Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

December 9

Bengali folklore

You know how Punjabi folklore has the famous Heer Ranjha and Sohni Mahiwal. Does Bengali folklore has famous folktale has like Heer Ranjha? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.143 (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

1

Apart from being the birth of Jesus, what happened in 1 that made it the first year of the Common Era? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 02:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh... that's exactly why it was made the year 1: Annunciation Day was assigned to the Vernal Equinox (which was then March 25) and Christmas Day was assigned to the Winter Solstice (then December 25). The calendar was reworked from the Roman calendar whose basis was the presumed beginning of the Roman Empire. It was also an estimate, as scholars now reckon Jesus to have been born maybe 4 or 5 B.C. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Has it been nailed down that tightly these days? ~10 years ago I remember my college Historical Jesus textbooks arguing for a lightly post-1AD time, something between 10 and 30AD. It's interesting to think it's swung back the other way, and has been so narrowly confined given the source material. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it couldn't have been later than 4 BC, since Herod the Great died in 4 BC, and he had to have lived several months beyond when Jesus was born, if there is any historiocity of the biblical accounts. So that sort of sets a final limit on when Jesus was born. Luke assigns the date of Jesus's birth to the "Days of Caesar Augustus" (Luke 2:1) and his baptism, generally taken to be at age about 30, to "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar" (Luke 3:1), so if those dates are to be believed, then the absolute latest Jesus would have been born would be 14 AD, but that would mean that the Herod mentioned in all of the gospels was Herod Antipas and not Herod the Great; however when mentioned Antipas is usually named as distinctive from his father. Tiberius's 15th year would have been AD 29, which would have made Jesus born very close to 1 AD should we assume him to be baptised at 30; but he could have been baptised at age 27 or 33 or somewhere else in that time frame. It's the date of Herod the Great's death that sets the most reliable date of Jesus' birth at 4 BC. --Jayron32 04:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the while the Gospels of Matthew and Luke make Jesus' birth contemporary with Herod the Great - deceased in 4 BCE/BC - Luke also make him contemporary with the Roman Census of Quirinius which is dated to 6 or 7 CE/AD (although the alleged procedure of having everyone return to their place of ancestral origins seems to be otherwise unattested, impractical and unlikely). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that we have no idea on which date Jesus was born on, but it almost certainly was NOT December 25th, or any other time in the winter. Even using only the bible's own accounts make that highly unlikely, since the descriptions of the shepards who first receive news of Jesus's birth make it more likely that Jesus was born in the springtime. --Jayron32 05:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Jesus was most likely born in the springtime. Ironically enough, he was actually born sometime around Easter. In Constantine's time, they associated the Christian God with the pagan sun god (which is not too much of a stretch), and they assigned (as I put it earlier) the winter solstice as His birthdate. Exactly 9 months earlier, of course, was Annunciation Day, neatly connecting Mary's "fertility" with the vernal equinox. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Members of the LDS (Mormon) Church traditionally believe that Jesus was born on April 6, thanks largely to this verse in the Doctrine and Covenants. We still celebrate Christmas on December 25, though. Kingsfold (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dionysius Exiguus (who established the current A.D. year numbering epoch) seems to have thought that the birth of Jesus happened on Dec. 25th in the year 1 B.C. (technically a few days before January 1st, 1 A.D.). AnonMoos (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So I see. As I understand it, in the "old style" the year actually began on March 25. So according to that theory, the first anniversary of the Annunciation Day would have been the first day of 1 A.D. If D.E. could be around today, he would probably argue that the celebration of Jesus' birth in genereal is more important than the specific date (especially as he got it wrong). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, for most of history, and for most Christians, Jesus's birth was NOT all that important of a date. Under the Julian Calendar, year 1 was designed to have started on March 25, which would have been the date of Jesus's conception (i.e. when the Virgin Mary became pregnant). The most important date in the Christian year is, of course, Easter. --Jayron32 17:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's fairly confusing. One source says Jesus was reckoned to have been born in 1 A.D. and another says 1 B.C.??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Moving from the above details back to the OP's specific query, the Before Common Era/Common Era system seems to have been introduced as a reworking of the Christian-specific BC/AD system:

1. to avoid the problems with the uncertainty over the actual (if real) birth year of Jesus while avoiding the obvious paradoxes of saying things like "Jesus was born in 4BC";
2. to avoid imposing an explicitly Christian-derived system on the large proportion of the world that is non-Christian and indifferent to or, for historical reasons, less than sympathetic to Christianity;
3. to avoid the huge upheavel and confusion that would be caused by adopting a different origin year from that in wide use.

One often sees pro-BC/AD advocates (curiously, almost always Christians ;-)) railing against this "modern, Christian-attacking" BCE/CE alternative, but I recall that most of my History textbooks back in the late 1960's, at a school run by the christian Methodist Foundation, used BCE/CE. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of BC/AD BCE/CE... I recall reading a proposal in an old Discover magazine that said the only thing that made sense was to adopt some non-culturally-dependent dating system. The one the writer advocated was the beginning of the Holocene, about 11,700 years ago. That also had the benefit (besides being culture-neutral) of essentially being before anything else we'd ever have real dates for (meaning that no written records have survived so long), so that when it came to dealing with human-based activities, you'd never need to use a negative number again. Of course, even if everyone went for that kind of thing, you'd still need to work out what day it was... :) Matt Deres (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Cruel and unusual punishment

When convicted rapists, murderers of children, people who committed horrible crimes, try to delay their executions claiming that the method of their executions (lethal injection, electric chair, gas chamber) is cruel and unusual punishment, isn't that contradictory? can't the Justice overturn that appeal, just to respect the victim's family?. --190.50.108.253 (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The perpetrators' lawyers' job is to do what they can. It's also important to understand that the laws are not written to appease the victims, but to deal with the perps. The "cruel and unusual punishment" argument doesn't really work for capital punishment in the USA. Notice it says "AND" not "OR". Capital punishment is not necessarily legally regard as unusual, nor even necessarily as cruel, especially with lethal injection now the preferred option. If some state were to decide to execute by dropping the perp into a tank of piranhas, the lawyers would have a better case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Believe me Bugs, some would deserve that. --190.50.108.253 (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. McVeigh comes to mind, for example. But, again, the purpose of capital punishment is not revenge primarily, it's permanent removal from society. It used to be that once the perp was found guilty, he was done away with in fairly short order. The dragged-out appeals process now makes capital punishment probably less cost-effective than lifelong confinement. However, sometimes the cost is worth it, for example to finally see an evil character like John Wayne Gacy get fried. Closure is good. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but he was not fried, Ted Bundy was fried. --190.50.108.253 (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking metaphorically. :) Yes, Bundy was fried. Gacy was injected. I learned a bit about executions when Saddam was strung up a few years ago. Hanging is actually a more humane and faster method than almost anything. It just sounds grim. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's of course presuming we're talking about the long (or measured) drop method, which several countries use (including Iraq) instead of the short drop or simple suspension which some countries do use (notably Iran) although even then many won't agree. Even with the measured drop method, it can go wrong although the effect of that is probably easier to see then say with some of the things that can go wrong with the lethal injection. The drop being too long is of course probably a better result then it being too short even if it seems gruesome. Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally in reply to the original question, in many countries the rights of all people, including convicted criminals are important and denying them their rights simply to respect the victims family is unlikely to be acceptable. One of the reasons why these issues come up in death penalty cases is because of the urgency. Once you've carried out the death penalty, it's too late to reverse any decision. Appeals are not that uncommon in other cases too but there's less urgency there since while you can't give the person back the years they spend in prison, you can release them and given them compensation to try and make up for it so the decision is not permanent as such (in some cases the person may of course die in prison particularly if they're old).

Further in reply to the OP, I'm not sure if you're aware of this but at mention in our article, the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution bans "Cruel and unusual punishment" and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights bans "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" so whether the death penaly is a cruel and unusual punishment is an important point in a number of countries including the US. It's not therefore contradictory to argue that the death penalty is a "cruel and unusual punishment". While the method does come in to it and is usually the primary issue in the US, for some abolitionists the idea of a death penalty itself is cruel and unusual, no matter how humanely and painfree it is carried out. In the US, the general current view by the courts is it is not, in Europe there's more support AFAIK for the idea it is. Whether you agree with this view isn't of course an issue suitable for discussion on the RD.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In Europe, the right to not be executed is enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which gained the full force of law eight days ago. Algebraist 16:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

To the OP- there is nothing contradictory in protecting the criminal from cruelty. The state's position is that nobody should be treated cruelly and unusually. That is why the criminal is punished (because he has violated the state's laws), and also why the criminal is protected from cruel and unusual punishment. To say "the criminal treated his victim cruelly, so we should treat him cruelly" would be contradictory. Staecker (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Pretty much every advancement in law since the Code of Hammurabi has rejected this "Eye for an Eye" type of revenge. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "Eye for an eye, aka "Lex talionis", remember that this legal/moral formula is often thought to have been introduced in order to limit revenge/punishment to "proportionate" responses rather than more savage ones (such as death as a punishment for causing injury). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If someone wanted to commit murder and get free room and board for life, certainly Europe would be the place to go. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Technically that is also true for the US as well.--Saddhiyama (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not entirely free - you are usually required to do some kind of work. In the UK, at least, they have to pay you for that work, but they don't pay you very much. But yes, modern prisoners do have it pretty good. You could commit the murder in a US state that doesn't have the death penalty if you wanted, of course. --Tango (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the European position is that killing is morally wrong, period, and that two wrongs don't make a right. Also, killing isn't the best way for the state to prevent killing unless there is no other option, as is the case in defensive warfare. Marco polo (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That is one of many arguments against the death penalty. Others include the fact that you can't fix miscarriages of justice if you have already killed the wrong person and the fact that, at least for some people, life in prison is more of a punishment than death - if you kill someone they don't suffer for long. There are also objections to the US system because it results in people spending decades on death row, which some people see as cruel and unusual in itself. --Tango (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

One more thing about the "victim's family" -- they play little part in the proceedings; a criminal case is not "Victim's Family vs. Accused Murderer", but "The State vs. Accused Murderer". There's likely a good reason for this. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Australia & New Zealand Navy against Japanese Whaling?

The Japanese whalers are in Australian water which is its Exclusive Economic Zone. Why Australia and New Zealand aren't sending their navy and coast guards to stop the Japanese whalers? The Japanese whalers would still hunt for whales despite of the anti-whaling protests. 174.114.236.41 (talk) 04:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's generally bad form to bomb unarmed vessels out of the water, regardless of what they are doing there. --Jayron32 04:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That'd be rather drastic. 174.114.236.41 was probably thinking of arresting the crews, impounding the boats, etc. Or perhaps just escorting them back to Japanese waters (under threat of the arresting and the impounding, etc.) APL (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that. The waters are only in Australia's EEZ because of its claims to Antarctica. The Antarctic Treaty System and the positions of all governments who do not have claims basically mean that nobody recognises any soverign claim over Antarctica. Basically, Australia says "that's Australian waters" and Japan says "no its not". Hell, some greenies got a court injunction against the whalers but even the judge giving it to them said that there was no possibility of its enforcement because of the state of international law regarding Antarctica. If it was in undisputed Australian waters the government would (and regularly does....especially to Indonesian fishing vessels) board and confiscate the vessel.203.217.43.224 (talk) 09:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Teaching technique for young adults

Is there a teaching technique, especially for higher education students, where a game is involved that in order to accomplish the goal the process teaches the subject? What are these type of techniques called? Can you give examples?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Edutainment and Educational game should have some useful info. --Pleasantman (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a game called "The Regeneration Game" which was produced by NIACE in the UK, which aimed to increase participants awareness of the issues around urban and rural regeneration. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Randy Pausch, the American professor of computer science and human-computer interaction who achieved worldwide fame with "The Last Lecture: Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams" describes in that lecture this very technique. He calls it a "head fake", and designed Alice (software) to teach kids how to program without them realising that that was what they were learning. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Now I get it and have a better understanding on this concept. Apparently Aesop's Fables and Parables of Jesus fit this category? Would Paradox (literature) fit this concept? And Allegory of the Cave by Plato?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I always think of these techniques as Karate Kid teaching. Just like Mr. Miyagi teaches Daniel fighting techniques without doing it overtly, but by trickeration, so don't these teaching techniques. They work pretty well for kids, but I should note that as an adult, I always tend to see beyond them, kind of like seeing the man behind the curtain who is making the Wizard of Oz talk, so I am more annoyed when someone tries them on me. I find that adults learn better when you "give it to them straight", but that kids do respond well to this sort of teaching. --Jayron32 22:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So you were able to see right through Plato: The Allegory of the Cave, from The Republic?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dante's Divine Comedy seems to be a figurative mode of representation conveying meanings other than the literal. According to the article it seems to convey certain levels of meaning: the historical, the moral, the literal, and the anagogical. This to me seems to be "behind the scenes" lessons intended for adults. You can see through the story?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

early Congolese bishop

In A Brief History of the Human Race (New York, 2003, p. 313), Michael Cook writes that a Congolese king sent some of his people to be educated in Europe, of whom "one in due course was made a titular bishop by a reluctant pope." The reference is not documented. Can anyone tell me the bishop's name? Thank you. -- --Halcatalyst (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a time period? Christianity is 2000 years old or so, so it would be much easier if we knew roughly when this event occured. --Jayron32 17:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This was the Kingdom of Kongo in the sixteenth century. Afonso I of Kongo is the king in question. "Part of the establishment of this church was the creation of a strong priesthood and to this end Afonso's son Henrique was sent to Europe to be educated. Henrique became an ordained priest and in 1518 was named as bishop of Utica (a North African diocese in the hands of Muslims). He returned to Kongo in the early 1520s to run Kongo's new church. He died in 1531 as he was about to go to Europe for the Council of Trent." Adam Bishop (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow! I'm impressed with the quickness of this response and with the article "Roman Catholic Church in Kongo"" to which it led me. Thanks! --Halcatalyst (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! There was only a small time period in which there was a kingdom in the Congo that was in contact with Europeans, it wasn't too hard to find. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Pompey

In the article on section "Caesar and the First Triumvirate" it says he was overseer of Rome's grain supply in 59 BC during his consulship. Later in 55 BC he obtained another consulship (through political corruption). Did he then have another governorship control as overseer of Rome's grain supply during this second consulship?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Was this in 55 BC the First Triumvirate or the Second Triumvirate?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

::I assume this was during his second political alliance with Crassus that he had governorship of Hispania Ulterior that was in absentia.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently his very first control of Rome's grain supply was in 82 BC when he secured Sicily?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawing questions.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Critisms of John Kufuor

Is there any oppositions and concerns about John Kufuor? I originally thought John Kufuor waa an excelent leader until I visit my old high school and the principal told me John Kufuor was on the news all the times and they have been concerns about his leadership.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there any leader who manages not to raise concerns? Government is the art of balancing resources and priorities. Even for well run governments, those are not things lending themselves to consensus, and that's before we put an ideological overlay on top. That said, I have no knowledge beyond this general observation. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The perfect defense against capital punishment?

