of Nintendo's shares are deposited somewhere to back ADRs, and that the $1.5 billion figure is this amount? (And, thus, we can do some division and deduce that about 11.2% of Nintendo stock is held in the form of ADRs?) I figure the market cap number shown on the Stocks app included on every iPhone is not just wrong because of a bug. Tarcil (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the stocks app uses Yahoo!, for whom $1.5 billion is the "intraday" ("shares outstanding") market cap. I'm hoping that means more to you than me :) - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 18:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Bloomberg says it's $13.3 Billion[3]. WSJ says it's $13.32 Billion[4]. CNN says it's $12.1 Billion[5]. Macroaxis says it's $13.18 Billion[6]. Marketwatch says it's $13.32 Billion[7].

Since it's OTC the numbers are all over the place. But it appears Google is closer to the truth; closer than the iPhone app in any case. Dncsky (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Royal illegitimacy

Many monarchs in history have been considered or rumored to be illegitimate children of their mother and a lover. How many, if any, such cases have been proven in modern time by DNA test?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any instances. To do even a minimal test, assuming the monarch is male, you would need to know the Y chromosome of the monarch and at least one of the two possible fathers. That's not easy information to come by. Looie496 (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If Prince Harry of Wales ever gets to be next in line (which would mean Prince William and all his progeny would have to die first), the Palace might feel it necessary to DNA test Harry and James Hewitt. Those rumours of paternity have been pretty much debunked because the timeline is all wrong - but that's all based on testimony, not scientific fact. I can still imagine the authorities wanting to be super-careful given the technology is there, and it would mean the difference between Harry succeeding Charles as King Henry IX, or Charles's brother Prince Andrew becoming King Andrew I. It's never been tested in the lab because there's little likelihood this scenario will ever materialise. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, all it would take is for one of those accidents-that-happen-to-other-unsuspecting-people-every-day-of-the-week-but-will-never-happen-to-me to happen to Will and Kate and their unborn child, and bingo, Harry's in line to succeed Charles. And then the Royal Rumour Mill will be found spinning at a speed approaching that of the Large Hadron Collider. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll eat my own head if Prince Harry has to have a DNA test before he can accede to the throne. There is no possibility that anybody in authority will give any credence to newspaper stories. Alansplodge (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Mmm, yum - "Baked Head of Alansplodge". I hope there's enough to go around.  :) I thought the newspaper publishers are the people in authority. Or is that just a rumour I read in the press? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The sight of Rupert Murdoch eating humble pie in front of a Parliamentary Select Committee and a judicial enquiry has gladdened the heart of every Briton. How are the mighty fallen. Alansplodge (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Another Yanqui bites the dust.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know that the U.S. had annexed Melbourne prior to 1931... --Jayron32 19:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you denying the following: "On 4 September 1985, Murdoch became a naturalized [United States] citizen to satisfy the legal requirement that only US citizens were permitted to own US television stations. This resulted in Murdoch losing his Australian citizenship"? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Amongst the many ridiculous historical inaccuracies in the film Braveheart, the implication that King Edward III was the illegitimate son of William Wallace is about the most astonishingly appalling. Our article on the film explains the two unarguable reasons why this is nonsensical invention in the section Braveheart#Portrayal_of_Isabella_of_France. Beware the "history" portrayed in Mel Gibson "historical" films. --Dweller (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm no defender of Mel Gibson, but be careful of assuming that a film is intended to be a historical film just because it's set in historical times and involves characters known to history. Braveheart was intended to be an adventure film first and foremost; it just happened to have a historical setting. It worked very well on its own terms if the box office receipts were anything to go by. And if it's spurred anyone to go and do some research and find out what actually happened back then (as far as any history is an account of "what actually happened"), so much the better. I agree, though, that if anyone accepted it as total historical fact and lived the rest of their lives accordingly, that would be a shame. They're probably the same people who believe Salieri poisoned Mozart because of what they saw in Amadeus. And they're the people who get all their knowledge of the world from movies and TV trash because books are "boring", so they're beyond redemption anyway. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, but at least Amadeus wasn't muddying the waters of a major constitutional reform debate. Alansplodge (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, that can hardly be said of Braveheart either, unless you want to argue that movies designed for pure escapist enjoyment play some sort of serious role in educating people about their history and their government. That has never yet been in the minds of the film makers. Sure, some of them have "historical consultants" or "military consultants" buried deep in the credits that nobody but me ever watches, but they obviously give scant regard to their experts' advice because the critics make an art form of finding all the compulsory historical inaccuracies. The makers disregard "what actually happened" when some alternative and usually completely untrue story is found to be more appealing in cinematic terms. The rule of the box office is what they obey, always, and that means they set themselves apart from documentary films and are never judged by the same standards. There is never any need to post "citation required" tags on movies (as opposed to Wikipedia articles about those movies). These historical epics are not taken seriously by historians or anyone else who has any real idea - and if "people with no real idea" amounts to more than a tiny proportion of the population, our governments have some explaining to do about our fantastic and "world-leading" education systems the praises of which they trumpet at every possible opportunity. But these movies can still be great fun.

