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 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 German word “Eber” has an unkosher meaning. --84.61.183.89 (talk) 21:49, 16 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)

HA! The mention of the New Zealand Book of Events did it. page 279 contains the following: "1879, Dec 26: The fatal stabbing this year of Margaret Burke, a Christchurch servant of Parliamentarian William Robinson, was the prelude to two curious events. The convicted murderer, an indian kitchen boy on Robinson's staff who was infatuated with Burke, uttered a curse from the scaffold and, later, the imprint of a bloodstained foot appeared on the headstone of the victim's grave. Its source was never discovered." Hopefully you can find out more info from that. Grutness...wha? 23:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank You, Grutness. So I was right. As I was typing it, though, I thought I might have confused that book with another, cover in black and white, which I believe was a photo of Wahine Survivors. ( The Wahnine happened when I was three months old - my later aunt was on it before she ever met my uncle - twas the day after my brother in law was born. He says his two older siblings therefore blamed the disaster on him as the new baby, and dug a grave for him. ) There were then two books on NZ historical events - the one I mentioned, and this second one with the black and white cover, which itself detailed the misdeeds of the Burgess Gang - the Maungatapu killers, whom a teacher I had in Standard Three ( when I was nine ), mentioned, since he came himself from that area between Reefton and Nelson. It also detailed the fact that Richard Pearse admitted to NOT flying first of all in the World back in March 1903. ( Or was it also a picture of Jean Batten on the cover ? ) See, the first mentioned book of New Zealand events - with the Rainbow Warrior on the front - that is where I got the idea Mr. Cedeno was an Indian, and that he was in love with Miss Burke, but then which version is correct ? Was he Indian in the sense of being a dark skinned native South American, and not sub continental, as I thought, were their racist taunts as well, in spite of which he loved her, and since he may have pestered her, this could have been why she unwisely spoke to him in that way. But then, this latest book says 1879, " this year ", whereas the other record gives the killing and later hanging as all occurring in 1871. And a foot as opposed to a hand ? I probably read about the foot myself when I read the book in question over twenty years ago, but later heard people talking about a hand, which sounds creepier. The inference in either case is that it is supernatural, but of course, someone could just as easily have done it in the real world by hand - so to speak. But this seems to be it. I wonder where my NZ events book disappeared to. Yes, thank you all. I just wish I could get enough info to write up an article about it. C.B.Lilly 09:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The book I have is the blue cover one with the Rainbow Warrior (and Von Tempsky, Ngauruhoe, Tangiwai and the land hikoi) on the cover - Fraser, B. (ed) (1986) The New Zealand Book of eventsChristchurch: Reed Methuen, ISBN 0 474 00123 7. With the info you've got here, it's quite possible you could turn up more either from the library of from a Canterbury historical society - or online. This has some information about the grave (which seems to be no longer marked), and this gives far more info about the trial. I thought the South America/Indian confusion may have come about if he was from what is now Guyana (which has had a big Indian/Pakistani population for many years), but according to the latter of those two links: Originally. Cedeno came from Santa Fe Bogota, the capital of New Grenada, in South America. He was of negro extraction, and was about twenty-eight years of age.Any confusion about whether it was South or Central America is cleared up with the "New Granada" reference, though, since that included both Colombia and Panama. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks even more so. Now it is all beginning to come together. The two links you have provided give a fair bit of the information I had been aware of all this time. I even believe I have seen the photo mentioned on page 14 of the section on the Barbadoes St. Cemetary, but cannot remember where. Some of it sounds supernatural, whereas the rest seems prankish. A number of famous names seem to appear in the article. Ruddenklau is a cul de sac off Greers Road, and Oram is a long avenue that travels down the Brighton Spit. I see a Lilly in there too. I shall send that to my father, to see if he is related. As for the trial, it certainly appears it was not as fair as it should have been, but it also appears there are differing accounts. Based on what Cedeno was claiming, they were provoking him, but was the provocation grave ? Was he insane ? I know the burden for proof of guilt lies, as it should, on the Crown, but what about the proof of insanity? Is the onus then not on the defence ? Certainly if he was really insane, he should not have been hanged, although that does not make the victim any less dead. Now my thought is, if he was the kind to have lashed out, just because they made fun of him, which itself may not have been kind, he should not have been walking around free in the first place. Now if he did so, is this " with malice aforethought " ? Certainly if he had premeditated the murder, as some of the witnesses claimed, he got what he deserved. A life for a life. We are too unmerciful on ourselves these days, when trying to show mercy to those who neither merit nor appreciate it. My concern is also in locking up a person for being insane enough to commit a homicide they could not help, but then releasing them when they are well, and then the same pressures come upon them on the outside, that were controllable inside, and it may occur again. I hear they are thinking of, or may already have, releasing one who carried out a massacre in NZ some years ago, because he was insane at the time. What if he snaps again ? The same with John Hinckley. Looking at Mr. Cedeno, it is certain the jury was biased due to his race, among other things, just as occurred to Sam Shephard in Cleveland over fifty years ago, and DNA has since cleared Dr. Shephard. This jury bias in 1871 was inexcusable. Did they have the option of changing venues in those days ? I guess it all boils down to whom you believe, and even then, the whole affair is just an unfortunate series of events. These days people rib each other in the work place all the time, and maybe once in a while someone reacts, but as for lashing out at two young ladies, killing one of them, even if the testimony of the Crown witnesses, that he stabbed Miss Burke when she was already down is a lie, that is extreme. Many things in hindsight could have been done to avoid this, and if Mr. Robinson had been aware of what was going on, he should have put a stop to it. When all is said and done, it appears Mr. Cedeno had a short fuse, and perhaps even a violent streak. If what the Crown's witnesses had said was all true, he was definitely guitly of murder, but even if not so, I believe that any reasonable person would not have reacted the way he did. Do all mentally unfit people lash out and commit murder at the slightest provocation ? In trying to protect such people, society seems to stigmatize them. Not all people with such problems are even violent, and then there may be different levels of insanity or mental illness, which detemine the possible reactions of such people when provoked. After all, he did kill, so this is not a did he or didn't he like Arthur Allan Thomas ( whom my late uncle met when Mr. Thomas visited Australia once ), or David Bain ( whom my middle sister saw once while she was visiting someone at Addington Prison), rather it is more like a was he or was he not provoked like Clayton Weatherstone. What if Mr. Cedeno was just like him ? Dr. Weatherstone came across at his trial like an arrogant narcissist who appeared to enjoy his fifteen minutes in the spotlight, detailing his exploits with women, among other things. Was Mr. Cedeno any different ? Again, as stated in the article, can we rely 100% on what the papers at the time tell us, especially if they may have been trying to shape opinions ? Well, thank You everyone. That has been rare. I appreciate all your help and information. I never thought this one question would garner such interest, and uncover so much. I appreciate that. I shall try to look more into this. I wish we were the type of country that made interesting movies of the week, since this would be a cracking story to portray, just as Peter Jackson has done with another aspect of Christchurch History, which occurred eighty years after those events. My brother in law's late father used to train horses for Mrs. Hulme. It's a small world. The Russian.C.B.Lilly 04:16, 17 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)