If someone is accused of a capital crime, the defense attorney, during jury selection, asks each venireman, "Could you ever sentence anyone to death?" If the person answers "yes", the attorney should dismiss him. If the person answers "no", the prosecution can't dismiss him because the prosecuting attorney is required to make his decision before the defense attorney questions the venireman, as well as because of the Supreme Court's decision in Witherspoon v. Illinois. If the jury acquits the defendant, he can't be retried and is thus free to go. If the jury convicts him, they lied during jury selection, meaning that they are guilty of perjury and also that the trial is invalid.

There's got to be some reason why this wouldn't work, otherwise someone would have already thought of this. Why wouldn't this work? ----J4\/4 <talk> 17:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

They probably aren't allowed to ask that question, especially if the case could lead to capital punishment. They can't just ask any random question, and they can't consciously compose a biased jury. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it the judge who does the sentencing? Also, there are ways of discerning a potential juror's attitude towards various things - particularly, upholding the law whether they agree with that law personally or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In the United States, no, Bugs, the judge doesn't sentence a prisoner to death; in the interest of reducing the capricious and/or random imposition of the death penalty, it is now required to be the jury that sentences, due to Furman v. Georgia. Back to the original question, that's a tactic that doesn't work, because, I believe, each side can strike an unlimited number of potential jurors for reason in the voir dire process, but only a limited number without reason — of course, there is a damn good reason for the "without reason" dismissals, but the attorney doesn't want to tell the judge the reason. The "for reason" dismissals have to be that the attorney has a legitimate concern the juror would not be able to render a fair verdict or sentence under the law. The potential jurors who answer "yes" to your question then the juror is affirming that he/she is able to render a fair verdict under the law, so this would not be a dismissal for cause; it would have to be without cause, and the attorney only gets to do that something like 10 times. Sorry, I've no reference for any of this at the moment; will look later. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In the Scott Peterson case, which is fairly recent, the jury recommended the death penalty, but the judge made the decision and pronounced sentence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the judge can't sentence someone to death without that recommendation from the jury. --Tango (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. However, I'm guessing he can reduce the sentence or even vacate the conviction if he thinks the decision is unfair? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think he would dismiss the case without letting the jury return a verdict rather than vacate the conviction afterwards, but yes, I think judges can stop juries being overly strict. They just can't require a jury to be stricter. --Tango (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

A well known recent case of a judge vacating a conviction after the verdict is the Louise Woodward case. A fictional death penalty one is in Playback (novel). Death-qualified jury may help the OP, usually nowadays the prosecutor has already eliminated the yeses.John Z (talk) 06:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The section on bias in the last article is I think an important point (that I've read discussed before). Also I think you mean the prosecutor has already eliminated the noes. As they have, this of course means that even if the defense were to try it, they would hit their 10 limit without even getting any noes since there are no more noes in the pool. If there were no limit, it would just mean that they run out of candidates since clearly if one is elimnating the noes and the other is eliminating the yeses you're not getting anywhere (well there may be maybes and refuse to answer but the later is almost definitely going to be eliminated and the former probably as well) Nil Einne (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Illegally collecting unemployment in the US

I know someone who is illegally collecting unemployment while she is working 40 hrs a week for a temp agency in CT USA. Will she get caught? I don't think it's fair that my tax dollars are paying for her greed. --JBikeride (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Look up your state's unemployment insurance department phone number and leave an anonymous tip, then. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking this might come under the guidelines of what the reference desk is not or maybe fall under a form of women folk gossip.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

HA HA HA YOU KNOW HOW THOSE WOMEN ARE WITH THEIR GOSSIP AND THEIR UNIMPORTANT CONCERNS. Or, in other words, men and women gossip (although men tend to call it other things, since 'only women gossip'). I have heard at least as many men as women speculate on the employment, situation, etc of people they know.

More specifically to this case, the OP does not say they think the person is illegally collecting unemployment: sounds like they're pretty sure (possibly the person themself said as much). So, it is the case of knowing that a crime has been and is being committed. Whether you report it or not depends on whether you think the world would be improved by people reporting this sort of crime, whether you think the world would be improved by people being prevented from committing this sort of crime, what you think would happen if you didn't, what you think would happen if you did, etc. The OP has asked for help in finding information to allow them to weigh these factors up ("Will she get caught?") and has been given a possible lead to resolve it (By Comet Tuttle). If you have more information that could help them (such as a phone number specifically set up for such things), provide it. If not, don't. 86.166.148.95 (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the amount you can draw out of unemployment insurance tied to how much you have contributed to it? After you extract a certain amount (the amount you put in?) you are no longer able to take it out and the UE cheques stop coming. That's when you have to start abusing welfare instead, which is considerably less generous, I believe. So by collecting UE while you're employed you are hurting yourself, as well as doing something illegal, and it probably doesn't make much sense based on that alone (unless you never expect to withdraw your UE contributions). That is my understanding based almost entirely on the episode of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia entitled "Dennis and Dee Go on Welfare". TastyCakes (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And we haven't even got to all those that work under the table for CASH. THOSE are the ones I would think one should be concerned about as nothing gets reported and they don't even have to pay taxes. How many of those do you think there are in CT USA? I'll guarantee you way more than you can handle. How many of those do you know about? Do you report those? I'll bet not. If you don't know of any, then maybe there isn't any - or is there? Of course there is! Maybe the problem is really a problem of jealousy about one particular individual. Otherwise why not work on all those CASH workers that don't even pay taxes.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that JBikeride should not report a definite crime that he/she happens to know about because, you surmise, he/she may know about other comparable crimes and, you assume, has not reported them, and you feel free on this basis to speculate about what you hypothesize may be JBikeride's "real" motivations? This line of thought can only morph into a discussion, so I think it should go no further. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I note that JBikeride has brought three crimes to our attention in the last two days (theft, drug peddling and now fraud). Not sure what to make of that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If she is really concerned about her tax dollars I think perhaps her time would be better spent going after the big fish, instead of the little minnows - like those that do not pay their taxes. Many of those would be day laborers working for CASH and many of the self-employed. How about a person that just got layed off and became a real estate agent. S/he could collect umemployment for up to a year and get commission checks at the same time. Since commission checks are not "in the system" as a normal payroll check is, it simply can be cashed and the money disappears. If that person is not honest on their income tax reporting, then they don't have to pay taxes on their commission checks. This could amount to thousands of dollars, maybe even tens-of-thousands of dollars of tax free money - all the while collecting umemployment at the same time. I'm simply not convinced there is a crime here. If that person is working for a temp agency then they are "in the system" and their imcome is reported to the unemployment insurance agency of their local area. This other lady already obviously knows this, since she "supposedly" is collecting unemployment, because of her previous employer reporting. Since she knows how the system works, then why would she collect unemployment AND work for an employer that would report her income? Doesn't make sense! In many states a real estate agent's commission check is not reported to anyone, so it can slip through the system simply by cashing it. So bottomline is if that person is doing as JBikerid is saying, then yes that person will be caught automatically by the local unemployment insurance agency as they are "in the system" and it would show up in the computers automatically with a red flag. I'd worry about the other ones, otherwise I'd mind my own business.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"if that person is doing as JBikerid is saying, then yes that person will be caught automatically by the local unemployment insurance agency as they are "in the system" and it would show up in the computers automatically with a red flag." Hooray! A helpful answer that directly addresses the question the OP asked. 86.166.148.95 (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all very much. I appreciate all opinions. In this case, I was just fed up with the boasting this person makes and her weekly drunken binges at the cars an clubs. I was laid off earlier this year (now employed) but I put my EU to good use (rent, food, essentials) and once I was employed again, I did not file for EU again. This person also uses and sells drugs on the side and that's why I might have a nasty taste in my mouth for this person. --JBikeride (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC) (oops, forgot to sign in)

I'll even go so far to say I do not see any crimes here; theft, drug peddling nor fraud. The only way JBikeride would "know" this for sure is to have seen a unemployment check and a temp agency payroll check showing the same time period. I don't believe she has (I'm calling her bluff!). This would be a good time to speak up and say so, otherwise I'm sticking to my jealousy theory. I don't think leaving an anonymous tip at the state's unemployment insurance department would do any good. Reason being: How many of those do you suppose they get daily? Do you really believe they have the manpower (or woman power) to follow up on all these, where the odds are most will be dead ends because somebody was speculating. Better have better proof that just speculating or else I speculate nothing will happen. Silence now from the original questionaire person means she is just speculationg, purely guessing - most likely because of jealousy. Besides, if the lady is working for a temp agency it probably means she applied there (as well as many other places) for work - a requirement of her state's unemployment insurance department in order to get further unemployment. I'll speculate after she was hired with the temp agency that she then told her unemployment insurance department she got a 40 hour job and then the checks stopped coming to her. I'm speculating this employed lady obviously knows how the system works, while JBikerid does not.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Understand your stance, regardless, someone abusing privlages is not fair to others who need it. I am at a loss at what to do bc the other things I didn't mention was theft, drug use, drug selling, and claiming unemployment. The "proof" I have is that this person told me directly exactly what she was doing and how she could always find ways to get easy money. You might call it jealousy. Myself, I see a person that needs help and really tired of witnessing these crimes, petty and not petty. --JBikeride (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, jealousy. I knew it all along. The other lady is teasing you. Dr. Phil might be able to help. No more advice from me as I won't be able to help you from here. I answered all your questions.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps teasing is not fully the correct word and a better word would be taunt. She knows you have no proof on all these other items you speak of and is taunting you to do something. This then will get you into trouble, which is exactly what she wants. I'd say ignore her, mind your own business, and go onto bigger and better things - or see Dr. Phil. I can not help you more than this other than to say there is easier ways to make money than you are doing - and not break any laws! Try Brian Tracy. His material is at your local library AND I have not connection to him. Just trying to help you.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

In answer to the OP's comment I am at a loss at what to do...: This whole thing doesn't make any difference to me since now I am comfortably retired. I'd say get a skilled job. Spend your time learning something of skill that pays well and you like. Don't spend your time on what others are doing or saying - its a waste of time. In your previous reply you say ....someone abusing privlages is not fair to others who need it. It looks like you did not miss out on any of your unemployment - so I don't see your concern. What I see here, besides jealousy, is you wish to get more from the system for yourself. Looks like lazyness to me. You got enough to get you to your next job, didn't you? What's it to you what other's do with their unemployment money, as you do not know for sure what they did with it AND it doesn't make any difference anyway. I was the best in my field and I earned approximately 10 times what others in that field earned. Get skilled, get really really skilled in some field you like - and you will earn plenty. Anyway, that is the advice from an old retiree. The meek shall inherit the earth.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think you should ignore 64's speculation, and leave that anonymous tip, and then don't worry about it anymore. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What I meant to say was: The meek shall inherit the earth.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Old English Proverb

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.138.237.101 (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Some quotes from Poor Richard's Almanack:

• Idleness and pride tax with a heavier hand than kings and parliaments.
• Trust thy self, and another shall not betray thee.
• He that is rich need not live sparingly, and he that can live sparingly need not be rich.
• A learned blockhead is a greater blockhead than an ignorant one.
• Look before, or you'll find yourself behind.
• Necessity never made a good bargain.
• Keep thy shop, & thy shop will keep thee.
• Early to bed and early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise.
• Some are weatherwise, some are otherwise.
• If you know how to spend less than you get, you have the Philosophers-Stone.
• God helps them that help themselves.
• Plough deep, while Sluggards sleep; And you shall have Corn, to sell and to keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.138.237.101 (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• He that would live in peace and at ease, must not speak all he knows, nor judge all he sees.

--64.138.237.101 (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Comet Tuttle. It looks like he has a chip on his shoulder. Ignore his rants. Let's all remind him that this is a reference desk, not a soapbox. --Reticuli88 (talk) 13:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Aha, another jealous one. This is way too easy to respond to. Like shooting fish in a barrel. Note that Reticuli88 has to yell to get his message across by talking ONLY in bold. Speak softly, its better heard (not sure who said that). Obviously my message got across, why else did he respond that way. I was suspicious my answers were not going to be totally accepted, so that is why I explained up front: This whole thing doesn't make any difference to me since now I am comfortably retired. One of the reasons for this I believe is because I followed the advice of people like Benjamin Franklin and Brian Tracy (who have excellent reputations for giving outstanding advice to life's problems, like Dr. Phil). I think what applies here is Benjamin Franklin's quote: Look before, or you'll find yourself behind. In other words, look ahead before you do anything or you may find yourself further behind. My advice to JBikeride's problem is to do nothing and it will automatically take care of itself. This was confirmed to be a good reply by 86.166.148.95 above. Now if she takes the advice of Comet Tuttle and Reticuli88 then this is what likely will happen (in my opinion). An "anonymous tip" in all likelihood will be ignored. However, lets assume someone follows up on this from the local unemployment insurance department. Then this "other lady" will be interviewed and the "anonymous tipster" will be talked about. One thing will lead to another and in all likelihood it will be figured out it was JBikeride - or at least her name will be thrown into the hat (consisting of one name). The basic reason for this is: Who else would have a grudge against this "other lady"? Now JBikeride will be red flagged and watched closely. And probably she will have to reply to other "authorities" which will not only take much time, but a bunch of money (something I assume is in short supply). Perhaps she might even have to hire an attorney. Seems like a lot of trouble for just a little jealousy. Or she could do nothing and it automatically takes care of itself. With all this extra time then (if she does nothing), she could study up on Benjamin Franklin (Poor Richard's Almanack) and Brian Tracy (which material can be found in the local library). But then what do I know, for I am now comfortably retired.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to think any other authorities are going to pursue JBikeride for honestly reporting what he/she believes may have been a violation of the law. If fact, if this does happen, since we're apparently talking about the US here, it seems to me JBikeride would have a good chance of persuing this in court and getting a good settlement. I don't know what country you live in but I definitely don't want to live there if authorities redflag and harass you for honestly reporting what you genuinely believe to be a violation of the law. Thankfully that's not what happens in most of the developed world and even in many parts of the developing world except for some exceptions (which usually involve when you are reporting powerful people or companies not minnows as you say). Also if this problem will automatically take care of itself, then the authorities will know of that and they may thank JBikeride for his/her information while informing not to worry because their systems are rigirous enough that it'll be taken care of by itself. I.E. there's still little loss to anyone from reporting it and no cause for concern. I do agree that there's a fair chance nothing will happen from this, but it doesn't mean there's no point reporting it, it's probably better to let the authorities decide that. There's little point worrying so much about such things since unless the authorities are really really dumb, they'll already be aware whether it's something they need to be concerned about and won't expect private citizens to always be aware of such details. It's also not the OP's responsibility to decide who the authorities should pursue. The OP is simply reporting someone they encountered in life, there's no evidence they are even chasing after people to try and find crimes (the fact that the OP apparently knows 3 people committing crimes may say something about the kind of company they hang out with, it doesn't mean they are purposely looking for people committing crimes) and if you feel the authorities should go after the 'big fish' more, then you should tell someone who can do something about that rather then complaining to the OP that the authorities are too busy pursing minnows (although if the authorities in your area are genuinely harassing and redflagging people for honestly reporting what they believe to be violations of the law then I think you have far bigger problems). In other words, I agree with CometTuttle and Retticul88, the OP should just report it, anonymously if they wish, and not worry about it or 64.138 anymore. BTW, please don't accuse people of being 'jealous', that's close to a violation of WP:NPA in my book. P.S. I highly doubt Dr. Phil would encourage people to not honestly report what they genuinely believe to be crimes. Far more likely his advice would be something like mine, CT and R88, i.e. report it and don't worry about it anymore Nil Einne (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm way up there on the left