I have yet to see Lincoln but I fully intend to. Even before Day-Lewis makes history by winning his third Best Actor Oscar, no doubt there will be or has been all manner of commentary about the historical gravitas of the film, and many people will be sucked into believing they were virtually there when those events actually happened, and they really happened exactly the way the film depicts them. Sight unseen, I can assure them that that is not the case. But I still intend to get my money's worth by hugely enjoying the movie. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It certainly IS said of Braveheart:-

"In order to capitalise on this emotional and political charge, the Scottish National Party distributed leaflets outside cinemas in Scotland in the form of reply-paid postcards. On one side was an image of Mel Gibson as Wallace and 'BRAVEHEART' in large capitals, along with a text, culminating in the words: 'TODAY ITS NOT JUST BRAVEHEARTS WHO CHOOSE INDEPENDENCE - IT'S ALSO WISEHEADS - AND THEY USE THE BALLOT BOX'. On the other side is the slogan 'YOU'VE SEEN THE MOVIE...NOW FACE THE REALITY'. The 'head and heart' campaign which the SNP mobilised to cash in on the popularity of the movie had immediate results in opinion polls which recorded a dramatic rise of eight points in those intending to vote for the party, and according to Alex Salmond applications for membership were almost 60 a day (The Herald, 11 September 1995). Even if this contains a pinch of hyperbole, it seems to indicate the powerful impact of the film on Scottish audiences."[8] Alansplodge (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Moses pictures as "white" skinned...

Hello. Is there anyway I can contribute information based on research and logical deduction that some of the biblical figures represented (images) are incorrect? This is NOT to start any debates although it's probable that it will, but rather to start acknowledging that the ancient people of Israel, most particularly the Hebrews are a dark skinned people. Moses was most probably a black man. If you really dig into the history and Scripture, (which is where the story originates anyway) you will find this to be true. To represent these people any other way is to deceive the public and add to the lies that are already out there. I like and respect Wikipedia and have found it to be very helpful and useful on many occasions. If it is truly about providing information based on factual research and logical deduction by intelligent individuals then I expect that you will take this a request very seriously and at least consider the magnitude of the issue at hand. It DOES matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theracingmind (talk • contribs) 21:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Well there are many articles that explore this or related issues. See Race of Jesus, Hamitic and Race of Ancient Egyptians. The images we use are from the history of art. Where images from the time are available (as for Egyptian pharaohs) we use them. This is not the case for Israelites. In such cases works by artists are used to show how these figures have been depicted. They are of course "inaccurate" (Moses didn't wear Roman-style togas, as he often does in Renaissance art), but that's not their purpose. Mind you, the image currently used at the top of the Moses article is seriously cheesy. Paul B (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Gotta love the drive-bys. I seriously doubt that Moses was "black" in the modern sense of tropical-African. Probably dark-skinned Mediterranean. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If the material you want to add is based directly on reliable sources, and is not your own research, argumentation or conclusion then you may add it to the article with proper citations; but as it is evidently not a mainstream theory, it should not be given undue weight, but merely mentioned as an idea that has been published. --ColinFine (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Wikipedia is not based on our 'factual research and logical deduction by intelligent individuals'. It is based on giving due weight to whatever is in sources written by the people who do that sort of thing. In fact 'logical deduction' by editors here is frowned upon, it is in the same category as WP:Original research which though it is a very good thing elsewhere is a thing to be assiduously avoided in Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• It bears noting that for the vast majority of history, European artistic tradition always depicted historical figures as looking exactly like the culture of the artist: right down to the dress and hair styles. This is probably because people didn't have much of a frame of reference; people were painting pictures based solely on stories, both written and oral. For example, look at This bas relief of the Nine Worthies. They're all dressed like 13th century crusaders because... it was sculpted in the 13 century. I highly doubt that Alexander the Great or King David looked or dressed anything like this. This was not because of a systematic attempt to deliberately deceive people, the artists weren't conspiring to erase the real culture of the people so depicted; they just had no frame of reference, no way to know what these historical persons look like, so they made them look like everyone around them because they didn't know what people from other cultures or past history looked like. So, if you want to know why, for centuries, Moses in European art is generally depicted as a having European features, the answer isn't because of a systematic attempt to mask his true identity. It's just that no one even conceived that he would necessarily look any different than themselves. --Jayron32 03:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The idea of Moses being black is unlikely, given the Bible's recounting of the reaction of his siblings to his dark-skinned wife, for which Aaron and Miriam were punished. --Dweller (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

What makes you think their objection was based on Zippora's skin color, rather than simply her ethnicity? I mean, it's certainly not unthinkable that two black tribes would have an aversion to one another. I don't think Moses was black, but I don't think that particular incident is incompatible with the idea. - Lindert (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Depictions of Jesus