Such talk should no longer be tolerated. I am opposed to white supremacists putting down all other races, but I am equally opposed to anyone, ( unless you can tell they are joking, then it should work the same for all ), putting down any race, even if they are a member of it. Being proud to be white, because that is what one is, if they are, and cannot change it, should not be the same as being a white racist. That is different. It seems some people expect all whites to be ashamed for being so, just because some other dumb crackers have stuffed things up. Blaming one race over another is not the answer. In much the same way that the white race has not been responsible for all that is good in the world, neither are they for all the bad. It is still cool to be white, as long as you don't disrespect anyone else for not being so. I will not be blamed for filthy slave traders and ridiculous looking honkies in white robes setting fire to crosses. Let each man or woman admit their own folly, and let us concentrate on what unites us, according to God's will.C.B.Lilly 09:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

To understand why people feel the need to react the way they do, I suggest you check out this classic essay [4] and scroll to page 2. Read from there. Obviously you are not responsible for the things people did in the past, but that isn't really what this is about. 86.178.227.230 (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Dr David Suzuki once compared humaity as a cancer. I just found a site that has this as a video. www.infowars.com/david-suzuki-humans-are-maggots-living-in-their-own-defecation/ ^{infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used} "humans are maggots living in their own defecation"].
:-D
Paul Watson might have similar negative views.Civic Cat (talk) 20:39, 17 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)

The OECD website has the best statistics resources of them all, and luckily for you, the countries you need are all in there. User:Krator (t c) 10:58, 15 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)

Kind of an interesting question. The information is buried somewhere in the CR, but it won't be in one nice list (I don't think). It might be easiest to narrow it down. Start with all the bills, Bills the Senate passed, Bills the Housed passed, then subtract out the bills that were presented to the president (the idea being that if it doesn't pass both houses it can't get to the president). I don't know enough minutae about the House/Senate Rules, but both are available online and the presentment sections might give you some more ideas about how a bill could pass a branch of congress, but not get any further. I would guess there's some crazy scenario where a few bills pass both houses but die before presentment. Shadowjams (talk) 22:01, 14 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)