Wow, sure can tell how young you guys are. As I already pointed out above Benjamin Franklin also said A learned blockhead is a greater blockhead than an ignorant one. However I forgot to include in the list Don't throw stones at your neighbours, if your own windows are glass. Sure am scared of your threats. Experience keeps a dear school, yet Fools will learn in no other. The Devil sweetens Poison with Honey. Must go now, there is a really long beach waiting for me....--64.138.237.101 (talk) 12:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really give a stuff about blockheads or Benjamin Franklin but when you mention 'threats' I presume you're referring to our my mention of our NPA policy. It is a serious policy and people are blocked for violating it, no matter whether they are retired, learned or whatever. And you're not supposed to be scared, you're simply supposed to understand that we have rules here on wikipedia and yes you do have to obey them regardless of what you think of them and one of those rules is you do not personally attack contributors. If you want to civilly disagree with someone or feel that what they're saying is silly or flawed that's fine (well provided it isn't soapboxing etc), but do it without resorting to attacks on someone's character or anything else. If you are unable to do so, then you probably shouldn't be contributing to wikipedia. And frankly, if your recourse in an argument is to attack the person making the argument, that often indicates you have a poor argument in the first poor place and definitely not something I would consider a sign of maturity. As for your glass houses argument, if you feel I have made a personal attack against you, please point out where since although I freely admit I have been close to guilty of it on occasion, I took care here to avoid it. Similarly if you have any other problems with my behaviour you're welcome to discuss it with me (probably best on my talk page) and bring it to an appropriate venue if you don't get a satisfactory outcome. Again I'll freely admit I often make me mistakes but that doesn't preclude me reminding or informing other editors that they're close to crossing the line when I see it, it never does. Sure if another editor continually harasses someone over their poor behaviour when they themselves are often guilty of it people will often look unfavourably on that but you'll find the 'but he/she's doing it too' argument doesn't work very well on wikipedia, at most both people will be blocked or admonished. Part of contributing to wikipedia is learning to accept criticism from people who are not perfect themselves. Nil Einne (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully, increase in age doesn't always mean increase in wisdom (or EI). 64 should lay off the Dr. Phil shows and the Farmers Alamanac and read about Downing effect and Dunning–Kruger effect and Crank (person) --Reticuli88 (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Awesome comeback, Reticuli88!!--JBikeride (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Poor Richard's Almanack not Farmers' Almanac.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2009 (UT

I thought you were at the beach, gramps? --Reticuli88 (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So very very young! Late Children, early Orphans. This grampy is not grumpy.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As Charms are nonsense, Nonsense is a Charm.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 11:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Coronation of Richard II of England

Hello, I'd like a bit of information on the coronation of Richard II of England, particularly information on what events would have taken place and what nobles might have been in attendance. I'd also like a bit of information on the appointment of titles to the nobles during the coronation and in what manner this was done. Basically just general information regarding the event, kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• There's a lot of useful information in this book. It seems that most of the details of the event come from Thomas Walsingham's Historia Anglicana, so, if you can obtain a translation, that might well answer your questions. Warofdreams talk 03:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Walsingham is available as PDFs here. It might be better to ask on the Richard II talk page, since it's a Featured Article and whoever worked on it probably has access to that information. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You might also take a look at The Last Plantagenets by Thomas B. Costain. If you're into English history, that entire series, starting with The Conquering Family, is well worth reading. They are non-fiction, but written in almost a novelstic style. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Confessing upon hearing Not guilty verdict

Has anyone cofessed to a crime upon hearing "not guilty", sure that double jeopardy means they couldn't be tried again. 92.224.205.128 (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hard telling, but that would be a stupid thing to do, as it would open him up to civil action. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be foolish as if they had been declared not guilty they couldn't be tried again anyway, regardless of whether they confessed afterwards or not. Although, if they did confess that may be considered as "new evidence", and therefore the person may be tried again for the same crime, but based on different facts (i.e. their confession). In anycase its hard to know if anyone has ever done that, regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

He couldn't be tried for the same crime twice. If he had testified in court and proclaimed his innocence, maybe they could get him for perjury. But regardless of the verdict, if someone confesses to a crime, you can bet there will be someone ready to sue him for damages of some kind. The O.J. case is a close example. He didn't confess overtly, but he managed to be found liable in a wrongful-death suit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The way I understand double jeopardy the defendant couldn't be tried twice for the same crime if the prosecution is based on the same set of facts, surely the confession would be considered a "new" fact? Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This all depends on the jurisdiction. In the US, I believe double jeopardy is pretty absolute, the prosecution have to get all the evidence in place before they start. In the UK, the law was recently changed so that significant new evidence could allow a new trial. I don't know about other jurisdictions. Whether claiming innocence in court is perjury also depends on the jurisdiction - in some jurisdictions the defendant doesn't have to take the oath (this is related to the right to remain silent, I think) so they can lie as much as they like. --Tango (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If they're not compelled to take the oath, I don't see why any juror would believe them. They cannot be compelled to testify, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Lying under oath, even if it's claiming innocence, if untrue, is under the auspices of perjury. The 5th amendment (in the US) doesn't permit you to lie, simply to not testify. I've never heard of permitting someone to testify without taking the oath.

Double Jeopardy (again, I'm talking about the US here) only applies to the particular sovereign. So a state may prosecute for a state crime despite an acquittal in a federal case. There are issues of collateral estoppel that might apply, but those are going to vary quite a bit. As for the constitutional protection, it applies to the sovereign, and multiple prosecutions are possible. Shadowjams (talk) 10:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought new evidence could only exonerate you - that you could not be tried again once found not guilty regardless of the new evidence. By the way what really would happen if immediately when the jury read "not guilty" the defendent popped up in their seat and said "ahahaha gotcha bitches! I'm guilty as sin buthank God I live in the greatest country on Earth!!!". What could they do? (other than hold you in contempt of court) 85.181.148.40 (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

someone might yell "Mr Garrow!". In all honesty I do not know ^^. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As Bugs said, they could arrest the accused for perjury, which is a felony in the US and rarely prosecuted except for outrageous events such as the one you describe; and also the victim, or the victim's relatives, could file a civil suit for monetary damages and get an easy victory because of the "bitches" confession. But "new evidence" does not allow for trying the accused again in the US; that would be easily gamed by any cruel district attorney, who would try the accused once and withhold a few thimblefuls of evidence barely important enough for the purpose; each time the accused was declared not guilty, the DA would declare he had found an additional thimbleful of evidence and try the accused again, until he was bankrupt and destroyed. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And the scenario you've just described is precisely the reason for the double jeopardy rule in the USA - to prevent prosecutors from continuing to retry someone until they get a guilty verdict. Presumably that kind of thing used to happen under British rule. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, not in the last 940 years or so in England, as our article on Double jeopardy mentions; or did you mean by "British" rule that rule "predating the Anglo-Saxon conquest of England"? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, yes, new evidence can exonerate the convicted person. Note it has to be new evidence. Part of the check and balance is that the defense can't ask for a new trial on the same evidence, in hopes of finding a more sympathetic jury. Appeals are based on claims of new evidence and/or claims of legal errors on the part of the prosecution. That's kind of the flipside of the double jeopardy rule. If the higher courts agree that the trial was unfair or that new evidence could make a difference, they will order a new trial and the convict has another chance to beat the rap. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't this most of the idea behind Fracture (2007 film)? TastyCakes (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And now we are all lawyers? Bielle (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is actually planning to do this. It's hardly legal advice. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Neither have we answered the question of whether it has ever actually happened. With all the criminal cases in all the courts in all the world, I'd certainly be surprised if it hadn't, but I haven't heard of any famous cases. Perhaps because defendants in famous cases tend to have good lawyers who will advise them against such admissions. --Anonymous, 05:10 UTC, December 10, 2009.

Emmett Till.—eric 05:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Julie Hogg.—eric 05:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That's more like it! Especially the first one, as the other says it was "years later". Thanks. --Anon, 10:41 UTC, December 10, 2009.

Although the US has a double jeopardy law, it's possible for people to be tried by a federal court for violating someone's human rights even if they've been acquitted of attacking/killing them in a state court, as happened with Rodney King and Vincent Chin. This isn't possible in every case, of course.--Pleasantman (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

In the TV series The Practice, although ficticious it was complimented for some of its accuracy. Their one case, as they were defense lawyers, was to defend a serial killer, who insisted he was guilty. They argued insanity, that he believes he committed the murders when in fact he didn't. They win the case, even though the guy was guilty and maintained his guilt throughout, but he was crafty in that he re-stated a lie that the police had put out about one of the murders in the newspaper, as if to demonstrate that he wasn't the murderer but was learning all about the murders from the press. Rfwoolf (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

December 10

Car manufacturers in Bangladesh

Which automobile manufacturers are being used by an average Bangladeshi? Honda? Toyota? Mazda? Nissan? MErcedes-Benz? BMW? Jaguar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.116.24 (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Manufacturers include: Bajaj Auto, Premier Padmini, and Tata Motors. More information here here. I hope that helped. JW..[ T..C ] 01:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The average Bangladeshi does not own or often travel in an automobile, unless you include buses. Marco polo (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If they drove or owned an automobile, there is a good chance it would be built by one of those manufacturers. I do agree that the average Bangladeshi does not own an automobile. JW..[ T..C ] 04:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason they would prefer to buy Indian rather than from another Asian country? Is there a domestic automobile industry? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Price. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't ask if they own Indian cars. I meant to say that which automobile do they drive because I see they drive different cars that not seen in North America and the only time I have seen these cars in Bangladesh is when I watch Bangladeshi dramas and/or movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.201 (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Correlational studies?

In a correlational study, why is it incorrect for a researcher to write about one variable producing changes in a second variable? What language would be preferable, in a research report? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joetrivium (talk • contribs) 04:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You are asking why Correlation does not imply causation, aren't you? --Dr Dima (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in part. The language to reflect conclusions is the main interest of mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joetrivium (talk • contribs) 05:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do researchers use language that does not state causation when the study design does not provide any firm answers regarding causation? Because the researchers want to be truthful, or cynically, using causation language would get the paper rejected from reputable journals. What language is preferable...something to the effect of 'An increase in variable X is associated with an increase in variable Y' (for a positive correlation). Basically any phrasing that merely states that there is some sort of connection between changes in one variable with changes in the other variable(s) without implying that the first variable is the sole cause.--droptone (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Because research requires exceeding discernment + discrimination, the verbiage used to analyze, evaluate and determine proposed or discovered relationships or lack thereof in respect to, for example, the presence or absence of protein A and the proposed subsequent effect A' must tread lightly and not exceed the powers of deduction themselves. A great example is in a recent OPT study (Obstetric + Periodontal Therapy) in which pregnant human females exhibiting periodontal disease were either given periodontal therapy during the second trimester or a few weeks postpartum. The results showed no significant difference between the test and control groups in terms of pre-term birth, and as such, the null hypothesis was unable to be rejected. Even that concept -- rejection of the null hypothesis -- is a great item to study in terms of language used to reflect reality. One can never prove the null hypothesis, one can only succeed or fail to reject it. The results of the OPT study, that the periodontal therapy made no statistical difference between the groups doesn't mean that periodontal therapy doesn't help, but that periodontal therapy as provided in this study doesn't help. Therapy provided in the first trimester or even prenatally, or continual therapy provided over a long time (rather than just one time periodontal therapy) might provide a significant difference, but that wasn't what was tested. Check out the articles on null hypothesis, sensitivity and specificity and other statistics related articles to see how language is used very precisely to express exactly what is meant. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The difference between correlation and causation is mechanism. In other words, before we can say "X causes Y" we must first be able to show the "method by which X causes Y". For example, I can demonstrate that pushing the rightmost pedal down causes my car to go forward because I can trace a mechanism by which one event makes the other event happen; I can see how all the bits work together. Likewise, we can say that "virus A causes disease B" because we can see how the virus operates in cells, what it does to the cells it enters, what changes it causes in the cells, and how those changes lead to symptoms in the host. HOWEVER, for other things, such causations are not readily apparent. For example, having a parent who died of cancer is correlated to you getting cancer yourself. It is not readily apparent, however, by which mechanism the connection is made. It could be genetic, for example the parent may have passed on a gene which leads to cancer in you. It could be environmental, for example the parent and you presumably lived in the same environment for many years, and so shared the same sorts of contact with carcinogens. It could be behavioral, for example you could have learned certain risky behaviors from your parent. The deal is, none of these is strictly causitive in the sense that you parent's cancer made you have cancer too. Its only correlative because there is a statistical coincidence in that cancer tends to run in families. There is a fault in people drawing causitive conclusions from data which is only correlative. --Jayron32 19:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Pradeshiya Sabha in Sri Lanka

According to Gampaha, a Pradeshiya Sabha is a "divisional council" in Sri Lanka, but there is nothing in Wikipedia about divisional councils, although this could be - or not be - related to Divisional Secretariats of Sri Lanka. I found the place in many places on the web, but I could find no definition. I found the word "pradeshiya" here in the Tamil translation of "divisional secretariats", but the following word is not "sabha", so I can guess there are probably divisional councils related to divisional secretariats, but I find it surprising that I can find no authoritative answer on the web. I didn't find relevant interwikis and I have no easy way of searching online or paper dictionaries for the moment. Apokrif (talk) 10:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

These are usually circular definitions, i.e. meanings are varied but are not obsolete. So you may want to check literature like devolution in the case of a devolved ligature, or ligature of administrative apparatuses in the case of an accord of federalism or quasi federalism.Couchworthy (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

A Pradeshiya Sabha is a Provincial Council (an elected body, as opposed to a government-appointed Secretariat), the ones mentioned here. We should definately have a Pradeshiya Sabha article. --Soman (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

First science fiction literature

Is Frankenstein first science fiction literature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lit Scholar (talk • contribs) 13:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

History of science fiction, especially, probably, History_of_science_fiction#European_proto-science_fiction. Some say yes. Some say no. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Brian Aldiss is probably one of the more vocal proponents and makes a good case in Billion Year Spree. Should be stuffed in my library somewhere. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Which is noted in the referenced article now that I read it. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a certain case to be made for a book like Utopia, written by Thomas More in 1516, that it may qualify as a bit of "Proto-sci-fi" for the very sci-fi elements that it uses. If you consider that travel to the stars wasn't part of the 16th century worldview, then Utopia reads very much like science fiction. The fact that it is forward looking as a book in terms of looking towards a more advanced sort of human society is why it is probably closer to sci-fi than fantasy, which as a genre is usually more backward looking. The cite above from History of Science Fiction notes this as well. --Jayron32 16:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Some might consider Gulliver's Travels to be SciFi. The predates Frankenstein by something like 100 years. Googlemeister (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want a journey to the moon almost a millennium and a half before Sir Thomas More, then look at Lucian of Samosata's True History... AnonMoos (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I did not know they had discovered "magic" mushrooms then. Googlemeister (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The discovery and regular use of such resources probably predates Homo sapiens as a species. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Plato wrote about Atlantis 500 years earlier. --Major Bonkers (talk) 06:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

rednecks and reverse parody

hello,

a friend argued that 'rednecks', the song by Randy Newman, is a reverse parody. Does a reverse parody exist, and if it does, what is it?