Chinese Jesus

Ethiopian Jesus

::Ah... I've just refreshed my memory of Rashi's explanation, and it's nothing to do with ethnicity, nor even Zippora herself, but Aaron and Miriam were discussing Moses suspending his marriage. Striking my comment with apologies. --Dweller (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Very common to see depictions of Jesus as black or Asiatic (which is ironic since we happily classify the Middle East to be part of Asia yet we rarely think of people from there as Asians). See also Black Madonna. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess it depends what you mean by "Asian". Russians, Iranians, Indians and Japanese are all "Asian". That's part of the problem with the use of words like this as if racial/anthropological, colour and geographical concepts match up. After all, there's no reason to believe that black madonnas and baby J are intended to represent "race". They are just that colour for various reasons - darkening pigments, ingrained soot, the material they are made from. Colur and race are not the same thing any more than continents and race are. Otherwise, this is evidence that Churchill was black. Paul B (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm a Russian living in Kaliningrad, a Russian city located to the west of Warsaw. Why do you think I'm Asian? --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

That's why I said "Asiatic". See right. (if anyone can get these images to sit side by side, feel free; Thanks to Senra) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm struggling to think of specific examples at present, but there have been quite a few reggae songs written by Rastafarians on the subject of various Biblical figures actually being black men. Jacob - black. Moses - black. Solomon - black. Samson - black. King David - black. Jesus - black. John the Baptist - black. And so on... I don't suppose that this is any more wrong than the portrayals of them as Caucasian guys. Not that I'm an expert on their religious beliefs (I just like the music!), but I believe that they can find things in the Bible to justify this... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

So they say, but they have to torture the evidence to do so. Favourite passages are the Song of Songs [9] and the description of the son of man in the Book of Revelation [10]. Paul B (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The t'ings dat yo' li'ble, To read in de Bible, It ain't necessarily so. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

See also "The Real Face Of Jesus" for a forensic facial reconstruction of a face from some 1st century Jewish skulls, which Richard Neave, a British forensic artist, says gives a representation of "an adult man who lived in the same place and at the same time as Jesus". Apparently, skin colour was deduced from contemporary paintings. Alansplodge (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That image of Jesus looks remarkably like Adeel Akhtar, who recently played Wilson Wilson in the excellent TV series Utopia. --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

What's Al Qaeda and Islamists' stance on Japanese citizens?

Hello, I am Japanese and I would like to know if I would run any risk in Afghanistan or Libya, or Northern Mali conflict (2012–present). Thank. Are we targeted by them or not? Thank you. Kotjap (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There's some good information here. It appears that there were some Japanese nationals targeted in the In Aménas hostage crisis; there were more Japanese there than any other nationality. --Jayron32 21:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow, thank you. I didn't know that they threatened to hit the "heart of Tokyo" if we sent troops to Iraq. Thank you again. Kotjap (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

When I was living in Japan, I remember that there was a public debate over whether to send the JSDF to Iraq to help with reconstruction. There had to be a clear guarantee that they would be protected and not involved in combat - combat is against the constitution. British and Dutch troops had talks with local tribal leaders, and agreed to protect the Japanese troops from harm. I remember seeing big blue cargo planes flying in circles around Komaki Airport practicing landings in hostile territory. While British and Dutch troops were still in a combat role, no Japanese were involved while they were there. There was another incident where three Japanese nationals entered Iraq in order to be taken hostage, so they could try to highlight to the world how bad the situation was. They were, of course, taken hostage, and videos of them posted on the internet. There was a public outcry because the Japanese government actually paid the ransom for them to be returned. This, for most people, was a waste of taxpayers' money, because they went there intentionally to get captured. When thy returned, they were ordered never to go back to Iraq, because if they did, the government would not help them a second time. Despite this, they went back, and were never seen again. The Japanese are not targeted specifically. Al Qaeda and other Islamists have no gripe with Japan. It's the Western World and the USA specifically that they have a problem with. Still, I wouldn't recommend Iraq as a holiday destination. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Clockwork Orange plot and Ian Paisley

The Clockwork Orange (plot) article is messy, to be sure. Is "a right-wing smear campaign against British politicians" means the plot was right-wing, not that it was a smear campaign against right-wing politicians. Indeed, of the five that we mention, there are three Labour, one Conservative, and... Ian Paisley? My knowledge of British politics is limited, but from what I know, he seems like a British Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. How on earth do you attack a man like that from the right? Furthermore, if the plot was "an attempt to show that the victims were communists, or Irish Republican sympathisers," how do you credibly make such claims about Paisley, a unionist, and why would British secret service want to make them? I'd almost think this was hoaxy vandalism, but his name has been mentioned there since the article was created. He's not mentioned in the only wikilinked reference on the article, either. So how does this all work? Is this a BLP violation? --BDD (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I know very little about British politics, but I wouldn't trust a single word of that article without some better sourcing. The article is a complete and total mess, and if someone unfamiliar with it can't follow every word with a decent source, then there's nothing there you can trust. If this was a real thing, you're going to have to find information outside of Wikipedia. --Jayron32 21:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps "... I would not trust ...", Jayron? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