As far as where the germanic peoples came from, the forerunners of modern Germans, then they came from modern coastal Scandanavia, pretty much both sides of the Øresund. There is a romantic notion that Gotland is the original Germanic (Gothic) homeland, but I don't think you could narrow it down to that small of a territory. So, depending on how you define "german" and "germany", the Germanic fatherland could be thought of as:

• Modern Germany exactly as it exists today
• The territory of the German Empire, which includes roughly modern Germany plus Prussia, Pomerellia, Alsace-Lorraine, and Silesia
• The territory of all German language-speaking peoples, so roughly the above plus Austria and the Sudetenland, OR the area known as Großdeutschland. This is what Hitler and the Third Reich defined as the Germany.
• The German-speaking areas of the Holy Roman Empire, roughly the HRE north of the Alps
• Coastal Scandanavia as I describe above.

Of course, it all depends on what your political reason is for defining a "homeland" or "motherland" or "fatherland" is. You generally fit your own definition to your political goals. --Jayron32 19:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

ah so the german fatherland must be greater still. is it bavaria? is it styria? is it where the marsi graze their cattle? is it where the iron of the mark reaches? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faulty (talk • contribs) 05:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. As I stated, it depends on your political aims. Modern Germany is probably all you are going to get for a "German fatherland" or "homeland", given that the last person who tried to expand Germany's borders didn't go over so well. You could also claim the original "germanic" homeland of coastal Scandanavia, since that historical fact is unlikely to generate much in the way of controversy. --Jayron32 05:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as the Romans were concerned, their empire ended, and the barbarian Teutons, Huns, Goths, and Angles, began at the Rhine. --Major Bonkers (talk) 06:04, 15 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 . . . ."

[Addendum: on re-examination, 'Canidia's Reply' is clearly Horace's composition and merely the second portion of Epode xvii, not an actual rejoinder by the real woman.] 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

1. 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.
2. 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).

Agree on the count, but not the publication history. My assumption is that Horace's odes (and other works) would probably have been privately or/and publicly recited individually more or less as each was completed during his literary career, and may have circulated in written form to at least a circle of peers, friends and dedicatees, such as Augustus (I'm not aware of a commercial market for individual short written poems in Rome of the period, but I'm no expert and there may also have been one). He apparently compiled and published them as 3 books in about 731 A.U.C. (approx. 23 BCE) - not, of course, in the physical form of modern books; each would have comprised one or more scrolls. Subsequent to their publication, he continued writing the odd ode, but concentrated on other forms, particularly his Epistles. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• 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.

Agreed. The post-731 odes included 3 (or 4) written and promulgated around 738-41 A.U.C. (15-13 BCE), indirectly or directly praising Augustine (the 2nd and 3rd (and 4th) being explicitly addressed to him), Augustine then asked that 'his' 3 (or 4) odes be published, and (presumably) in order to make up a publishable volume, Horace added the 11 other "non-Augustan" odes, perhaps plus the 4th "Augustan" ode which Lytton describes, though perhaps only figuratively, as "the appropriate epilogue to the Fourth Book," Book 4 was published in 741 A.U.C (13 BCE?), 10 years after the first 3. Note that the Epodes I mentioned were much earlier work, compiled and published around 724 A.U.C (30 BCE). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• 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.

Yes and no: he agreed with the (then) critical majority that Ode = Father and Epistles = Son, while giving due acknowledgement to Ritter's opinion that both = Father, but he may have been wrong; the modern concensus, as far as I'm aware of it, is that the epistles were probably addressed to the son, while the ode praising Lollius (which was apparently written after Lollius' alleged transgressions were supposedly exposed) is argued about depending on one's interpretation of Lollius senior's character (good but maligned, or bad) and Horace's possibly mistaken reading of him.

Incidentally, I had little knowledge of Horace either, beyond owning The Odes and Epodes, but I enjoy and am good at textual research and analysis, which I used to do professionally. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

Hope they do, as per my disclaimer above! - is there a real Classicist in the House? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanx again for the excellent follow-up. If others want to contribute to this, it is welcomed.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 22:14, 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 [5] and subsequent pages. For licensing info, see [6]. - 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)

There was a Little Civil War too - my great grandfather was in it! Alansplodge (talk) 20:21, 14 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)

Brittany and Britain are both Bretagne in French, so they definitely need their Grande. Alansplodge (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

'Little Britain' is the name of a street in the City of London; see [7]. It may be distinguished from the street 'Petty France' [8], which in the old days was notorious for queues of people waiting for their passports to be issued. --Major Bonkers (talk) 06:00, 15 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)

I learnt Ancient Greek at school, but can remember very little of it except the alphabet. When I was in Cyprus, waiting for some colleagues, I talked (insofar as this was possible) with the bus driver and we recited our Greek alphabets. They were almost identical, except I pronounced the letters for m and n as mu and nu, and he pronounced them mee and nee. He didn't understand my Greek rendition of "I loosen the fetters", though. --Phil Holmes (talk) 11:03, 15 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)

At least in Sweden, when I was in the military, there was a method.