thank you, Whambarfoddbadseed

[lyrics removed]

Hi, you can't post the entire lyrics to a copyrighted song on Wikipedia. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"Reverse parody" sounds like a meaningless phrase to me. Have you read our Rednecks (song) article? Newman is tearing into Southerners but also into Northerners, and the possibly unreliable narrator makes it interesting. The Parody article is probably a good read, too. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think by 'reverse parody' the OP meant 'self parody' (where the author/singer parodies himself). The term is in the parody article you linked, Comet. --Joe^Talk_Work 03:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Good link. Of course, in this particular song, Newman isn't parodying himself. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead sentences in Nationalism article

A rather civil discussion at this article involves the first few sentences in the lead - that is, its definition (Talk:Nationalism#Disputable_definition). I'd like to see some good dictionaries' and encyclopedias' definitions there, rather than individual scholars' takes, preserving those in a subsequent dedicated section. Thoughts please. Novickas (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that the opening sentence should distill a few authoritative dictionary definitions. Of course, the problem with dictionary definitions is that dictionaries aim to isolate subtly different meanings of words, whereas what you want here is really what those definitions have in common. I also agree that the opening sentence is problematic in citing just one possible meaning of the word, a meaning that, for example, excludes forms of nationalism among peoples who do not (yet) have their own state as well as forms of nationalism involving commitment to states (such as the United States) that lack an ethnic identity. Here is a case where Wikipedia's often valuable insistence on attributing every statement to one or more reputable sources (and acceptance of any statement backed by a reputable source) can lead to problems. Marco polo (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Nationalism can only be defined as a worldview that holds to the primacy of one's own nation and ferverent support for that nation. Any differing views on the definition of nationalism only arise from the problem with nailing down what a nation really is. That is not an easy task of itself, however any definition of nationalism must contain the exact same sorts of gray areas that exist in the definition of a nation. --Jayron32 19:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that Jayron is on the right track. The definition should reference the word nation. Probably immediately after a couple of sentences laying out this general definition, the article should unpack the different meanings of the word nation and how they give rise to different varieties of nationalism. Marco polo (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This should not be discussed on the reference desk. It should be discussed on the talk page. Please take it there.' DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Jayron32 seems to be describing the practice of nationalism, rather than its meaning. I would offer "Nationalism is the elevation of the nation(-state) above other possible contenders for loyalty, such as religion, class or community." DOR (HK) (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

December 11

Why would a nondisclosure agreement be governed by Texas?

Resolved

See http://blog.texasnoncompetelaw.com/ for one possible explanation. SinglePurpose393 (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Why would an international company based in New Jersey want people to sign a nondisclosure agreement governed with jurisdiction in the State of Texas? SinglePurpose393 (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

One of the basic principles in U.S. law is that a contract granted in good faith under the laws of one state should be honored in all 50 states, even if local rules differ. This principle is what makes gay marriage so controversial, if even one state legalizes gay marriage, any legally obtained gay marriages in one state must be honored in all 50 states, even if gay marriages are not legal in all 50 states. There may be certain ways that nondisclosure agreements are handled in Texas which would make it a favorable state to make them legally binding in. There is also the possibility that the company may be legally incoproated in Texas for tax reasons, even if they do no business there and have no employees there. Delaware is famous for this. Something like half of all corporations in the country is has their official state of incorporation as Delaware because of favorable tax laws there. (see this reference from the State Government). That's 850,000 corportations in a state with a population of about 850,000. You do that math. Something similar may be going on with a New Jersey company registering NDAs in Texas. So there's two possibilities for the situation you describe. --Jayron32 05:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Jayron hit on some interesting points, but let me try and clarify some of them. Ultimately what you're asking is what feature of Texas law is there that makes non disclosures particularly enforceable there. I don't know the answer to that question. But a lot else is going on here too.

The full faith and credit clause that Jayron32 is referring to isn't the same thing as pre-judgment choice of law questions, and isn't especially applicable here. If state X wanted to make contracts created in state Y unenforceable, I know of no reason why the full faith and credit clause would stop them (Other provisions might of course). It is the legal reason for much of the gay marriage issue, but those don't have much to do with a choice of law provision in a contract.

Venue clauses in a contract will have varying degrees of enforceability, but it's ultimately a choice of law question in whatever jurisdiction someone chooses to bring suit. That is not necessarily the place where the contract arises.

I don't know of any state that registers NDAs either, and the reason for Delaware's corporate prominence has a lot to do with things other than tax law. They have an extremely efficient secretary of state office that's well computerized, a very well known body of case law, and also, some good tax laws. Corporate registration and where you choose your choice of law provision though are hardly the same.

The best way I can point you in is 1) Choice of law, 2) Google: "Texas non disclosure contract law", 3) Personal jurisdiction and minimum contacts. Shadowjams (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to raise my hand, I second Shadowjams's refutation of Jayron32's claim about Delaware and taxes. The taxes are actually high in Delaware; see Delaware General Corporation Law for the actual legal benefits. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Emulating Greek pottery

Imagine I'm attempting to emulate the technique of ancient greek potters to create red- and black-figure designs on pottery. I know this would work on yellow and red iron-rich clays like that which they used. However would this technique still work if I used kaolinite clay? Or black clay, or green marl like what the ancient Egyptians used? (Not sure whether this should be in Humanities with the art side of it or in Science with the chemistry involved.) Lady BlahDeBlah (talk) 11:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

According to our article on Red-figure pottery: "True red figure vase painting, ie. vases where the red areas have been left unpainted, was introduced to Etruria near the end of the 5th century BC." This would mean that your clay colour would need to be a red hue, as you have suggested. I am thinking of the colour of your standard North American clay plant pot. Whether you could also create that colour by dyeing modern clay with something that would hold the correct red colour through the firing processes, my limited exposure (one class) to pottery cannot tell you. It was the black figures that were painted onto the clay, or in a "negative space" sense, painted where the "red figure" wasn't. There are some interesting references at the end of the above-linked article to published texts, and more information in both Pottery of ancient Greece and Black-figure pottery. Bielle (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've scoured those pages, and highly informative they are too. But I want to know if the style can be emulated, not the colour; if it is possible to use the technique, maybe using something like kaolinite will make...what, brown- and white-figure? I know the ancient Greeks used kaolinite slip to make the white designs on black-figure. Lady BlahDeBlah (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect you will only find out by experiment, or by asking at a pottery forum. This site has a recipe for red clay using clay from the Cedar Heights Clay Company. You could also look at the potters' magazines like Ceramics Monthlyor Clay Times Magazine for articles on the subject or for knowledgeable people to whom to put your questions. Bielle (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC) I just realized you said that the colour doesn't matter. From what I have read about the techniques, there isn't any limitation on using the design on any clay that has similar properties. Perhaps an expert potter will happen across this question, or the sites I have linked may still be helpful. Bielle (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like someone proficient in plastic soil...one URL doesn't work for me and the other is rather mishmash, but that seems to be the norm! Gaaah. Lady BlahDeBlah (talk) 10:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a wonderful book Athenian Vase Construction: a Potter's Analysis by Toby Schreiber that was published by the J. Paul Getty Museum, Malibu, California in 1999. Its first chapter is titled "Clay: Origin, Composition, Properties, Purification" and the rest of the book gives detailed instructions on how to make several different types of Greek vases. You might be able to find the book in a public or university library--at least through Interlibrary Loan.--Eriastrum (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Skilurus

The article point out that he had 80 sons, according to Plutarch. Is there any further references as to exactly how many sons he had when he died.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Since assertions can't be double-checked by reference to hospital records, you have to decide on the reliability of your available source. Is the anecdote introduced by Plutarch transferable? That is, would another father do, to put the point across? Perhaps Skilurus is introduced solely for the sake of the anecdote. Would the anecdote by equally valid if Skilurus had twelve sons? What is the reputation to Plutarch's readers of Scythians? For a philosophical Scythian, see Anacharsis. --Wetman (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps more relevant, very little is known about specific named Scythian individuals other than what is contained in ancient Greek records, which were usually written down by authors far removed in time and/or space from the events they narrated. Skilurus died over 150 years before Plutarch was born, so what's in Plutarch is either vague oral hearsay or is based on some earlier written work. If no sources used by Plutarch here have survived, then there's little hope of being able to find out more than he reported... AnonMoos (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you much for your thought out answers fellows. Yes, I see what you mean about Skilurus being introduced possibly for the sake of the anecdote. Now I understand also Skilurus could have been buried in the mausoleum at Scythian Neapolis that was used apparently from ca. 100 BC to ca. 100 AD., however there is no reference for sure on this. Looks like it came from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, which won't do me any good as I don't know Russian. Now if Plutarch or some other historian said this also it could be another source for the article.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Since Skilurus died over 150 years before Plutarch was born, perhaps he would have been better saying something like "Scilurus on his death-bed, being about to leave about eighty sons surviving..." since it looks like he doesn't know for sure the exact number, assuming that he didn't have another source to verify this number for sure. We today have lost this source apparently Plutarch is referring to (if he did have a source), to get that number, so we would have to use the word about I suppose since we would be relying strictly on Plutarch; which looks like would not be all that reliable a source since Skilurus died over 150 years before him. --64.138.237.101 (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It's fairly useless to berate ancient authors for not having a modern understanding of the use of numbers. Except for individuals in a few professions (such as astronomer, tax-collector, etc.) which required a firm grasp of numbers used for certain purposes, the majority of individuals in ancient times were quite often hopelessly vague in their use of numbers above a few hundred (and sometimes quite vague and imprecise in their use of numbers well below a few hundred). In ancient Greek culture, the myth of the 50 sons of Aegyptus who married the 50 Danaids was well-known, and "80" is probably just another vague round quasi-symbolic number, and Plutarch would have had no firm evidence for its exactness. In ancient times, people did not usually think that tossing around such large numbers in an inexact way was deceptive or dishonest... AnonMoos (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks AnonMoos for your input on this. That makes this matter even more clear and I have a better understanding on it.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Skilurus had about 80 sons. He was busier than Tiger Woods.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Translating trademarked names

Does trademark law have anything to say about how a company is referred to in a foreign language? As a silly example, is there a legal reason a French news organization cannot refer to Apple Inc. as "Pomme" ? --İnfoCan (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Not dealing with the matter of law per se but with the more signifiant matter of marketing, the answer is that its name is not "Pomme" or even "La Pomme", but "Apple". Think "Volkswagen" which did not beome "People's Cars" when the company was referred to in the English language press even before the products became available outside Germany. Trademark law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but if a company wants to maintain its market identity, it needs to maintain its corporate name. The exception might be if its corporate name meaning something awkward (rude, blasphemous, illegal, offensive or silly) in the foreign language. In the hypothetical case of "La Pomme" you present, no one would know what of the newspaper was writing. What French or international trademark law might have to say on the point, though, I know not. Others may. Bielle (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Well, the company's name is not "Pomme", in any language. Company names are not considered to be in a particular language by trademark law; it is irrelevant. You would no more call Apple "Pomme" than you would translate Toyota into something else to refer to it in English. Trademark law would not extend from the word "Apple" to the word "Pomme" unless a separate application was filed explicitly stating that. News organizations don't do that kind of work, anyway. When a company does want to come up with explicit translations of its name (more common, I think, when dealing with Asian markets, where careful translation of characters is necessary—think I recall Coca-Cola having to be careful about how it was translated into Chinese), it registers a trademark for that as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This is really picky, but to answer your question literally, there is no law, anyplace I've heard of, that says you can't refer to some company by any name. The news organization can call Apple "Douchebags Incorporated" if they want, right? Sure, they can call them "Pomme" if they are having fun with it or being jocular in their broadcast. But the above responses are correct; any particular translation of a foreign-language name is not automatically protected under the trademark law of any country I've ever heard of. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I might point out that the direct translation "folkvagn" is not uncommon in Sweden for Volkswagen, particularly the original beetle and the VW bus.--Rallette (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

How close is the pronunciation to the German? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, "Folksvagen" is actually probably closer to the German than the way Americans pronounced "Volkswagen". --98.217.71.237 (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

When Nestlé first entered the UK chocolate market, they billed themselves as "Nestles" because they thought that English speakers wouldn't be able to cope with an acute "e". In about 1980, they decided we were European enough to change to "Nestlé", but many people over 40 still call them "Nestles". Also in the 1980s, there was a debate in the UK press about why we couldn't sell cars to Germany. Someone pointed out - tongue firmly in cheek - that the woeful Triumph Acclaim might translate as "Sieg Heil" in German. Alansplodge (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And how about Dannon Danone yoghurt. I understand that during the war the French company kept running under separate management. See the article on Groupe Danone. ([Sesquipedalia])

I have taken the presumptuous liberty of changing the spelling to what I think is the correct "Sieg Heil", but, if appropriate, change it back and delete this message. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Americans didn't have that problem, thanks to ads like this [1][2] from TV figures such as the cowboy Roy Rogers and a dog named Farfel (this youtube is modern, but he was around in the 1950s). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There's an urban legend—which I believed until composing this post—that the Chevrolet Nova didn't sell well in Spanish-speaking countries because "no va" means [it] "doesn't go" or "isn't going". But see Chevy Nova#Urban legend and, more especially, Snopes.com: Don't Go Here.—— Shakescene (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"No va" means "no go" or "does not go" in Spanish, but that is indeed an old joke, probably as part of general ridicule of this car within the U.S. "Nova" is Latin for "new", which in Spanish is "nuevo/nueva". However, the word "nova" is also known in Spanish, as the straight-from-Latin astronomical term for a "new" star, i.e. a supernova. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This is just wordplay. It's been going on forever. Pope Pius IX is known in Italian as Pio Nono, but he was often referred to jokingly as Pio No! No! because of his reactionary approach to reform. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Philosopher brought out of retirement

I may be conflating two people, it's been a long time since I studied this part of history. I remember there was a philosopher in Roman times who served as a senator, retired and stayed at home, then was called out of retirement to govern again. The call came while he was in his cabbage patch? Anyway, while he was in this second period of government he was murdered, possibly by Julius Caesar (it was about that time period). Any ideas? --TammyMoet (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Diocletian meets some of that. Nanonic (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are thinking of Cincinnatus? He is the classic "called back to rule" example, though the other aspects don't fit him. (He is also famous for the "willing to give up absolute power once the job was done" aspect.) --Mr.98 (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Cicero was murdered during that time (the year after Caesar was murdered). He liked to live in his country villa although he never really retired. It does sound like you've conflated Cicero, Diocletian, and Cincinnatus. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Julian_the_Apostate was one of the most prominent Roman philosopher-emperors... AnonMoos (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your thoughts. I hadn't heard of Cincinnatus at all, but Cicero and Diocletian ring the bells. After I'd posted it I thought of Seneca the Elder, but maybe I was thinking of Cicero. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Cabbages especially go for Diocletian, although as far as I remember, he never left the cabbages. Nyttend (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that perhaps in your memory you might have mixed up different stories. First of all it was probably not a "philosopher" (although many upper class Romans liked to think of themselves as such in their private time, they were soldiers and statesmen when participating in public life). The core of the story you mention is the classic story of Cincinnatus who from his farm heeded the call to lead the state and then returned to "his plow". The "cabbage" might probably come from the story of Sulla, whom it is told that after having been a dictator he spend his old years tending his cabbage patch. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree that you are probably mixing up two (or more) stories. See also Marcus Aurelius (referred to by Gibbon as 'the Emperor Marco').--Major Bonkers (talk) 05:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality in the United States of America