So amended. --Jayron32 21:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It's an interesting one - I agree it is wise to be sceptical of the exact facts mentioned in this article - there does at least seem to be a fair bit of coverage about rumours of a secret services plot against Harold Wilson and other colleagues - see for example [11] [12] [13] - I think it might be that this is covered in another of the articles here, but I shall endeavour to dig around for more sources. ---- _nonsense ferret 22:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The idea of an intelligence-services plot against Wilson is well-documented - by which I mean the rumours are well-written about, though its existence or otherwise is likely to remain a mystery for another half-decade at least! This sounds like it may be a vague echo of that. I can strongly recommend Francis Wheen's Strange Days Indeed as a good (and fun) survey on the weird political turmoil of the early seventies, but I'm on a train just now and can't check it. See Harold Wilson conspiracy theories for some suggestions of varying levels of craziness...

That article refers to Livingstone's maiden speech, in 1987, which is here; he doesn't refer to "Clockwork Orange" by name, so that's a red flag in terms of OR, but it's probably no surprise it ties into Peter Wright and Spycatcher!

As to attacking Paisley "from the right"... the fact that the group was right wing doesn't mean they were automatically in his favour; he was a turbulent and problematic influence, and it may well have been that they sought to try and neutralise him by spreading whatever allegations might happen to stick. (I agree that suggesting he was in the pay of Moscow via a Dublin forwarding address probably wouldn't have worked, but you never know - stranger things have been tried.) Andrew Gray (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Dominic Sandbrook's Seasons in the Sun could be a source, though it covers the plot very briefly, it mentions Wilson, Benn, Heath and Paisley as targets, and expresses strong confidence in the broad outline of Wallace's claims. Warofdreams talk 15:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I wish I could refer to that. My (American) library is short on potential sources. We only have one biography of Paisley (God Save Ulster), and it has no mentions of Clockwork Orange and only a few passing mentions of Wilson. --BDD (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Does Sandbrook name it as "Clockwork Orange", OOI? Wheen doesn't; he talks about the various purported plots against Wilson, but without specific details on this one. I'm wondering if this particular detail is the problematic part and we should merge it somewhere. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Sandbrook does use that name. You may be able to see a preview at Google Books - [14] and [15] are the two short sections mentioning the plot. Warofdreams talk 12:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Ontario terrorism plot

My question is, if the Ontario terrorism plot succeeded, would have all allies been hit? Kotjap (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "all allies" here. Looie496 (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

All allies in the War in Afghanistan. Kotjap (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Whether it had succeeded or not would have had no effect whatsoever on the Coalition in Afghanistan. Ontario is in Canada, as I am sure you are aware. A successful terrorist attack in one of the home countries of Coalition Forces in Afghanistan would not make them immediately decide to pull out and return home. Canada is not even a major player in the game, anyway. Only the US and the UK can really be considered so. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure. The 2004 Madrid train bombings seem to have resulted in Spain withdrawing it's troops from Iraq: [16]. StuRat (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

That may be so, but the 7 July 2005 London bombings did not make the UK pull out from Iraq or Afghanistan. The UK and Canada are a bit more stable politically. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The Canadian contribution has been smaller than the UK which in turn has been smaller than the US. However, the Canadian effort (up to 2,500 at any one time) came without strings attached like some other nations, and they have paid a heavy price; 158 fatalities to date. Alansplodge (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, please do not misunderstand me. I believe the Canadian contribution has been worthwhile. I was saying that the UK and Canada are more stable in a political sense, whereas Spain is not so much (there is even talk of them being kicked out from the Eurozone), and having lived in Spain as a child, I can understand why. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Something of a tangent, but it's worth noting that the subsequent Spanish pullout was more a result of how the previous Spanish government tried to portray the bombings, than a result of the bombings themselves. One might presume that, if the Ontario terrorism plot had succeeded, the Canadian government wouldn't have been silly enough to try to blame it on, say, Quebec separatists without good reason. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

More of a tangent, my niece is the product of a Basque mother and an Englishman (my brother). She speaks no Basque. Her mother speaks a little, but never uses it. Most Basque people don't want to fight the Spanish. They just want to get on with there lives. My niece speaks Spanish and English, and wants to live in Japan and learn Japanese. I have forgotten why I mentioned this. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

What is postmodernism

There's no definition and the conception is fuzzy. I've tried to understand and in doing so I've learned that it touches so many things—academia, culture, philosophy, personal attitudes towards life, science, literature, art, sociology—and speaks in terms of "narratives". When hearing it get derided by commentators it is associated with Marxism or socialism, sometimes even feminism. All discussion about whatever it is is just a hodge podge of philosophy, pseudo-intellectualism, culture, politics, and layers upon layers meaningless words to me. Is this what philosophy and the humanities are like right now? What is postmodernism, what does it entail, and what does it have to do with egalitarian ideologies? Whenever I decide to take a philosophy/humanities course in college I will be sure to press my professors for answers. — Melab±1 ☎ 21:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