I forgot the name but it was something along the lines of the ”evaluation and decision-making process”. It was used at battalion level and higher and at some units at lower levels. At the top of the list is ”immediate action”: what do I have to do NOW? That might be to gather intelligence, raise the state of readyness or to regroup.

Then, what you do is to run trough a list of aspects: The unit’s task, terrain, the enemy, timeframes, weather, supply situation etc. For each aspect you come to one or more conclusions, on the weather you might e.g. conclude ”Air landings by parachute will be possible from 17.00 tomorrow”.

When you’re finished you generate some alternatives: e.g. attack here ore there, surprise attack with what I have now or wait for reinforcements? You choose one alternative using a decision matrix.

Finally you write a few concise sentences that contain the most important points of the battle plan. This is used as a basis for staff and subunit commanders to do their detailed planning. Sjö (talk) 14:21, 15 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)

I'm not sure that AnonMoos is correct; ages ago, I seem to remember idly browsing a Book of Common Prayer (as one does) and noting that marriages between first cousins are acceptable. --Major Bonkers (talk) 06:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean; first cousins are not on the Leviticus 18 prohibitions list, and after the Protestant reformation, first cousin marriage was generally allowed in Common Law legal jurisdictions (influenced by the legal traditions of England) until the 19th century, when Lewis Henry Morgan and others started campaigning to ban such marriages. Such bans passed in a number of states of the U.S. (but not of course in England itself). AnonMoos (talk) 07:02, 15 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)

There are a number of issues. First, if you're talking about world maps, most of them are produced using projections designed with most attention to the latitudes where most people live. Mercator projection maps cannot represent the North or South Pole at all; Gall-Peters projection maps represent it as a line; still other projections represent it as a series of separated points. If the polar regions are to be shown in something resembling their proper form, it has to be done by a separate inset map (in a different projection, perhaps a conic projection), and the mapmakers may not choose to take up space on the sheet for that. Antarctica at least is a continental land mass, so they may want to include an inset showing it in one piece, but the Arctic Ocean isn't, so they're more likely not to provide an inset showing it (and indeeed, I don't remember ever seeing a world map that had one).

In any decent world atlas, on the other hand, I would expect to see a map showing the Arctic Ocean as well as a page showing Antarctica.

Then, the question specifically referred to the polar ice cap. Most maps show features whose position is permanent. While it's true that the North Pole is under ice all the time or nearly so, the boundaries of the ice cap vary considerably from one season to the next, and also from one year to the next even considering only the same season. (That's part of why the search for Franklin's lost expedition was so difficult: a strait might be ice-covered even in the summer one year, even when it was open water the previous year. And people generally didn't realize that.) So any representation of the ice on maps would necessarily be approximate, whereas mapmakers like things that are definite.

That said, I've certainly seen maps that do show the ice cap; but I think the original poster is right that most of them don't.

--Anonymous, 21:09 UTC, December 14, 2009.

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)

Yeah, he was notably adept at boiling asparagus, hence his adopted son's habitual references to it. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

He also suffered from a neurological disorder. Epileptic Caesar was, fortunately, uncommon. HalfShadow 23:10, 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)"}

<Cue Baseball Bugs to blindly defend the status quo> --Mr.98 (talk) 20:32, 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 [9], 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)

The meat needs to be sliced very thin for a Reuben sandwich. Otherwise the toughness may make it difficult to bite off one bite. Edison (talk) 19:59, 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)

In the UK, corned beef is always the speckled stuff out of the tin (also known as "Bully Beef", a staple of the British Army in two World Wars); as shown in your first picture. If you meant the salted brisket, you would have to explain yourself - I've only ever seen it on TV. Alansplodge (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Is that so? When I lived in Prague, a British gentleman opened a store that sold "British" goods, including delicious sliced corned beef in the New York style. In America, American-style corned beef is often thought of as an Irish dish, although I understand the Irish learned it from the Jews in the U.S. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my own experience here in the UK is very much in line with Alansploge's. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thinly sliced corned beef is also widely available at deli counters and packaged in cold meat cabinets in UK supermarkets - it's not only available in cans. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

All of these comments from the British that corned beef = canned mush seems only to reinforce the standard stereotype of British cuisine. For the record, the foodstuff you describe does exist in America, or stuff similar to it, see Hash (food) or potted meat. --Jayron32 22:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Corned beef (the proper British stuff, in cans from Brazil or the Argentine) is delicious - in sandwiches, with boiled new potatos in the summer, or with mash in the winter. DuncanHill (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I must say, though, that as a fan of New York-style "Jewish" corned beef, I'd have to consider the use of the term "corned beef" to describe that thing in the cans to be an insult to all of the world's butchers and cows. Same thing with that tasteless excuse for "corned beef" you find at a small-town Midwestern grocery store. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hoorah for canned mush! (It does look a bit like cat food doesn't it?} It's not only British cooking - here's a French recipe [10] called "monkey ragout" which is "typical of the western Americans". So there!