I've a question, before the Lawrence v. Texas, was gay sex illegal in the United States? I mean if you were caught in a motel with a same sex partner, would have you been arrested? --SouthAmerican (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The law varied from one state to another. This was not something subject to Federal jurisdiction. In some states, gay sex was illegal. However, even in states where gay sex was illegal, the law was only occasionally enforced. Most motel owners were more interested in making money than in alienating customers and reporting violations to the police. Marco polo (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

LGBT rights in the United States and Stonewall riots are relevant articles. Marco polo is correct; the law, and the amount of enforcement of the law, varied from state to state and from city to city. The significance of Lawrence v. Texas was indeed that it struck down all such anti-"sodomy" laws in all the states. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, much better is Sodomy laws in the United States which lists the penalties for "sodomy" in each state immediately before they were all invalidated by Lawrence. The worst was the state of Michigan, where "sodomy" was a felony punishable by 15 years in prison on the first offense, and by life imprisonment on the 2nd offense. I'd be interested to see enforcement statistics added to that article to see whether this was a legislative remnant, unenforced, or whether it was actively and enthusiastically wielded. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

considering what I have heard about prison life, wouldn't that essentially make it a life sentance in all cases? --Jayron32 21:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There have been various invading-privacy laws like these applied to opposite-sex as well as same-sex consensual activities. They were typically enforced only when someone felt like it, which was part of their unjustness. Most of them, I think, have been struck down, and the remaining sex crimes on the books are associated with non-consensual acts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea in Southeast Asia

Southeast Asia specifically mentions that Papua New Guinea is in Southeast Asia, but the accompanying map, File:Location Southeast Asia.svg, excludes Papua New Guinea. Is the map wrong? Geographically, PNG is part of SE A, but politically, is it excluded? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Politics are not organised continentally, so not even China, Japan or India are "Asian", politically speaking. "Asia" is purely a cultural or geographical concept. So, it makes no sense to end S-E Asia at the political border between PNG and whatever the western part of New Guinea is called these days. Geographically, even Australia is sometimes held to be part of S-E Asia, although it is also said to form part of its own continent, which may or may not include New Guinea, depending on which experts one believes. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, political divisions are sort-of arbitrary in these cases; consider that the Australian National team currently plays in the Asian Football Confederation. This is largely because their prior confederation, the Oceania Football Confederation was not guaranteed even one birth in the World Cup (the Oceania champion generally has to play a low-ranked team from another confederation in a playoff to earn a World Cup spot). By moving to the AFC, Australia can now compete for an automatic berth. Other oddities include Turkey as a charter member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, though Turkey isn't anywhere near the Atlantic Ocean. These things are ALL very political. --Jayron32 21:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

And, for geopolitical reasons (e.g. many Arab and Muslim nations refuse to play direct athletic contests against Israel), Israel is often classed as a European nation in international sport and politics. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh. While fantastic things do happen in Australia, not even we have automatic births. Our parents still have to perform their tedious nuptial duty.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, you are however born with innate linguistic pedantry, from berth. --Jayron32 22:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it'd be pretty hard to be born with something but not have it from birth. Wait ...  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The island is part of Australasia, geologically (see Plate tectonics) historically, ethnographically (see Lapita culture) and ecologiocally (see Wallace Line). --Wetman (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea is in Melanesia.
Sleigh (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

OR caveat: I surveyed a few dozen people living in East Asia several years back, asking “What are the geographical boundaries of ‘East Asia’?” The consensus seems to be that Asians are people where the men don’t shave as much. So, Japan, China, Mongolia, Korea, Taiwan, and the 10 ASEAN countries was the limit. The physical differences between people from PNG or Australia was too much for them to be considered ‘Asian.’ DOR (HK) (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, but I think what I was really asking was, should the text at Southeast Asia be changed so as not to include PNG, or should the map which illustrates that article be changed to include it? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a matter for discussion at that talk page. But what ever the outcome is, the island of New Guinea should be either completely included or completely excluded, because the idea that New Guinea consists of an Asian half and a non-Asian half is not supported anywhere. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the significance of a sun with a face?

You know, certain things show a sun with a face, and waving rays going out from in in all directions. What is the significance of such a symbol, does it have a name?--Heybin (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Like the logo for Hope not Hate or the CD Larks Tongues in Aspic.--Heybin (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

In British heraldry it's referred to as a "Sun in splendour". According to A. C. Fox-Davies' A complete guide to heraldry: "The sun in splendour is never represented without the surrounding rays, but the human face is not essential though usual to its heraldic use. The rays are alternately straight and wavy, indicative of the light and heat we derive therefrom, a typical piece of genuine symbolism". Other famous examples include its use on the flags of Argentina and Uruguay - in these and similar South American contexts it's called the Sun of May and is representative of an Incan sun deity. Grutness...wha? 23:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC) (another Crimso fan :)

Another example is the second flag listed here (1877 version). --152.3.129.245 (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, would it be appropriate to redirect Sun in splenour/Sun in splendor and sun with face as well as sun with a face to Sun of May?--Heybin (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No; the term Sun of May only relates to the modern South American context, the May referring to the month of political revolutions. The image itself is of a solar deity (although that particular article for some reason does not show similar images), and is essentially an ancient symbol. The South American deity was Inti, but a solar deity existed in many (most?) cultures globally. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added a couple of sentences at Sun of May about the similarity. There should really be an article on sun in splendour - which would also list the similarity. But it is a similarity only - the use in South America has specific origins. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I've now started an article on sun in splendour. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've now merged it into Sun (heraldry). —Tamfang (talk) 05:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't actually like King crimson, it's just my flatmate that has this CD which he keeps playing. I prefer Kanye West.--Heybin (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah well, maybe you'll learn one day ;) Grutness...wha? 00:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• For whatever it's worth, Brown University (an Ivy League school in Providence, Rhode Island) uses a rising sun-in-spendour among clouds as the crest to her arms, which are displayed in Brown's Wikipedia article. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

We have an article Solar symbol, but it doesn't discuss that (lots of other things, but not that). AnonMoos (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's there; under the headline "Rayed depictions". It's just not showing the variant with the face. — Sebastian 09:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Various online articles (such as this one) refer to the "sun in splendour" as being a heraldic device used (or even invented) by King Edward IV in memory of the parhelion or "sundog" that appeared in the sky just before his victory at the Battle of Mortimer's Cross in 1461. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Also called in heraldry, a sun in his splendour.
Sleigh (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There's the baby-faced sun in splendour in the Teletubbies' closing segue...--Wetman (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Personifying the sun, moon, the various winds, etc., goes back to ancient times, a remnant of polytheism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Before...

...and after.

True; the ancient Egyptians typically represented the sun as a disk, although during the reign of the pharaoh Akhnaten, who promoted a religion based upon himself, this was altered into a depiction of the sun with rays coming from it and ending in hands. Slightly off the subject. --Major Bonkers (talk) 05:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And for a cute, but UN-santioned, decoration sporting a sun with a smiling face, see Order of the Smile. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

December 12

Elections for filling casual vacancies of Australian senators before 1977

Hi, an issue that came up when I was composing a response somewhere else that I've been unable to answer from wikipedia or any of my seaches. Does anyone know how elections for filling casual vacancies of Australian (Federal) senators before 1977 were carried out?

According to what I've read, casual vacancies were at first filled by appointment as they are now but they were subject to election at the next regular Federal election (be it a House of Representatives or half-senate election or a simultaneous election). Thinking specific when a half-senate election was held (be it simulatenous or alone) I would presume the "by-election" will just be part of the regular election and the first loser for a full term seat will fill the vacancy and serve out the remainder of the term (i.e. basically a half term) somewhat akin to what is done with double dissolutions at the moment (except that is for all senators obviously and also I guess they would have used the old method of sorting not the new). Alternatively two seperate elections could be held simultaenous, one for the casual vacancy and one for the regular election with different ballot papers.

My reading of Australian referendum, 1977 (Senate Casual Vacancies) "or at the next election of senators for the State, whichever first happens, a successor shall, if the term has not then expired, be chosen to hold the place from the date of his election until the expiration of the term." is that the senator elected as the replacement does serve out the remainder of the term rather then getting another full term so that's not a possibility I think.

Years when this would have arisen for example are 1953, 1958, 1961, 1970 [3]

Nil Einne (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The State's Electoral Commission would choose the way to do it. Either your first way, which is the simpler or your second with two Senate voting papers.
Sleigh (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that for the state concerned, there'd be effectively 2 Senate elections occurring simultaneously: one for the 5 senators being elected in the usual half-senate cycle (there were only 10 senators per state back then), who would take their place on the subsequent 1 July; and a different ballot paper for the remainder of the casual vacancy - that senator would take their place immediately and serve till 30 June (it could be the same person who'd already been serving after being chosen by the state parliament, or a different person). The first possible method you mentioned would not have worked, because candidates for a full-term vacancy commencing on the next 1 July could not default (by failing to be elected) into becoming candidates for a different and shorter vacancy commencing immediately. That would not have satisfied anyone - the candidates, the voters or the Constitution. If a person wished to be a candidate for both vacancies, they would have to have nominated separately for both. I've just made an amendment to Australian referendum, 1977 (Senate Casual Vacancies) because it did not tell the whole story. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This sounds rather similar to the procedure under the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 1913, providing for the direct election of Senators. When a vacancy (e.g. Edward Kennedy's) occurs in the middle of a six-year Senatorial term, the state legislature can call a special election or authorize the Governor to fill it until the next Congressional election. [ Massachusetts' overwhelmingly-Democratic legislature first took away this power from the Republican Governor in 2004 and then restored a more-limited power to a Democratic one in 2009—both times for clearly-political purposes.] When the next election coincides with the expiration of the other Senator's term, voters cast two Senatorial ballots, one to complete the interrupted term and the other for the full regular six-year term. Since someone couldn't fill both such seats at once, I've never heard of anyone running on both ballots.—— Shakescene (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

county commissioners on fateful day

Who were the Somerset County commissioners on September 11, 2001?24.90.204.234 (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Should we assume you mean Somerset County, Pennsylvania? If so, there are links to all the local government web sites on that page. Emailing them would probably get you the answer quickly and it should be correct. Dismas|^(talk) 04:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's more fun to find it yourself, though: they were Brad Cober, James (Jimmy) Marker, and Pamela Tokar-Ickes. --Anonymous, 06:16 UTC, December 12, 2009.

Okay, so here's what I did. First I googled the county to find its current official web site: http://www.co.somerset.pa.us. Following the Commissioners link under the General menu, we reach this page that names the current commissioners (two are the same, but John Vatavuk has replaced Cober) and mentions that they are elected for 4-year terms.

Now I used the Wayback Machine at http://www.archive.org to find older versions of the official web site. Unfortunately the oldest one on the site was from April 2002. It listed the three people I named, but I didn't know when they were elected.

I now tried the Google News Archive Search, which is here. I don't remember exactly which search that I did there was the most fruitful, but I was able to determine that 2007 was an election year for commissioners in that county (they take office the following January), and therefore that if Cober, Marker, and Tokar-Ickes were elected in 1999, they must be the right answer. I couldn't find any articles about the 1999 election itself, though. That would have been too easy, right?

I then did a regular Google search on each of their names together with "somerset county". Cober was the easiest to confirm: this page, last updated in 2006, was one of several that mentioned his long career as a commissioner from 1984 (1983 election) to 2008 (2007 election).

This news story from the 2007 election (PDF) refers to Marker as a two-term incumbent and speaks of his goals "over the past eight years". So that confirms that he was elected in 1999.

And when I did the third search, for Pamela Tokar-Ickes, I got dramatic confirmation that she was in office on 9/11: this news story from one year later in which she describes her experiences on that day.

One thing I did not find was a statement of which commissioners held which of the three commission slots in the 2000-2004 term. However, in one of my searches I did come across these minutes of a meeting showing (in the signature block) that in 2005 Marker was chairman, Cober vice-chairman, and Tokar-Ickes secretary. --Anonymous, 06:57 UTC, December 12, 2009.

Albert VII, Archduke of Austria

Why was he numbered the Seventh? He wasn't a ruler of Austria.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that the number is used because he was the seventh Albert in the family, even if he was not the ruling archduke of Austria. Apparently, all males Hapsburg heirs came to be styled "Archduke" even if they did not actually rule Austria. See Archduke#Other_dynastic_Habsburg_use. Non-ruling princes using ordinal numbers would be unusual, but by no means unique. See Reuss Junior Line, which follows the practice of giving ordinal numbers to non-ruling family members. I poked around on google, and found some websites which were not obvious Wikipedia mirrors which used Albert VII, so apparently its a valid name. Print sources which use it would be cool too. --Jayron32 03:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

In the Holy Roman Empire, all male direct descendants of the ruling sovereign states used the ruler's title but only the ruler held voting rights in the Reichstag. I don't know if this also applied to Kurfürst (Elector) but it did for Erzherzog, Großherzog, Herzog, Pfalzgraf, Markgraf, Fürst, Landgraf and Graf.
Sleigh (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy is aware that all legitimate male-line descendants of an archduke of Austria were themselves archdukes of Austria. It certainly wasn't Habsburg practice to give ordinals to non-ruling members of the family. I myself was puzzled by Albert's ordinal. Several books refer to him as Albert VII of Austria, but much more books refer to him as Albert of Austria. To be honest, I would prefer having that article titled Albert of Austria, because the current title is obviously confusing and misleading. Surtsicna (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

any connection

Is the Biblical name "Eber" in any way connected with the name "Eber" or its derivatives in Germany? 71.100.160.161 (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The name to which you refer is an Anglicized version of the Hebrew word which is pronounced with a fricative v sound, and not a labial b sound, in case that plays into your question at all. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone has tried to prove that German is descended from Hebrew using that word as one piece of evidence. That seemed to be a popular thing to do in the nineteenth century. British Israelism had a German equivalent, didn't it? I can't think of where to look for it though. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Among Protestants it was common to give Old Testament names, even those of quite obscure figures, to children: "Call me Ishmael". The unconnected consonance of Eber/Heber and the eber- element in Germanic names like Eberhard may have provided additional impetus.--Wetman (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The Gravestone with the Bloody Hand

In the eighteen hundreds, here in Christchurch, New Zealand, there was a famous case in which an Indian servant killed a fellow female servant, because she rejected him, and was hanged for it. As he was condemned, he uttered curses from the dock, before being carried down. The young lady victim was buried in the Barbadoes Street Cemetary, and in the years to come an urban legend sprung up about there being a bloody hand shape appearing on her grave. My mother used to cycle past that cemetary at night, after her shift at Bascands printers, and said the legend was known in that time. The only thing is, I cannot remember the names of any of the pricipals involved in the case - the Indian servant, or the girl, but I believe the owner of the house the murder occurred in, their employer, was a well known lawyer or politician. No one knows now where the grave is. I recall seeing a current affairs item about ten to fifteen years ago on a group of people who went out at night to find it, but it appears the officials in charge of the cemetary ( perhaps the Christchurch City Coucil, have dug her up, and or removed the grave stone, to discourage scavengers. The cemetary is in fact in two parts, being dissected by the soutward running one way Barbadoes Street. Could anyone out there know any details of the case, so I can look it up on Wikipedia ? Thanks . The RussianC.B.Lilly 06:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • contribs)

I deleted the Wikipedia logo that you presumably did not intend to insert in the middle of your question.