As one professor once said to me, if it sounds a bit fuzzy then it probably is. I assume you've tried Postmodernism and specifically Postmodernism in political science but that's where I'd start. ---- _nonsense ferret 21:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Oh, and Postmodern philosophy ---- _nonsense ferret 21:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

That article only made my confusion worse because it sounds like [what might be] a postmodernist. — Melab±1 ☎ 22:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

OMG, this is exactly the question I planned to ask over two weeks ago, but I decided to do some research first. I've gotten obsessed with this research. After spending a hundred hours reading dozens of articles and the entirety of Higher Superstition, I'm still almost as confused as you are. Here's my best attempt at an answer. It's heavily biased, mostly because I think postmodernism is bullshit, but also because postmodernism's critics tend to write much more clearly than its proponents:

Postmodernism is a collection of loosely related ideas. It claims that there is no objective truth, and that everything which claims to be objective--including history, science, and mathematics--are only social constructions. It tends to support moral and factual relativism. Therefore, if a stone-age African or native American thinks the world is flat and sits on turtles, that's just as valid as the scientific truth, because the latter was made up by white male Europeans for the purposes of oppression and domination.

Gross & Levitt, and authors of Higher Superstition, describe postmodernism as follows: "It is too variegated and shifty to allow easy categorization, and too willfully intent on avoiding definitional precision. There is even a risk of misleading in calling it a body of ideas, for postmodernism is more a matter of attitude and emotional tonality than of rigorous axiomatics [...] If we accept the notion that there is a generalized intellectual 'project' of the Enlightenment, one that is intent upon building a sound body of knowledge about the world the human race confronts, then postmodernism defines itself, in large measure, as the antithetical doctrine: that such a project is inherently futile, self-deceptive, and worst of all, oppressive [...] There is no knowledge, then; there are merely stories, 'narratives,' devised to satisfy the human need to make some sense of the world. In so doing, they track in unacknowledged ways the interests, prejudices, and conceits of their devisers."

If Gross & Levitt are to be trusted (and keep in mind they're even more biased than I am), there is indeed a connection between postmodernism and left-wing ideologies such as socialism, feminism, Afrocentrism, and environmentalism. Specifically, many university humanities departments have embraced radical leftist ideology since the 1960s. Due to these departments' insularity and humanists' general scientific illiteracy, it has become faddish to attack science with ridiculous arguments while knowing nothing about the science they're attacking (see science studies and science wars). Because the left wing challenges existing authority and societal norms, and postmodernism views all sources of authority with extreme skepticism, postmodernism has become a natural ally of these radical leftists. Ironically, this is not true outside the university, nor has anything resembling postmodernism always been associated with the academic left. Leftists among the general public tend to value reason and objectivity very highly, especially in fields like science, and scientists themselves are overwhelmingly liberal. Historically, the left wing, following the Enlightenment tradition, has generally used reason to oppose outdated tradition by proclaiming "the truth will set you free".

Here is another critical summary of postmodernism, by another scientist: [17]. I have honestly and earnestly tried to find good summaries of postmodernism from its proponents. Unfortunately, everything I've found so far either makes ridiculous claims, or is so hard to read that I can't understand it. The best I've found is from Wikipedia, but as you said, even that is hard to understand. If anyone can recommend a good "introduction" article from a proponent of postmodernism, please post it here; I want to read it, and I'm sure the OP does, too. --140.180.247.198 (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

A biased response is not what I want. — Melab±1 ☎ 01:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

My response is not biased because of my preconceptions. It's biased because I was in the same position as you 2 weeks ago, and through research, have formed a opinion on postmodernism that happens to be negative. It may be possible to find a truly unbiased explanation, but it's more likely that the author actually has an opinion but has not disclosed it. Certainly they would have no reason to be honest about their biases if your response will just be "a biased response is not what I want". --140.180.247.198 (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

What is it? one of the most irredeemably useless articles on Wikipedia, that's what. I gave up on it years ago. Paul B (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

On postmodernism or its article? — Melab±1 ☎ 01:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The article. But the other thing too. Paul B (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Postmodernism has somewhat different implications and meanings for different disciplinary fields. Generally speaking it is a rejection of the idea of objective, natural truths and an embrace of culture as the ultimate means of human experience of the world. That's the basics of it. The elaborations get more complicated. The difficulties in making sense of it come from the fact that it also often rejects clarity in exposition — it sees straightforward speech as masquerading falsely as objectivity.