We do have Kosher salt beef in London; no-one calls it "corned beef" though. Alansplodge (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A Google search reveals that "salt beef" is the British equivalent of American "corned beef." Let's not even get into those Canadians and their smoked meat. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all this anwers. You can now work just a little more on Corned beef ;) --Égoïté (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

In Australia, the salted brisket is sold raw and is called corned beef. Cooked by boiling.
Sleigh (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That seems a little odd, since the "corned" refers to the grains or 'corns' of salt used to cure the meat. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That's right. And it doesn't come in a can. In fact, the idea of canned meat of any description for consumption by humans is quite foreign to Australian tastes. We like our meat fresh. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well then who buys the Spam I saw in the Woolworth's last I was there? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:49, 15 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[11]. Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

But that "Christian" tradition was adopted wholesale from the preceding Pagans (although we're hanging on!), along with many others (including the actual date of the festival) and with many Pagan holy sites (on which churches were built) as an explicit policy to make conversion easier and subsume stubbornly maintained folk customs. Various 'purist' or 'fundamentalist' Christian sects do eschew all Christmas celebrations and decorations for that very reason, as the article you linked details. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:42, 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 [12]. Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Heck, Poinsettia is even called Božična zvezda or "Christmas star" in Slovene. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(And in several other European languages, judging by the wikilinks.TomorrowTime (talk) 08:19, 15 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)

Considering Poinsettias are from Mexico, it seems unlikely that that particular tradition jumped the pond. There is some symbolism to the poinsettia which has become associated with Christmas in North America, which is actually discussed some in the article. This google search contains oodles of information as well. Similar searches could be done for Holly and Mistletoe, and other plants. Generally, plants which show colors in the winter tend to be popular in winter celebrations, which is likely the REAL reason why these plants, and others like evergreen trees, are common symbols associated with Christmas. --Jayron32 21:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Every outlet in the UK that sells plants or flowers also sells Poinsettias at Christmas. I don't remember them in my childhood but they've been around awhile. Last month I went to a party that had one of those Mexican stuffed horses that you hit with a stick. We're a cosmopolitan lot over here don't you know. Alansplodge (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That's called a piñata. For a demonstration, here's a clip of major league ballplayer Torii Hunter from when he was with the Minnesota Twins:[13] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think i've ever heard of poinsettias as a Christmas plant here in New Zealand. Pine trees, holly, and, of course, pohutukawa are the three main plants associated with Christmas here. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

OP again: So plants aside, what's the association of red/green color combination with the Christmas holiday season - and its historical and geographic limits? (Here's a photo of the artifact, a painted enameled tin plate, provenance Mauritius on or sometime after Dec. 26, 1941, possibly of British issue.)

I'm pretty sure it comes from holly - green leaves / red berries. Symbolism aside, as already stated, in a European winter, there wasn't much else you could use before the days of mass-produced decorations. If you want the symbolism of holly please refer to the words of the carol[14], but I suspect these meanings were a later (though still very ancient) add-on. I personally don't go with all the pagan stuff but there's no way to prove it one way or the other. It just doesn't sound very likely to me. As for geographical boundaries, I'm certain that this was originally a European thing that has spread with western culture. Mauritius was colonized by the Dutch (1638), the French (1715) and finally the British (1810). By 1941, there weren't many places that weren't influenced by American culture either. Hope this answers your question. Alansplodge (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

In Britain at Christmas it's wintertime. Centuries ago rather than using manufactured plastic or paper things to decorate your home, you would collect them from the natural world. Its winter so the leaves had fallen off the trees. Only evergreen leaves like holly and ivy were available. I think a century or two ago pine trees must have been much rarer than they are now. The only other colour would be the hips and haws - the red berries of the hawthorn and dog-roses. Hence the Christmas colours. 78.144.207.126 (talk) 20:22, 15 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)

Herded into a bunker and executed? Living on the island with Elvis and Andy Kaufman? Conspirators themselves? Who knows. Requiring a logical conclusion to everything was never on the conspiracy theorists' minds. --Golbez (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think they usually claim that the people on those planes are fictional. (Have you ever met one of them?) Of course, that's insane. APL (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If you are willing to posit a conspiracy with missiles and etc., it is not hard to imagine that the conspirators could "take care" of a plane or two worth of people. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Several of the victims on the planes were fairly well-known, such as TV producer David Angell, former hockey player Garnet Bailey, and actress Berry Berenson. Of course, if you're going to be conspiracy-minded, their disappearance does not prove what happened to them. Actually, considering that the total number of people on the planes, the fraction who were "fairly well-known" is, if anything, unusually large. --Anonymous, 21:21 UTC, December 14, 2009.