Again this is a case for Google News Archive Search (see the "fateful day" item above). Searching on "servant", "murdered", and "christchurch", and then picking the earliest date range, I easily found this article from January 17, 1871, which says that the murderer was Simon Cedeno and the murder victim Margaret Burke. The owner of the house is identified only as "Mr. Robinson" in this article.

I then did a second search on "robinson", "murder", and "christchurch", used "search other dates" to restrict the results to the year 1871, and the "timeline" link to put the articles in order. Just from the excerpts presented, without even following any links, I find that the owner of the house was the Honourable William Robinson, station owner, and that the crime occurred on January 10. Some of these articles spell the killer's name Cedino or Cedench, and there also seems to be some confusion as to where in Latin America he was from. He was convicted and condemned on March 8, although I don't know when he was executed. Or where or when anyone involved was buried.

--Anonymous, 07:23 UTC, December 12, 2009.

Curses from beyond the grave are featured in colorful pulp magazines and popular movies, not in the real world.--Wetman (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you've tried asking at the Christchurch City library (in Gloucester St if my memory serves me right)? If it's anything like the Dunedin one there'll be a big local history archive there. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there some reason why you've wikilinked so many terms? For example, did you think that we would not know what the terms "bloody", "lawyer", "politician", or "curse" meant? Dismas|^(talk) 03:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

To all who have answered, thank you so much. I had not realised the killer was perhaps Latino. My understanding was he had been Indian ( Asian Sub continent ), so I apologise since unlike Susan Smith my intention had not been to discredit any particular race, nor to vilify this particular killer because of his race, but just as information I thought might be useful. According to Wikipedia's list of people executed in New Zealand, Simon Cedeno was hanged on April 5, 1871, at Lyttelton, for killing the maid due to racist insults on her behalf. He was South American and Black. If this is true, what she did was wrong, but what he did was far worse, and even due to such provocation, he had no right to kill her. That seems to be the trouble with some people. Someone wrongs them ? Answer : kill the sod. No regard for human life. This was the type of defence Dr. Clayton Robert Weatherstone tried as his excuse for murdering his student and ex girlfriend Sophe Elliot early last year. I didn't believe that one, but even if the victim in 1871, Margaret Burke, had done as was said, again, no excuse for killing her. The Columbine murderers carried out their spree to avenge wrongs done to them, as they said, so where do we draw the line ? Ideally, if true, Mr. Cedeno should have gone to the boss, and complained, Miss Burke may have been reprimanded or even discharged, but killing her was an overreaction, and ultimately, didn't do him any favours. I apologise also for suggesting it was because she had refused his advances, but I am sure that is what I had read somewhere years ago. On the other hand that may be true, and Cedeno may have lied about the racist taunts, and just used his race as an excuse. After all, when people face the gallows, they can get pretty desperate. I shall look into this furter and get my facts straight. Of course, even a newspaper report at the time may not have all the truth. Dr. Weatherstone may even have had some people fooled as to what really occurred up in Sophie's room that day, and say he had been acquitted due to that, then the official report may even have been a lie. To answer some of the comments, I never said I believed that the killer's curse had worked, nor did I say I did not. My belief is that there are some very strange things that do occur. I had never seen the grave in question, even though I have driven past the cemetary dozens of times. I can't remember whether I have even walked into there, but I have been in the Bromley Cemetary ( or Ruru Lawn - the one by Buckleys Road), at night, cutting through there. Not advisable since the Police may think one is up to something. In any case I have therefore never seen the bloody hand in question, nor am I sure it is even true, but I was merely trying to find out more about this story which I am sure is well known to even the majority of those here in Christchurch. The only reason I put links in, was not because I thought any one was stupid, and I apologise if you got that idea. My sole reason, which I shall continue to do, because I think it is cool, is for anyone who all of a sudden wants to reference those words anyway. That was my intention. To make life easier, and nothing else. I should definitely have mentioned that the story was also in book of New Zealand Events I once owned, but have since lost. It may have been written by someone like Ron Palenski, and it had a photo of the Rainbow Warrior on the cover, since it had been published in 1986. So to sum up, I heard the story, and what I initially recalled was that one servant of a house killed a young lady servant who may have refused his advances. ( I read nothing about any racist taunts on her part, whether true or not ) He was found guilty and condemned to hang. He screamed curses from the dock, and it has been said ( but not verified beyond any real doubt ) that the shape of a bloody handprint had appeared on the innocent young woman's grave. This is the shall we say urban legend that has gone the rounds in Christchurch perhaps even since 1871, and as I said, in the early 1960's, as my then in her late teens mother cycled past there at night on her way home to Heywood Crescent, Richmond, she was mindful of the story. I felt it unreasonable for an innocent victim ( or at least relatively innocent ) to have any thought of some bloody hand print on her grave, as if she had done anything wrong. Of course, if she had taunted Mr. Cedeno, that might be a different matter. But most killers are selfish, and don't see things in reasonable ways, so that even if she had behaved badly, he behaved shockingly. Just as likely, nothing like a bloody hand ever occurred of the sort, but again, who knows ? I had heard of another case I believe in England in which a condemned man cursed the Judge who sentenced him, and the judge died as the man predicted. Coincidence ? I know not. As a Christian I do not dabble in those kinds of things, but that does not mean I may not be curious as to the real details. As a Christian, I also believe that there are some things in this world that even science cannot explain. Think of it. If they drained Loch Ness tomorrow, and found no beast, what would be the fun in that ? Perhaps we need some mysteries in life, even if we do our best to solve some of them. So once again I thank you all, and apologise for any confusion and trouble I may have caused. The Russian.C.B.Lilly 12:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

What did Amerigo in 1497

According to Amerigo Vespucci, "A letter published in 1504 purports to be an account by Vespucci, written to Soderini, of a lengthy visit to the New World, leaving Spain in May 1497 and returning in October 1498. However, modern scholars have doubted that this voyage took place, and consider this letter a forgery". But this 1562 map says (upper-center box): "This fourth part of the world remained unknown to all geographers until the year 1497, at which time it was discovered by Americus Vespucius..." ("incognita permansit, quo tempore iussu Regis Castellae ab Americo Vespuccio inventa est..."). So there is no forgery? And why that map does not mention Columbus and 1492? Brand[t] 14:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus always believed that he was somewhere in Asia. It was Vespucci's writings that led a geographer to the "New World" conclusion. Rmhermen (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, a 1562 attestation to Vespucci having been to America is no more proof that he was than any other. I believe that the modern scholars are contesting that the Vespucci voyage was a fraud contemporaneous with Vespucci, so the forged record of that voyage would have fooled 16th century map makers as well. I have no personal opinion on whether or not Vespucci really visited the New World, but the controversy is a real one, and there are real reliable historians who doubt the validity of it (as well as real, reliable historians who believe it). Just pointing out that there is no inconsitancy between this. Also, the idea that Columbus thought he was in Asia has been doubted by some historians as well. Some suspect that he may have thought so after his first voyage, but on subsequent voyages came to accept that he had found new land. Some also claim that he concealed this belief from his financial backers, as they didn't fund him find new land, they funded him to find Asia... --Jayron32 15:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hence the expression, "Eureka - I have fund it!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Why did Susan Sontag call the white race the cancer of humanity?

Just wondering if she said anything to justify that statement.--Loserofnothing (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The quote apparently appeared in the journal Partisan Review (Winter 1967), p. 57. You'd have to read the entire journal article to get the context of what Sontag was saying. --Jayron32 17:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The analogy is not hard to make sense of, though identifying it with the "race" seems like the wrong level of analysis and primarily to provoke (it was the 1960s, so that was part of the point). Here's a longer quote:

The white race is the cancer of human history: it is the white race and it alone—its ideologies and inventions—which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself. What the Mongol hordes threaten is far less frightening than the damage to that Western 'Faustian' man, with his idealism, his magnificent art, his sense of intellectual adventure, his world-devouring energies for conquest, has already done, and further threatens to do.

—Susan Sontag, "What's Happening in America (1966)"

If I were teaching this in a class, I would emphasize reading it in light of the Vietnam war in particular, as that is the explicit context which the essay is trying to address/affect. It's the kind of quote that looks especially off-color today with our current hesitation at associating anything with "race", though for its time it would have been primarily shocking in its association of negative activity with the white race in particular, as associating negative historical trends with other races was still something that was being done in many parts of U.S. culture. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The expression "upset the ecological balance of the planet", a cliché concern today, was extraordinarily forward-looking in 1966; it would have been forward-looking even in 1986.--Wetman (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

After Silent Spring?—eric 01:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The zeitgeist of the sixties called for excess. Bus stop (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If India and China start consuming resources and exercising power at the rate the USA has done, Susan might want to rethink that theory. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Right. I think that's partially why it looks so odd today—there's obviously nothing specific to the white race when it comes to overconsumption, it's just that we've been doing it a bit longer than most. If she had changed it to "the West" it would work a lot better. (Yes, China is "the East" by definition, but they have very self-consciously taken on "Western" approaches to things like economics.) --Mr.98 (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean like communism? Oh wait they largely abandoned that... Nil Einne (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Or, if she weren't dead, she might work metastasis into it. The metaphor works for me. PhGustaf (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"Met"-anything and the late 60s are a nightmare combination, to this old Cubs fan. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as her being dead... well, I can't top Groucho's line: "I'll bet she's just using that as an excuse." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think one reason is because it needed to be said. To Caucasian people can be attributed some wrongdoings. Yet like most people Caucasian people are smug. She refers to their "magnificent art" and their sense of "intellectual adventure." She is of course being sarcastic, because her sentence trails off into their "world-devouring energies for conquest." She is a good writer and I think it is clear that she felt she had to knock the "white race" down a notch. You can't fault her for utilizing art to make a political statement. The opinions expressed are of course not mine but Susan Sontag's. Bus stop (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

December 13

Just a few quick questions about musical notation

I tried googleing but could not get to a simple and clear enough answer:

• 1. I only used before, for example, D to denote major and Dm to denote minor. What is d? Is it the same as D or Dm ?
• 2. Are B and H the same?
• 3. What exactly does a + sign mean after the name of a chord?

--131.188.3.20 (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• 1) I'm pretty sure that d is the same as Dm.
• 2) From B major: Note that in German and most Central and Northern European languages, the pitch B is called "H" while B♭ is called "B".
• 3) "+" can mean one of two things. On its own (e.g., C+), it represents an augmented fifth chord (tonic, major 3rd, sharpened 5th - C, E, G# in the case of C), though this is also written Caug. Followed by a number, it means a major chord with an extra note added, the note indicated by the number (e.g., C+2 is C with an added 2nd - C,D,E,G). A lot of the notation can be found at Chord (music) and chord notation.

Grutness...wha? 00:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --131.188.3.21 (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment on using upper vs. lower case letters for keys: There is a shorthand style used in certain publications, e.g. New Grove, where d = "D minor", and D = "D major". But sometimes people confuse the shorthand with the longhand, and come up with hybrid things like "His 3 symphonies were in the keys of d minor, F Major, and c minor" (it ought to read "... D minor, F major and C minor"). I spend a lot of my time here fixing things like that. But it pays ok so I'm not complaining. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Credit Default Swaps and Argentina

I'm writing a paper on Argentina's current debt situation, and I was told to check out its CDS as a way of measuring how confident investors are about Argentina's solvency. I would especially like to find a list of how its CDS rates compare with other countries'. So far all I've found is this list: http://www.economist.com/markets/indicators/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14972951, which doesn't include Argentina and goes by the total amount of insured bonds rather than the relative cost of insuring credit from a particular country (I think this is called the CDS spread?). Where can I find such a comparison?

130.64.179.156 (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Where can I read latkes, latkes good to eat online?

I have the book but I can't seem to find it. I tried searching it on the internet but did not come up with anything. I would like to read the full story off the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltlbpv (talk • contribs) 03:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Latkes, Latkes, Good to Eat: A Chanukah Story appears to be a commercial, copyrighted children's book. I can't find any evidence exists in any legal e-book form from an internet search and looking at popular sites. As a children's book this isn't perhaps that surprising. Bear in mind even if it does exist it may not be cheaper then the physical book if that's the reason you prefer an e-book version. You won't of course receive any help on where to find a copyright infringing version of the book Nil Einne (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Inflation-adjusted data on GDP per capita

Where can I download the data for inflation-adjusted GDP per capita for the United States, Germany and the European Union for the last 50 or so years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.155.128 (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

In which currency? DOR (HK) (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Legislation passed by one house of Congress but not the other in current session?

Howdy. Where can I find a list of legislation passed either by the United States House of Representatives or the United States Senate - but not both - during the current Congress? Thanks --70.169.186.78 (talk) 04:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Congressional Record? --Jayron32 05:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Try, for starters, http://www.house.gov and http://www.senate.gov . Also http://www.thomas.gov (the Library of Congress), especially Bills, Resolutions and Roll-Call Votes. There are several other more-specific non-government (but free) sources I used and cited in Fairness Doctrine, Glass-Steagall Act and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, but unfortunately, it's long enough ago that I'd need to reinvestigate the exact links and what they offer. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

the german fatherland

what is the german fatherland? is it prussia? is it swabia? is it where vines grow on the rhein? is it where gulls fly over jutland? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faulty (talk • contribs) 07:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Bit of an uneducated view here, but when I hear the phrase "German fatherland" I take it to mean Germany itself. Hence the fatherland of all Germans is Germany (in theory) no matter where they are; this would be the normal usage of "fatherland". - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 10:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Germany became a unified (well, somewhat) country only in 1871. Strive for a single, democratic, unified Germany had been a major theme amongst modernists since the French revolution, and the major item in the 1848 unrest. When the "unified" part was achieved with the Kaisereich, this patriotic sentiment carried over, and became a major theme among conservatives. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget that the Latin 'Patria', which gave the French 'Patrie' and the English 'patriot', translates as 'fatherland'. It's a pretty widespread trope.

In interesting contrast: Mother Russia, Mother India...Rhinoracer (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Odes (Horace)

Noticed that in Book 3 the ancient editor Porphyrion read the first six odes of this book as a single sequence, one unified by a common moral purpose. Is there a "single sequence" theme like this in any of the other books?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 13:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

In my 1872 edition of The Odes and Epodes of Horace translated, etc, by Lord Lytton (presumably Edward Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Baron Lytton, though possibly his son), Lytton (who by the way concurs with Porphyrion and "modern critics" on the above) says that Book IV Ode v "may be taken in connection with the preceding and Ode xiv." These three are 'In Praise of Drusus and the Race of the Neros' (about events in Augustus' military campaign in Transalpine Gaul, with Tiberius and Drusus under his command); 'To Augustus, That He Would Hasten his Return to Rome;' and 'To Augustus, After the Victories of Tiberius;' while the following Ode xv, 'To Augustus on the Restoration of Peace' is "the appropriate epilogue to the Fourth Book, of which the poems that celebrate the Roman victories under Drusus and Tiberius constitute the noblest portion." Their titles made these four easy to spot, there may be other less obvious sequences.