It has a lot going for it and is much more sophisticated in its discussion of truth than the proto-positivists (e.g. Gross and Levitt) are with regards to its understanding of epistemology, ontology, nature, artifice, culture, and so on. Its frustrations come from the fact that it is also faddish. In American English departments it manifested as a particular pernicious form of Francophilia and so (amusingly?) you have people whose native language is English writing as if their prose had been translated poorly from French. (The French connection comes from characters like Foucault, Derrida, and Deleuze, who are sort of the high priests of a certain strain of continental philosophy.) There is something undeniably cargo cultish about this tendency.

Nowadays I don't think too many scholars self-describe as postmodern — it is seen as a throwback to the 1970s and 1980s. The science wars are long over and I think people have gotten more conservative about epistemology. There are new fads. (Digital humanities, which is becoming even more nebulously unclear than postmodernism, for example.) It had its silliness and it had its excesses, though Gross and Levitt are quite silly themselves to attribute so much power to it. (The reactionary approach has its excesses as well.) If only English departments had such power!

The whole "trick" of postmodernism is somewhat summed up by the first year philosophy student who relentlessly says, with a sneer of indifference, "well, how do you know that, really?" It never stops, becoming a great, self-referential, self-consuming philosophical ouroboros.

Personally I think that the postmodernists are right to ask hard questions about how we think we know what we know, to question any system that claims to have eliminated subjectivity and culture from the epistemological equation, and even (though I loathe Derrida) to ask the ways in which language constrains our thought or reflects existing constraints. I think Foucault is relatively straightforward in most of his later work; I think Derrida is fairly useless. I think they have been idiotic for abandoning clarity in the process, however, and it is quite evident that quite a lot of it is simply obfuscation meant to mask mediocre thinking. But I also think the reactionaries are pretty silly themselves. I'm not sure everyone in the academy of my generation feels this way — definitely not — but I don't think my sentiments are that unusual. --Mr.98 (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Postmodernism is far from the first movement to question the objectivity of knowledge, and far from the first to embrace philosophical skepticism. See academic skepticism, which started in 266 BC when Pyrrhonism became dominant. The difference between these ancient philosophers and postmodernists is that the former were far clearer in their writing, didn't make elementary factual errors (like some postmodernists do with respect to science), and were willing to extend their skepticism to their own philosophical claims. I also don't believe that postmodernists have made any insights about truth which analytical philosophers haven't made long ago. Every freshman philosophy student who didn't skip every lecture knows about idealism and materialism/realism, deduction and the problem of induction, empiricism and positivism. Every science student worth his salt is only too familiar with confirmation bias, conflict of interest, the realities of funding, the inevitability of subjective judgments, cherry-picking, exaggeration, scientific racism, and the various blind valleys that scientists have gone down since the Scientific Revolution. As for Gross & Levitt, their alarmism is definitely unjustified in hindsight, but it may not have been in 1994. If you know for sure that they're proto-positivists, you know more than I do, because they never explain much about their own philosophical position. Their book was dedicated to pointing out the folly of postmodernism in its treatment of science, not to publicizing their own philosophical views.

I agree completely that much of the postmodern verbiage is for the purpose of concealing mediocre thought. "How we think we know what we know" is, as I've said, a central question of philosophy that has been asked since philosophy came into being. "Question[ing] any system that claims to have eliminated subjectivity and culture" is being done by scientists, historians, (non-crackpot) anthropologists, linguists, computer scientists, and every other legitimate academic with regard to their own work literally every single day. (The only system that postmodernism does not seem to question is their own.) "Ask[ing] the ways in which language constrains our thought or reflects existing constraints" is a central question in linguistics--see, for example, linguistic determinism. Grandiose verbiage definitely helps in concealing the fact that you're addressing decades-old or millenia-old debates, and have nothing substantial to add to what's already been said. --140.180.247.198 (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I did not, and would not, claim that postmodernism was the first approach to this kind of skepticism. Its approach to answering that kind of skepticism, though, did take things in a different direction than the approaches of, say, Berkeley and Descartes and that whole lot. In many ways one can see it as an explicit repudiation of Cartesian rationality as an "out" for epistemological problems. But that's just one of many ways you can trace the history of these ideas. And you are wrong that postmodernists do not question their own systems — if anything they are boringly obsessed with reflexivity to a completely paralyzing degree.

In my experience most of the critics of postmodernism who think it is really dangerous, especially those from the sciences, are unreconstructed positivists of one sort or another. I would not consider yourself an expert on postmodernism for having just read Gross and Leavitt. (I have read considerably more than that, and I don't consider myself any expert on it.) They are terribly one-sided, and fairly limited in what they look at. Science studies is actually quite interesting, and far less wooly, than the worst excesses of it would have you believe when cherry picked along. (I don't hate Gross and Leavitt, and I do think a lot of the "pomo" stuff is junk, but the answer is not the more or less unreconstructed scientism that they, Sokal, Dawkins, etcetera, would have you put in its place, much less the philosophically indefensible stuff of Popper, who is usually held up as some kind of "safe" philosophy for scientists.) Like many critics they also confuse what is a methodology and what is an ontological statement — being agnostic about truth, for example, leads to interesting investigations into the history of knowledge, but it does not mean that one does not actually believe that certain explanations for how the world works are not better than others. If you are interested in seeing these questions from a much more balanced viewpoint — without sacrificing any clarity! — give Ian Hacking's The Social Construction of What? a read. It's very interesting.