The only response to this is "you cannot reason someone out of a conclusion they themselves did not arrive at via reason." There is no need to respond to these conspiracy theories. They make no sense, and deserve no response, except to note their insanity. You aren't going to convince the people that believe them of anything resembling a rational thought, so instead all you need to do is to prevent them from infecting others. A simple presentation of the facts should do that. --Jayron32 21:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Any DNA evidence found to demonstrate the death of a victim on the plane would be thought to settle the matter, but "show me" doubters can always wave their hands and say the DNA was planted, or the sample was tampered with at the DNA lab by shadowy forces, or the media is blindly, uncritically parroting what they are told by the government operatives who masterminded the whole thing in the first place. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'm so excited. I'm one of the editors of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. I hope you enjoyed it.

To answer your question, Loose Change, which is the most popular of the many 9/11 conspiracy theory movies, argues that the passengers are in hiding at some secret government facility. They don't speculate whether the passengers are willing-participants to the plot or prisoners.

9/11 conspiracy theorists often don't have answers to reasonable questions about their theories, and will often say "We don't know. That's why we need to have a real investigation to find out what really happened."

Another popular theory with 9/11 conspiracy theorists is that the World Trade Center was destroyed in a controlled demolition. They argue that explosives were planted in the buildings before the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the explosives are what caused the buildings to collapse. But preparing a building for controlled demolition requires a lot of time and effort. You would have to literally rip apart the walls on dozens of floors, and sneak thousands of pounds worth of explosives, fuses, etc. past security without any of the tenants noticing. That's another problem for which they don't have an answer.

IIRC, BBC News made an excellent documentary on 9/11 conspiracy theories and they asked one of the theorists how the explosives were planted without anyone noticing, and the response was that maybe they were planted in the buildings when they were first built! The WTC was build 1966-1971. So the plot's been in the works for twenty years.

BTW, let me give you a word of caution about our many articles related to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Many of these articles are written by the conspiracy theorists themselves so they tend to slant the bias in favor of their theories. Our articles on 9/11 conspiracy theories and World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories are fairly good, but it took a lot of watchful eyes to get them in accordance with Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and fringe theories. Of course, more watchful eyes are always welcome. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is what one conspiracy theorist and Loose Change viewer has to say at [15]:

"My opinion is that the passengers and pilots on the plane were drugged in-flight. The plane was then taken over by remote control and was landed in Cleveland. Now, I'm assuming the drug kept all onboard awake, but not necessarily alert to exactly what was happening, almost in a hypnotic trance-like state, then again they all could have been knocked out for a short period of time, I'm not really sure. Once the plane landed they were all escorted off the plane and taken into the NASA building. Once inside a few if not all of their voices were recorded in order to create the false black box recordings. After that all of the passengers and pilots were euthanized, if you want to call it that, and their bodies were subsequently cremated."

This person thinks this is more likely than the "official" story of Arab terrorists hijacking the flight and losing control in a passenger revolt. People will believe anything to make it fit into their worldview. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I always wondered about the missile-in-the-Pentagon one...a plane flying that low in Washington would be visible and audible by a very large number of people, so do conspiracy theorists just never ask anyone if they saw it? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the plane that flew into the Pentagon had hundreds of witnesses on one of America's busiest highways. But I suppose they were all drugged, flown to Cleveland and killed in a NASA building. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're interested in an excellent and humorous treatment of the subject, I highly recommend Rolling Stone Magazine's The Hopeless Stupidity of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Just citing that title within the 9/11 article might be regarded as POV-pushing. :) Conspiracy theorism is like a religious cult, in which the believers continue to believe despite any and all evidence to the contrary. It's pretty much the same as the Flat Earthers, who continued to believe the earth was flat (or at least to publicly so claim), even during the space age. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

pumpkin soup

Is pumpkin soup traditionally sweet or savory? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it depends on where one lives, but in my experience, pumpkin soup is savoury and pumpkin pie is sweet. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd second that, from a New York-New England point-of-view. The secret is, sauté or roast each of the ingredients before adding them. Modern recipes have you adding a little sugar gasp!: slight sweetness should come from the roasted carrots and sautéed onions, IMHO.--Wetman (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Regent if Scottland in the 1540s