In the so-called Epodes, Epodes v and xvii constitute the two parts of an attack on the witch "Canidia". Again, there may be more obscure connections between other Epodes. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So, if I am understanding this correctly, there are 3 Odes of a single sequence related to Augustus' military campaign as you describe in Book IV. Book 4 Ode xv is an epilogue. IF you count the six "Roman odes" as 1 and the four you describe that have a common theme as 1 -THEN how many total Odes do you get for all the Books?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

How many Odes do you get with Books 1, 2, and 3 only - counting the "Roman odes" as 1 ode?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you familiar enough with them to know IF the Lollius in Book 4 Ode 9 is the same as Marcus Lollius? The line there reads No, Lollius, no: a soul is yours - could be also the son of the article? The article is a person that was a friend of Augustus and a governor of Gaul.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Book 4 has to do with battles and victories under Drusus and Tiberius whom were under Augustus. Book 4 then would have a Roman military theme, which apparently is summed up in the epilogue Ode xv. Am I correct on this?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to address your questions in order:

1. The evident sequence within Book IV that Lytton decribes (in a rather convoluted way, not surprisingly - this is the man who gave us "It was a dark and stormy night, etc, etc, etc.") comprises 4 odes out of its total of 15, Nos. iv, v, xiv and xv; the first of these is about the actions of Augustus' military subordinates, and the other three are directly addressed to him.
2. The total numbers of odes in each of the 4 books respectively are I - xxxviii, II - xx, III - xxx and IV - xv. If one were to consider the 6 "Roman Odes" as 1 poem (as is widely accepted - Lytton says of III, i "The ode opens with a stanza which modern critics generally consider to be an introduction not only to the ode itself, but also to the five following - all six constituting, as it were, serial parts of one varied poem, written about the same time and for the same object . . . .") and the 4 "Augustan Odes" (my coinage) as one then this would revise to III - xxv and IV - xii (I'm sure you can do the rest of the maths), but I don't think the latter amalgamation would be particularly valid: each of the 4 were written separately at different times (the first 3 as events unfolded, the last rather later). I would also count the Book of Epodes, numbering xvii, since the descriptions 'odes' and 'epodes' post-dates Horace and the supposed distinction appears somewhat pedantic: as previously mentioned, this includes the sequence of v 'On the Witch Canidia' and xvii 'To Canidia - An Apology' (which is not sincere, but a disguised continuation of v's attack) - incidentally, to the latter is appended (un-numbered) 'Canidia's Reply', presumably by the woman herself, of whom Lytton writes "The scholiasts say that Canidia's real name was Cratidia, and that she was a Neapolitan perfume-vendor. That she was ever a mistress of Horace's is a conjecture founded upon no evidence . . . ."
3. Lytton clearly thinks that the Lollius of IV, ix was the Marcus Lollius of the article, rather than his son to whom the epistles were addressed, though he notes the contrary opinion of one Ritter - "Ritter maintains that Epistles ii and xviii, Lib I, are addressed to the Lollius of the ode; but most critics consider them to be addressed to his eldest son." Lytton suggest that either Lollius had been unjustly defamed - "His vindication has been, however, very ably attempted by Tate ('Vindiciae Lollianae'), and the evidence against him is generally considered to rest upon prejudiced and questionable authority - See Estrè, Hor. Pros." or that if Lollius was "rapacious and corrupt" then he successfully deceived his friend Horace as well as Augustus. I myself have no knowledge or opinion of these matters.
4. The other 11 odes of Book IV appear to be unrelated to the theme of the "4-ode mini-series". Lytton mentions the theory that Augustus himself had requested that the first three be published, and it would be natural for Horace to add what other odes he had written since his rather earlier Book III to make up a decent-sized work, and to round it off with a concluding fourth on the Augustan theme.

On a final note, remember that all Lytton's references to "modern critics" and the like, and his opinions, were first published in 1869. They may obviously have been superceded in the last 140 years! I myself have no particular knowledge of Horace beyond my possession of this particular volume (and a 40-year old memory of my Latin master reading us one of the odes omitted from most contemporary collections due to their obscenity), so you would be advised to canvass opinion more widely. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This is great! Thanx for the detailed explanation. It helps alot, especially for one that has no knowledge on the subject. I'm not holding you to anything, but now the way I see it is

• Book 1 as 38. Book 2 as 20. Book 3 as 25, counting the "Roman Odes" as 1. For these 3 books this adds up to 83. Appparently Augustus requested Horace to publish these 83 making the final publication some number over 83, assuming he added Odes on the Augustan theme (counting perhaps as 1 additional Ode).
• Book 4 is another completely different issue, since it looks like 11 odes are unrelated. The 4 "Augustan Odes" (your coinage) counting as 1 Ode then makes this book 12.
• Lytton clearly thinks that the Lollius of IV, ix was the Marcus Lollius of the article. This then would mean that the two Lollian additional epistles of Horace (i.2 and 18) were addressed to him.
  

This pretty well clears it up for me, unless others want to amplify on this.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 13:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes copyright

Who owns the copyright of the original Sherlock Holmes novels and short stories written by Arthur Conan Doyle? --Lit Scholar (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle died in 1930, any stories first published in his lifetime will now be in the public domain in the UK, and other countries with copyright terms of life plus 70 years. DuncanHill (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed you can find his works on-line at various places, see the links at the end of his article.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

For details about the Arthur Conan Doyle literary estate, see [4] and subsequent pages. For licensing info, see [5]. - Nunh-huh 11:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

We have the "Island of Great Britain" ... so where is the "Island of Little Britain"?

NOTE: This question/discussion has moved from Talk:British Isles --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

We have the Island of Great Britain ... so where is the Island of Little Britain?

Seems like a reasonable question, don't you think. The answer would most likely be the Island of Little Britain is the Island of Ireland ... do you folkes agree, or disagree?

Opinions ... please.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Little Britain - The Pretannic Islands stuffThe first references to the islands as a group appeared in the writings of travellers from the ancient Greek colony of Massalia is all bullshit. Þjóðólfr (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Þjóðólfr,

Could you elaborate on your objection to the "Pretannic Islands" stuff?

Thank you in advance. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read this. Hayden120 (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"Little Britain" is not an island. It is today a part of France. If this discussion is not related to improving the article, I suggest it be removed. Wikipedia is not a forum. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 01:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Rannpháirtí.

Item (1): The "Wikipedia is not a forum." rationale does not apply in this case. The British Isles terminology is being contested. The term British is composed of two-parts, (i). Great Britain, and (ii). Little Britain.

Item (2): The Peninsula of Brittany (i.e., Peninsula of Little Britain) and the Island of Ireland (i.e., the Island of Little Britain) taken together, collectively make up Little Britain (i.e., Little Britain has two-parts, a Peninsula and an Island), in contrast Great Britain only has one part (i.e., the Island of Great Britain).

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The British Isles is so-called because it is made up of around one thousand smaller islands, one of which is 'Great Britain', so called because it is the largest of these islands, and larger than the French Peninsula of Brittany. It is not, as you say, composed merely of two parts (even if you do lump two unrelated parts together as you did). The inhabitants of Great Britain spoke a similar if not identical language to those in Brittany when the Romans were here. Ireland is not called 'Little Britain' because it's called Ireland, and was inhabited by people who spoke a language that had probably already diverged sufficiently from the languages on the main island to be considered a separate language. This is what I've been told, anyway. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There isn't one. "Great Britain" is a term coined to describe an entity. Just because there is a "great" doesn't mean there has to be a "little"! The word "great" in this case could just as easily mean "excellent" as "the larger part of", and it has been suggested that that is the meaning held by most Britons in their national psyche. Joking aside, the island of Great Britain was historically divided into two parts: North Britain comprising Scotland, and South Britain comprising England and Wales. Great Britain is the name of the entire island. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed this is one of those Little Unanswered Questions, in the same vein as enquiring what your Little Uncle, who lived near the Little Lakes did during the Little War. OK, there was a little war. Cool.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Britain! Britain! Britain! Adam Bishop (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, many centuries ago Great Britain was called great to distinguish it from Britanny in France. 78.147.45.132 (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware that country names had to be based on truth. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Rannpháirtí.

Please do not summarily delete this section. I am in earnest in "fleshing-out" this discussion. I have watched your posting in the past, and I have never been un-civil with you. You and I hold different opinions on this issue. I would honestly like to discuss them with you. That is what TalkPages are for (to discuss matters relating to the Article and its improvement).

Island of Ireland as the Island of Mikra Britannia (Little Britain)

Little Britain - The Pretannic Islands stuffThe first references to the islands as a group appeared in the writings of travellers from the ancient Greek colony of Massalia is all bullshit. (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Now Þjóðólfr has weighted-in, and provided a reference. Do you have something to add as well? Thank you in advance for anything that you might comment on, eh.

Sincerely ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the article on Protohistory of Ireland states:

"The 2nd century Alexandrian Greek writer Ptolemy, one of the most important geographers, mathematicians and astronomers in the ancient world, refers to Ireland in two of his works. In the astronomical treatise known as the Almagest he gives the latitudes of an island he calls Mikra Brettania (Μικρὰ Βρεττανία) or "Little Britain" (the south of the island at 58 degrees, the north at 61 degrees)."

This statement appears to be referenced from Philip Freeman, Ireland and the Classical World, University of Texas Press, 2001; it is corroborated from some online sources. Secondly, the article on Great Britain states:

"Geoffrey of Monmouth in his pseudohistorical Historia Regum Britanniae (c. 1136) refers to the island of Great Britain as Britannia major ("Greater Britain"), to distinguish it from Britannia minor ("Lesser Britain"), the continental region which approximates to modern Brittany."

- referenced here - Denys Hay, The use of the term "Great Britain" in the Middle Ages, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 1955-56, pp.55-66 So, terms which are capable of translation as "Lesser" or "Little Britain" appear to have been used by different people at different periods for different areas - Ireland and Brittany. There is no evidence for any connection between the two uses, or of any collective use for the two places, and, at the time the term "Great Britain" came into use in the English language, its counterpart term clearly related to Brittany and not Ireland (as the Hay ref above makes clear). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Medicare part D penalty

The article on Medicare part D states that "potential beneficiaries who did not enroll by the May 15 deadline (or within a given time frame after their initial eligibility date) incur[red] a late-enrollment penalty of 1% per month based on the average cost of the premium until their enrollment." What does this mean, exactly? Suppose I sign up after 5 years, and I would have paid an average of $40.00 per month if I had been enrolled. One percent of that is 40 cents a month. Does that then mean the 40 cents is tacked on to my premium for as long as I continue part D? That doesn't seem like much of a penalty. Or, since the premiums I avoided add up to $2400.00, of which 1% is $24.00, could it be that the penalty is $24.00 per month? That would be excessive. What are the facts? --Halcatalyst (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Similarities between ancient and modern Greek

How mutually intelligible are classical Attic Greek and modern Dimotiki Greek? That is, how comprehensible would a work by Plato or Sophocles, for example, be to a modern native speaker of Greek? 76.204.127.175 (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Not very. It's sort of like the similarity between Italian and Latin, and not as far apart as Old and Modern English. Modern Greek is pronounced differently, and many words have different meanings, although they are generally spelled the same. I get the impression that modern Greeks like to think they speak the same language as the ancients, and it doesn't help that they are both called "Greek". Adam Bishop (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As an example, my Greek teacher told the following story against himself: he caught the plane to Athens and wanted to do some island hopping, so he went to Piraeus. He went to the harbour, and asked a likely-looking young man, in what he thought was perfect Greek, when the next ferry was. This young man fell about laughing and said in perfect English, "You're English, aren't you? Do you realise what you've just said? "No", said my teacher. The young man explained that what he had actually said was ancient Greek, which translated into modern Greek as "O slave! What hour sails the galley forth?" --TammyMoet (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There's some relevant information in Katharevousa. --ColinFine (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Attic Greek is not really intelligible to the average man on the street. Although many words will be familiar, most people will fail to make a correct translation into modern Greek, especially if it is a literary text. You will have to go all the way to the Koine to find texts that are more or less understandable to the average modern Greek, chiefly because of the persistence of the Katharevousa in official usage until quite recently. In my experience however, the younger generation seems to be losing this affinity. Constantine ✍ 15:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Updated websites for intellectuals?

Apart from news websites such as the BBC, and of course the Reference desks of Wikipedia, what regulary updated websites would be of interest to intelligent educated people interested in both the arts and the sciences? An example is Arts and Letters Daily, aldaily dot com. 78.147.45.132 (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There are cultural sidekicks of the http://www.CBC.ca site that seem semi-independent of the "hard" news site at http://www.cbc.ca/arts/ and http://www.cbc.ca/entertainment/ Also look at the Village Voice and (less-frequently-updated) New York Review of Books —— Shakescene (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Also The Atlantic and Harper's Magazine. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ends, ways, and means, in the military etc

It is easy to do things when you already have a set of instructions or proceedures to follow. I'm interested in the case where you have to create such procedures yourself. The ability to do this distinguishes the billionaire from the average employee. As a potential model to use in business, what is the method used in the military to create a plan of action from considering the ends ways and means? Or non-military methods? 78.147.45.132 (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have practical experience of this, but innovation in the military tends to fall into one of two categories. One is where people believe that new ideas, technologies or opportunities are being developed, and want to make sure that the military takes advantage of them. The process of adopting the new ways is a long one of extensive studies, experiments, tests, reports, assesments etc. As example might be the adoption of cruise missile technology. The second is when someone, in the heat of the battle, finds either that the standard way of doing things isn't working, or doesn't cover the current circumstances, and improvises something on the spot. If the improviser survives then they probably pass it on to someone else, who may use it in similar circumstances. Eventually it may become accepted procedure, with or without an extensive set of studies, experiments, tests, reports, assesments etc. An example might be the replacement of squadron formation tactics with smaller-unit tactics by the RAF during the Battle of France and Battle of Britain. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was the situation where you have an objective, you have some resources, and you have to decide what to do. I presume there is an established procedure in the military for doing that? 78.147.45.132 (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about objectives and resources in military terms? "Here's a battalion of men, go capture that hill"? DJ Clayworth (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I am, although the situation may be more complicated than that. 92.24.140.90 (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Incestuos marriage in old Europe

Was Hitler's mother married to her uncle? Was it permitted in old Europe to marry your niece or nephew? I know royalty did, of course, but ordinary people?--85.226.44.238 (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"Old Europe"? Hitler lived about 65 years ago, that's hardly "Old Europe"... Pre-industrial revolution, it was very common to marry relatives since most people would never travel further than, perhaps, the next village, so everyone they knew would probably be related to them. Uncle/niece and Aunt/nephew marriages were illegal in a lot of places, but I don't think they were banned everywhere. As for Hitler, his father Alois's, ancestry is disputed but our article on his mother, Klara Hitler, says: "Either her grandfather Johann Nepomuk Hiedler or his brother were also likely Alois' biological father. Moreover, Johann was her future husband's stepuncle. Even after they were married Klara still called her husband "Uncle"." --Tango (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