As for whether it was justified in 1994, well, it hardly matters to debate this at this point. The whole thing was a tempest in a teapot. The greatest enemies of science turned out to be politicians, lobbyists, and lawyers, as anyone with a reasonably clear view of the world would expect, not humanities professors, who nobody ever listened much to anyway. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• To bring it back to simplicity; there is no universal set of "postmodern" ideals that work across all disciplines. The only cohesive answer is that postmodern FOO is the period that comes after modern FOO. For much of the late 19th and early 20th century, the term "modern" came to be fixed to apply to what was then the contemporary period. The problem came in middle 20th century when people began to break from what had been established in the consciousness as "modern", and the only sensible term then became "postmodern". So "postmodern" really only means "stuff that has developed during the latter decades of the 20th century through today" without any unifying theme. In 20-30 years, there will need to be a new term when the zeitgeist changes again. It's something like the term "classical". Classical is meaningless without context: classical music is completely unrelated to classical Mesoamerican civilization which is unrelated to classical mythology. In the same way, "postmodern" is meaningless without context: postmodern philosophy and postmodern music and postmodern art all define themselves in relation to (and in contrast to) the earlier defined "modern" traditions in each of those contexts. That's why people have such a hard time defining the unifying themes of "postmodernism". There isn't any. --Jayron32 05:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

There weren't good explanations for modernism either. That is why we are having problems explaining postmodernism. Postmodernism is simply a worse explanation for what transpires over time periods than modernism was. Bus stop (talk) 06:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Some good posts above - rare for such a long thread. I would add to Jayron's summary that the standards of postmodernism seem to be pretty low, so postmodern BAR is whatever is lower than any other BAR. Also one thread from the OP that seems to have been missed is the concept of "narrative". One summary of postmodernism in the social sciences that I have read (properly, I am talking about history and political theory, but maybe stretching a bit further) is "an incredulity towards metanarratives". The classic example of a metanarrative is Marxism, with its theory of history as the struggle of class against class. Postmodernism is a kind of reaction against this grand theory of class divisions as impersonal forces shaping history, and the attendant crystal-ball scrying, seeing in every political drama the downfall of capitalism. IBE (talk) 08:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the simplest explanation of postmodernism is that it's a rejection of the notion of progress, that new ideas necessarily supersede old ideas. In art, under modernism, once post-impressionism established itself, then anyone still doing impressionism was outdated and needed to move on. Under postmodernism, all art styles and movements are fair game, none of them has any value over any other, and you can use any of them, mashed up with any others, if you think the effect is interesting. So you get an artist like John Kindness recreating classical paintings as cereal boxes and painting ancient Greek vase scenes on car parts. It's all perfectly fine as an approach to art. Try to apply it to something that matters beyond the realm of pure ideas and it's not much use. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Postmodernism isn't likely to contribute to the choice of art an artist chooses to make. I don't think most artists choose a method of working that they think will fulfill the propositions of standing theories such as those pertaining to postmodern art. I think theories of art (modernism, postmodernism) sometimes try to supply explanations for the succession of art movements that have already transpired. Bus stop (talk) 14:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, you would know more than me, but I'm not sure that's completely correct. All the time I read an artist's blurb beside a painting or photograph describing exactly what they thought they were accomplishing ... and exactly why the art acquisition committee at my beloved university paid $50,000 for it (I may be exaggerating). Steven Pinker gives some example in The Blank Slate of an art critic dissing someone's work because of a lack of an overarching theoretical vision, or something like that. Sadly, I don't have the book handy, but someone else might chip in. IBE (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

An "overarching theoretical vision" can be important to an artist, I think. But how would a visual artist express an overarching theoretical vision? Basically, I think that would be accomplished visually. Is there really a counterpart in language for an expression in imagery? Many artists are art theoreticians. I would not consider the writings of such a person necessarily related to any visual art produced by that person. I think the same would apply to any other means of expression. Are Bob Dylan's paintings in any way related to his music? I doubt if he is trying to express an "overarching theoretical vision" in either medium, though I really haven't a clue about this, but even if he were, my argument would be that the two expressions are for all intents and purposes unrelated. Bus stop (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Mythical animals in national symbols

The question on the Science desk about double-headed eagles got me wondering. I said that the Double-headed eagle that still appears in the coats of arms or flags of various countries might have had a real basis, because countries tend not to have mythical animals in their symbology.

Is my premise accurate? I know of one counter-example: the unicorn on the British coat of arms. But I can't readily think of any other animals on coats of arms or flags or coins or wherever, that are known never to have existed. The British lion certainly exists elsewhere if not in the British Isles themselves.