Was Mary of Guise regent in Scottland from 1542, or from 1554? Her article is not entirely clear. --85.226.44.238 (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

She was not regent in 1542. It says that her daughter, Mary Queen of Scots was queen regnant (i.e. a "ruling queen") upon the death of her father. Since her daughter was only days old when she became queen, a regent(a ruler-in-stead) was named, in this case it was James Hamilton, Duke of Châtellerault. Those are different words. Mary of Guise did not become regent until 1554, when Hamilton surrendered the position. The close spelling of "regnant" and "regent" is what is probably confusing you. --Jayron32 00:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What is a "Special Envoy to the Prime Minister"?

In the film Quantum of Solace, one of the characters is "Special Envoy to the Prime Minister". I am interested in more information on that position - what is a Special Envoy to the Prime Minister in the UK, what are their responsibilities, how many are there, who are they etc. 23:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panishaka (talk • contribs)

I don't think it's as exciting as a Bond film. Details of one are here [16]. I suspect the word "Special" means that they create them when needed and tailor their duties to fit the need. Alansplodge (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That guy is the Prime Minister's Special Envoy to <somewhere>, the somewhere in this case being Sri Lanka. The form "Special Envoy to the Prime Minister" is nonsensical on the face of it; it sounds like someone the UK PM appoints to represent the UK government to ... the UK PM. Can you see the logical absurdity here? That might conceivably work if the PM were not a member of the Government, but I've never heard of a case where a head of government is not in some teensy way connected with the government. In fact, the head of government is usually ... I hesitate to say it ... the head of government, so there does seem to be a prima facie case here of there being no possible requirement for a special envoy to the Prime Minister. Unless this character was meant to be some other country's Special Envoy to the UK PM, or vice-versa. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, an Envoy is always an envoy to somewhere (or some non-geographic group, I suppose). A Special Envoy is one that isn't a regular position and is created for a specific purpose. They are a bit like ambassadors. They represent a foreign leader (or group of leaders or leader of a body like the UN or EU) in a country or region. Tony Blair was made "Special Envoy for the UN, EU, US and Russia to the Middle East", which means he has been sent by all those people (working together) to try and promote peace in the Middle East. --Tango (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

In the film, it seemed to be some sort of adviser to the PM. I only found one example of a Special Envoy to the Prime Minister in the UK, someone working on tackling youth crime[17][18][19] - it says it's an unpaid position reporting directly to the PM. I also found the title used in India and some other countries. Panishaka (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be very much of a modern invention, within the last ten years, which has coincided with a more 'presidential' manner of government (rather than a 'parliamentary' style). The first one that I can recall was that flower ^{deadly nightshade, possibly} of the aristocracy Lord Levy. I think that it is used to distinguish (1) someone outside the normal chain of command or organisational chart; (2) someone dealing with a specific issue or with a specific role; (3) someone with, by inference, the ear and authority of his appointer; and, (4) someone appointed without the need for a democratic vote or subject to democratic scrutiny. A cynic (who, me?) would say that it's a meaningless title designed to stroke the ego of the appointer and appointee. As distinguished from a plenipotentiary and a syndic. PS: the appointment of Tony Blair by George Bush to create peace in the Middle East is beyond parody. --Major Bonkers (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Railway mileage (UK) 'zero' points.

Specfically, is there any logic to where 'zero' is in terms of railway milages?

I read once that for most Uk railway mileages 'zero' was the London Terminus, with the mileage increasing along the 'down' line. This may be correct for mainlines, but what about lines that don't start in London or go cross country?

Also do branch lines continue the mileages from the point where they diverge or do they 'reset' and measure the distance from the mainline?

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There's some sort of zero post on York Station, iirc, which specifies the lines it is the zero post of. If that helps. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC

All British railways have "up" and "down" directions and my understanding is that the increasing mileage always follows the "down" direction. If the company did not serve London, then "up" would normally be toward the most important city it did serve and so the zero point would be there. If the line was later bought by another railway, they might or might not choose to remilepost it in accordance with their own system. This page says that the Midland Railway did update all mileposts to show the distance to London St. Pancras. But on the London and North Eastern Railway's main line from London to Edinburgh, the mileposts start over at the boundary between the old Great Northern Railway and North Eastern Railway -- which is York, as mentioned by Tagishsimon. --Anonymous, 11:47 UTC, December 15, 2009.