In some Protestant countries, people went by the prohibitions in the Book of Leviticus, chapter 18, and a man marrying his niece was not in that list. However, such marriages were never allowed in England. AnonMoos (talk) 05:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, old Europe, before the 20th-century - I am a european myself. Hitler died 65 years ago, but his parents was married in the 19th-century, and I assume the law allowing them to marry was older than that, so I meant ca. "19th-century-18th-century". By relatives, I mean people closely related than cousins (to marry cousins was more or less allowed, I think, in most countries?), such as Uncle/niece and Aunt/nephew. Can anyone tell me in which countries this was allowed before the 20th-century? Particularly in the 17th-century-19th-century. I know it was not in England, nor was it in Sweden - the poet Agatha Lovisa de la Myle seem to have married her nephew in 1750, but although they lived in Swedish Finland, they were likely married in Latvia. I would be gratefull. --85.226.44.238 (talk) 10:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

North Pole

Why is the North Pole's ice missing from most maps? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 22:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Because, unlike Antarctica, the north polar region is open water topped by an ice cap. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Alternate explanation: Santa gives all the good little cartographers "presents" to keep his neighborhood secret. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

And let's not forget Superman's little shack just down the road, the Fortress of Solitude. He doesn't spend much time there, though; the noise level from Santa's Workshop can approach the level of a 747 taking off - even to someone without super-hearing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

December 14

Julius Caesar

The month of July is named after Julius Caesar. How many positions did he hold and what were they ?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. - See Julius Caesar --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No not a homework question. Graduated many years ago and not going to any school. Just curious as I was doing some reading on him. This is where I came across that is where we got the month of July from. Didn't know that. Looked at the Wikipedia article, however too complicated for me. Just hoping someone might know. Thanks.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

He was a popular guy (apart from the folks who assassinated him) and he had many titles. He was a highly-trained medical doctor, and he was the first to cure gallstones by dividing the gall into three parts (a fact often mis-translated). He was a motivational speaker, specializing in negotiation skills, as covered in his book, "I Came, I Saw, I Concurred". While wearing his chef's hat, he conducted a cooking show, under the stage name "Julius Child". It was there that he invented the Caesar Salad and the Caesar Roll (you know it better as the Kaiser Roll). He liked to cook with the dramatic backdrop of the setting sun, and his show's theme song was "Roman in the Gloamin'". His loyal fans occupied a special bloc of seats in the theater, dubbed the Caesarian Section. Unfortunately, one day he left the knife drawer unlocked, and things went downhill from there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Bugs is absolutely 100% correct. But, just so you can double check, did you check out the last section of the article? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Check out cursus honorum for the standard sequence of rungs on the Roman ladder to the top.--Wetman (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks. Missed the part that he was a well known chef. Usually watch Rachel Ray. Yum-o! --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 11:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is corn still subsidized?

Why is corn still subsidized? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.7.113 (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I presume your are a USian. We have something at Agricultural policy of the United States. Presumably good lobbying from the Agribusiness. The EU has its Common Agricultural Policy, which does much the same thing.

The policy aims of subsidies tend to be:

1. to increase productivity, by promoting technical progress and ensuring the optimum use of the factors of production, in particular labour;
2. to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural Community;
3. to stabilise markets;
4. to secure availability of supplies;
5. to provide consumers with food at reasonable prices.

Arguably subsidies do achieve each of the aims. And those aims are good; the subject matter - feeding populations - is very important indeed; I guess part of the inertia in the system is risk aversion on the part of politicians (i.e. who will not accept the risks of changes which may not work well). But the criticisms are manyfold. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Assuming we are talking about a democracy/republic with elected representatives, and assuming for the sake of discussion that the subsidy is no longer necessary - these things are tremendously hard to remove because no politician from that area would ever directly reduce the income of his/her constituents because doing so would guarantee their defeat in the next election, and politicians from other areas usually lack either the political clout or personal interest to take on the entrenched agricultural groups. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Agriculture is one thing we do really well in the USA, and if it takes my tax dollars to support it, that's fine with me. There's a lot worse things we spend our money on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

_{Actually, in the long run Americans (and everyone else in the world) is worse off for these protectionist policies. If American farming was actually superior it would not require price supports. See comparative advantage, gains from trade but most of all protectionism "Nearly all mainstream economists instead support free trade.[1][4] Economic theory, under the principle of comparative advantage, shows that the gains from free trade outweigh any losses as free trade creates more jobs than it destroys because it allows countries to specialize in the production of goods and services in which they have a comparative advantage.[12] Protectionism results in deadweight loss; this loss to overall welfare gives no-one any benefit, unlike in a free market, where there is no such total loss. According to economist Stephen P. Magee, the benefits of free trade outweigh the losses by as much as 100 to 1.Jabberwalkee (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)"}

In the mid-1970's, there was a corn (maize) crisis, with prices paid to farmers strongly declining, and Gerald Ford promised that that would never happen again, and put in place programs which led to farm subsidies and the meteoric rise of high-fructose corn syrup -- with doubtful overall consequences for the U.S. Treasury and Americans' health. In recent years, biofuel made from corn seems to be a politically untouchable sacred cow in the U.S., even though corn-ethanol is not in fact not all that "green"... AnonMoos (talk) 05:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If you are interested in where farm subsidies tend to go, look at who receives the subsidies. Ever wonder why so many Senators and Representatives own so much land in Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa? -- kainaw™ 13:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Also on who receives the studies, in an episode of the political drama The West Wing, it's suggested that the Iowa caucuses make corn subsidies untouchable because scrapping them would be political suicide. I don't know which non-fictional political commentators have suggested this, though. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Three words about corn subsidies, and why they still exist. Archer Daniels Midland. That's about it. --Jayron32 19:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Territorial evolution of Russia

I'm working on the next in my series of territorial evolution articles (don't worry, I'm also fixing the problems extant in Canada), and wanted to clear this list before working hard on a very large map.

First question: How far back should it go? I was going to send it only back to the independence of Russia from the Soviet Union; prior to that, it was a second-level entity, and before that history gets a bit hazy I think. But, on the other hand, modern Russia is a pretty direct descendant of the RFSFR, with mostly the same internal borders. So it could go back to the founding of the RFSFR. But right now, I'm just working on since the formation of the Russian Federation.

Second question: Does anyone know of a website or resource with information on these things? I've generated my current list with the help of wikipedia and statoids.com, but it feels deficient.

Third question: The Chechen question. Do I mark it as 'disputed'? When was it disputed? It looks like the first Chechen War ended in a de facto independence, and it was recognized by Georgia at some point. The problem is, a lot of Russian subjects declared "sovereignty" or "independence" but then in the same breath said they were part of the Russian Federation, so I'm not sure what the whole sequence of events is. Please help me out.

Here's the list of changes I have so far:

• March 1 2008: Chita Oblast + Agin-Buryat Autonomous Okrug -> Zabaykalski Krai
• January 1 2008: Irkutsk Oblast + Ust-Orda Buryat Autonomous Okrug -> Irkutsk Oblast
• July 1 2007: Kamchatka Oblast + Koryak Autonomous Okrug -> Kamchatka Krai
• January 1 2007: Kasnoyarsk Krai + Evenk Autonomous Okrug + Taymyr Autonomous Okrug -> Krasnoyarsk Krai
• December 1 2005: Perm Oblast + Komi-Permyak Autonomous Okrug -> Perm Krai
• July 25 2003: Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug renamed Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug - Yugra
• ~1994: Moscow split from Moscow region, Saint Petersburg split from Leningrad region
• November 1994: North Ossetia renamed North Ossetia-Alania
• January 25 1994: Republic of Mordorvia "in its modern form", according to Wikipedia. What does this mean?
• June 1992: Chechen-Ingush republic split into Chechnya and Ingushetia.
• May 26 1992: Komi Republic "in its modern form" established, any idea what this means? It's from here
• March 31 1992: Chukot split from Magadan. In February 1991 the Chukchi legislature had seceded from Magadan, but this move was not acknowledged by the federal government.
• February 25 1992: Bashkir ASSR renamed Republic of Bashkortostan
• ~1992: Gorno-Altai Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic renamed the Altai Republic.
• December 25 1991: Soviet Union officially dissolved.

I've probably missed some early on in the country's history, but I have some questions about our statements here on Wikipedia about some of these republics saying they were established in their "modern form", without further explanation. I kinda need to know what these mean. :) Any assistance that can be provided will be very appreciated. Thanks! --Golbez (talk) 01:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Tommy Lynn Sells Execution Date?

I saw an interview of Tommy Lynn Sells on Most Evil and he was so cold, he talked about his crimes and victims like if those innocent people were nothing. His behavior during the interview was normal but despicable and so cold. I want to know if there is an execution date for him, if so, that would be a very good news. Thanks! --SouthAmerican (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

At the Texas Department of Criminal Justice site, Sells is not on the list of scheduled executions, but is listed still as on Death Row. According to the site, his (or any) execution will not be scheduled until all possible appeal processes have been exhausted. Bielle (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Works of al-Biruni

I am working on the article for khutu, a somewhat mysterious material used by Islamic cutlers in the 1000s-1200s AD. One of the points I'd like to back up with a reference seems to hinge upon when al-Biruni's works were translated or re-discovered. It seems that sometime in the 1940s, a researcher named Richard Ettinghausen was exposed to some kind of freshly translated or newly discovered work by al-Biruni that caused him to re-evaluate his previous thinking on the topic. I would like to know what work it was that suddenly came to light and/or why it wasn't known before that. I don't have access to Ettinghausen's article directly (and I can't even find it through JSTOR or GScholar), so I'm hoping someone can shed some kind of light on works by al-Biruni that Ettingausen might have suddenly been exposed to in the 1940s that weren't previously available. Yeah, a long shot to be sure, by no harm in asking, right? Matt Deres (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

According to our article it was Chris Lavers that had access to a translation of al-Biruni while Laufers did not. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 07:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but I'm the one who put that there and I'd like to pin it down with a proper title or some other specific information. Ettinghausen published his bit in 1950 and, after going on for some time about how khutu must have been walrus ivory, he suddenly acknowledges this new bit of writing that's come to light and essentially throw up his hands and admits bafflement. I've got bits and pieces from the article quoted in the Lavers work, but they're annoyingly vague. Matt Deres (talk) 11:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not know anything about the work that Ettinghausen might have suddenly been exposed to, by I do know that al-Biruni has a book on pharmacology, titled Saydana, or Saydala, or rather Saydalani [6], in which he talks about khutu. Hope it helps. --Omidinist (talk) 07:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Based on what I've read, I'd been assuming it was one of his treatises on gems and minerals, so this is a helpful clue of where else to look. Thanks! Matt Deres (talk) 11:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

English translation

Is there an English translation of heer ranjha, sohni mahiwal, sassi punnun and mirza sahiba? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.60 (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you know that there is a Reference Desk specifically for language questions? Edison (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So why not move the question yourself, as I'm about to do? —— Shakescene (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sahiba can be a term of address for females, much like "madam" (it's the female form of sahib). Mirza can be a name in South Asia. --71.111.194.50 (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• • Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#English translation (from Hindi-Urdu?)

Corned beef

This is corned beef in Belgium

This is unknown as "corned beef" in Belgium. Is this sold in tin in your country ?

Hello. Sorry for my bad English, I'm French speking and do not understand the article corned beef. I wonder if it exists in Ireland, Great Britain, Canada and United States, two kinds of corned beef sold in cans: 1 / in chunks or slices, 2 / into small pieces resembling pig - cat. The 2d form is known in Belgium and France "corned beef". I do not know, here, selling chunks canned. Can you also tell me exactly what form (1 or 2) is used for the Reuben sandwich, breakfast and the typical dish of St. Patrick. This is intended to improve the article Corned beef on the French WP. Thank you, --Égoïté (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

For the US: Slices are generally used for a Reuben sandwich. Chunks will be found in a can of corned beef hash. Dismas|^(talk) 10:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Irish (or Irish-American?) corned beef is quite different from the stuff that comes in tin cans from South America. Perhaps a real Irish person could comment? Alansplodge (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Living in both Britain and Canada, I have found corned beef sold only in two forms. One is in slices, as with other deli meats like pastrami, and the other is in cans where it comes as a single chunk - roughly square but slightly narrower at one end so you can get it out of the tin. I've never seen it in small piece resembling any animal. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

small pieces resembling pig - cat makes no sense. What is that trying to say? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe resembling cat- or dogfood? --217.84.59.229 (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry : resembling cat- or dogfood, :( --Égoïté (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

this form is common in the U.S., sliced for use in sandwiches like the Reuben sandwich.

In the U.S., corned beef is generally a whole brisket which is cured, and then sliced. You can buy an entire whole-muscle portion of corned beef, shrink wrapped and ready for slicing. It is very similar to pastrami or deli-style roast beef. You can also buy the whole corned beef roast unsliced and then use it in preparations like Corned beef and cabbage. --Jayron32 19:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Red + green = Christmas colors

Some sections of the page on Christmas decorations don't mention which regions celebrating Christmas share the symbols of the season. I'm particularly* interested in:

• Poinsettia (about which I posted a query on the Talk page)
• Holly leaves
• the colors red and (pine) green

It would help to know where they were indigenous before, say, WWII, after which I estimate is about when the surge of global marketing of decorations plus mass communications purveyed these iconic plants and colors globally where they might not previously have held these associations. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
(*the OP notes: I'm documenting a curious crosscultural incident ca. January 1941 regarding these symbols, but would like your input before I proceed.) -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a song The Holly and the Ivy which has been around for a while (though it might not have become widely known as a Christmas carol until the 19th century). Poinsettias were unknown in English-speaking countries before the activities of Joel Poinsett. AnonMoos (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Much is made of the pagan origin of the use of holly, ivy and mistletoe for Christmas decorations; but my view is that if you were a medieval peasant and needed to decorate your house, there isn't a lot else you can use during an English winter - everything else is pretty much dead (or dead-looking). The only other native evergreen is the yew, which needed to keep its branches for Palm Sunday - there's no palm trees here either! Have a look at the Christmas_controversy page. Alansplodge (talk) 11:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

And I think that yew would be even more problematical for an anti-pagan Christian. —— Shakescene (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That's why they're grown in churchyards - it's part of our Christian heritage in the UK. 8,000 new ones were planted in British churchyards to mark Millennium[7]. Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I live in Britain and I'd never heard of the Poinsettia being associated with Christmas before. 92.24.51.157 (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you visit your nearest garden centre. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Or florist's shop or supermarket [8]. Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Poinsettia's as a Christmas flower are more of a North American tradition. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Bordeaux Diligence

Hello, if someone in the reference desk has read the short ghost story "The Bordeaux Diligence" by Lord Halifax which is included in Lord Halifax's Complete Ghost Book, please explain the plot. --Lit Scholar (talk) 11:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you read it and not understood it, or are you looking to be able to write a report on it without reading it? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Question about 9/11 conspiracy theories

I read the article (9/11 conspiracy theories) and have read a lot about the conspiracies and I don't understand one thing of those who support the conspiracy theories. Some of them say there were no planes (the Pentagon was hit by a missile, Flight 93 did not crash in PA, etc). So my question is, if there were no planes, or flights, where are the people of those flights (American Airlines Flight 77 (Pentagon) and United Airlines Flight 93 (PA crash)). What do they say about it?... any page or link will be highly appreciated. Thank you. --Maru-Spanish (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)