Are dragons or gryphons or phoenixes (? phoenices) or even yetis ever honoured in official national symbols, as distinct from being at the level of cultural associations? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The Welsh dragon has been used as in coat-of-arms. CS Miller (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if this helps, but Coat of arms of Iceland contains a dragon. I'm not a native speaker so I didn't quite understand what you meant by "as distinct from being at the level of cultural associations"; apologies if this doesn't fit that criteria.Dncsky (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking there of animals that are not official national symbols but are often thought of as personifying nations: the Russian bear, the British bulldog, the French coq sportif or poodle (or frog), the Australian koala to an extent (when the kangaroo isn't at front of mind, but the roo gets onto our coat of arms along with the emu), probably others. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Then there's the dragon as representative of China. See, for example, The Bear and the Dragon. --BDD (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

According to Charge_(heraldry)#Animals the griffin is used (but doesn't state where). Lisburn has a phoenix in its coat-of-arms [18] ---- 22:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a griffin on the presidential standard of Lithuania, a variant of its coat of arms. And it's got a unicorn too. --BDD (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Also, the flag of Bhutan has a dragon. --BDD (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Emblem of Uzbekistan has a mystical bird in it. Emblem of Kazakhstan has winged horses in it. This is probably not what you're looking for, but the Coat of arms of Mauritius has a dodo, which is not mystical but extinct.Dncsky (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• If you're willing to go sub-national, the flag of Phoenix, Arizona has a phoenix. We call the animal on the Flag of Veneto a lion, but it has wings, so I'd call it a sphinx. As for states with limited recognition, the Flag of Tibet features a Snow Lion. As for extinct states, the flag of Taiwan under Qing Dynasty rule had a dragon as well. --BDD (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

That's the Flag of the Qing Dynasty itself you are looking at. Taiwan itself, as a prefecture and then a province, had no flag. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• See Flags with mythological animals. --PlanetEditor (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Good link. But why did it classify the oryx as mythological? (I've since removed the category.) --BDD (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Indonesia has the garuda as one of its most prominent symbols (the national emblem and airline), for example. Thailand uses the Garuda as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The Arms of the City of London have two "dragons argent" as supporters, and a dragon's wing as the crest.[19] As far as I know, we don't have dragons living locally. Somebody would have noticed. Alansplodge (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

In the UK at sub-national level there are a number of mythical animals used in heraldry. List of heraldic charges gives examples of natural and mythical beings. One such is the wyvern. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Jack, if you can read Russian, this article might be helpful. Not always people depict only the real world and real things in their art and culture, more often they revision real things in creative and unusual ways, as a result imaginary things appear.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Most fascinating. Thank you, all. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The flag of South Australia has the Piping Shrike, a bird which does not exist. --TrogWoolley (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Very true. And NSW and TAS have lions, not mythical but hardly the first animal one thinks of in any Aussie context. QLD and VIC have boring old crowns and crosses. WA's the only sensible state, with their Black Swan. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 17:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

However, for many centuries black swans were thought to be mythical creatures in Europe... AnonMoos (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the current Garuda emblem mentioned above, the 1873 coat of arms of Siam featured a Rajasimha and a Gajasimha, also from Hindu mythology. --125.25.145.19 (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Diplomatic mission with extraterritoriality

From Diplomatic mission#cite note-6: "For the most part, this is not the case as extraterritoriality is not conferred upon an Embassy or Consulate, but in some situations extraterritoriality may be created by Treaty.".

Where can I find a list of these special cases where full extraterritorial status has been granted by treaty?

Diplomatic missions having full extraterritorial status is a pretty common misconception, but when I correct people on it I want to be absolutely sure it's not one of those corner cases where the embassy does have full extraterritorial status due to treaties.Dncsky (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is rare, a notable example was the birth of Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia in Suite 212 of Claridge's Hotel - the myth was mentioned on the program QI in the UK some time ago ---- _nonsense ferret 23:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article Extraterritoriality has some examples. There are many not listed there; for example IIRC following its loss of its coastline in the War of the Pacific, Bolivia was granted some extraterritorial rights to Chilean ports such as Antofagasta and Arica; those rights were granted by treaty. --Jayron32 06:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Concessions in China, and the diplomatic and consular missions within them, usually had extraterritoriality granted by treaty, but this is detailed in the extraterritoriality article, with links to some other interesting articles. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, guys, but extraterritoriality's current examples mentions no embassies. It's all international organizations (plus one military base). The misconception doesn't apply to international organizations so I'm not too interested about them. Dncsky (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

My point about foreign concessions was that the diploamtic and consular missions of the foreign powers were located in the concessions which possessed extraterritoriality.

In addition, there is the Beijing Legation Quarter which, as the name suggests, was the location of foreign embassies and which also enjoyed extraterritoriality under unequal treaties until these were relinquished in various treaties in the 20th century. Does that help?

My understanding is that extraterritoriality was a frequent demand made of Asian nations like China or Japan by foreign powers in unequal treaties. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't being clear. I'm only interested in current examples. Dncsky (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)