I concur almost completely except that, rather tham from "the most important city", it was usually from the station at which the company's headquarters was located, which might be a different place. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

December 15

Yazoo City Mayors

How long has Wardell Leach been Mayor of Yazoo City? When did McArthur Straughter take office?24.90.204.234 (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You could call him and find out. here is a list of contact information for Yazoo City. --Jayron32 04:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Movement of the sun and moon around the sky

So, in the Northern hemisphere, the sun rises in the east, moves in a clockwise direction through the sky (and is at its midday peak in the south) and sets in the west. The moon does the same. Am I right so far? So what happens in the southern hemisphere? Does the sun still rise in the east? Is it at the north at midday? Does it go in an anti/counter-clockwise direction to set in the west (if it sets in the west?)? And what happens on the equator?

In the Northern hemisphere, stars move around the Pole Star - but what direction do they circle in - clockwise or anti/counter-clockwise?

Thank you for helping.81.159.89.69 (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I should explain my reeason for asking. I have seen lots of programmes on TV where the sun rises on the bottom right corner of the screen and moves anti/counter-clockwise towards the top left side of the screen. I am unsure whether this is simply the result of lazy journalism/film production and is a film of a sunset that has been played backwards, hence its reversed movement, or whether this actually happens in the southern hemisphere.81.159.89.69 (talk) 11:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This is really a science question, but you asked here, so I'll answer here. Point by point:

• So, in the Northern hemisphere, the sun rises in the east, moves in a clockwise direction through the sky (and is at its midday peak in the south) and sets in the west. The moon does the same. Am I right so far?

Yes, in the mid-latitudes. More precisely, if you consider only the horizontal direction from you to the sun, that moves clockwise as you look down onto the earth -- i.e. south to west. North of the Arctic Circle you get a period each year when the sun never rises and another period when it never sets, just rotates clockwise all the way around the sky (highest in the south, lowest in the north). For the tropics, see below.

• So what happens in the southern hemisphere? Does the sun still rise in the east? Is it at the north at midday? Does it go in an anti/counter-clockwise direction to set in the west (if it sets in the west?)?

Yes, in the mid-latitudes. Again, south of the Antarctic Circle there are periods when it never sets (moving anticlockwise all the way around the sky) or never rises.

• And what happens on the equator?

In this answer I'll use "spring" to mean the period from the spring equinox to the summer solstice, and similarly for other seasons; this is standard in some countries but not in others. For half the year (Southern Hemisphere spring and summer), on the equator the sun moves clockwise and its high point is in the south; the other half (Northern Hemisphere spring and summer), it moves anticlockwise and its high point is in the north. This doesn't mean it switches abruptly from one motion to another. On the equinox it moves straight overhead from east to west. The next day it moves just a little bit north or south, then the next day a bit further, and so on until on the solstice it reaches farthest north or south (but still high overhead, not nearly as far south or north as you get in the mid-latitudes). Then it starts coming back until on the next equinox it is passing straight overhead again.

This variation between clockwise and anticlockwise is true anywhere in the tropics, but off the equator it's asymmetrical. For example, at latitude 20° north, for most of the year the sun will move clockwise with its highest point in the south, but there will be a small part of the year when it goes the other way (almost straight overhead, but with its highest point in the north).

• In the Northern hemisphere, stars move around the Pole Star - but what direction do they circle in - clockwise or anti/counter-clockwise?

The whole sky rotates as a unit, but when you look up at the stars circling the pole, you are viewing the rotation from the opposite direction compared to what I described when I said "more precisely". Therefore, looking up toward the Pole Star, it now looks like an anticlockwise rotation.

• I have seen lots of programmes on TV where the sun rises on the bottom right corner of the screen and moves anti/counter-clockwise towards the top left side of the screen.

That can't happen in the Northern Hemisphere outside of the tropics, and in the tropics it would rise at an angle close to vertical. You may indeed be seeing a sunset played backwards, or a Southern Hemisphere sunrise; another, less likely, possibility is that the image has been reversed left-right for some artistic reason.

--Anonymous, 12:20 UTC, December 15, 2009.

Thanks. You covered everything! I did ask on the science ref desk first, but then noticed that they seem to take an age to answer and that there was a question about the noth pole here.....:)81.159.89.69 (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You got your first answer on the Science desk less than 2 hours after posting your question. Posting the same question on multiple boards, and then insulting the people who answer (smiley or no), is probably not the best way to get quality answers in the future. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Literature question

I am looking for the well-reviewed play where a travel decision by the central character went awry, and he ended up over 5,000 miles off course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.54.201 (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Odyssey? --Jayron32 18:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really a play, but in the movie "Amistad", the African rebels ended up in the US instead of their intended destination of Africa. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Success

What do you think about Success is based more on image than talent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.56.73.112 (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting per the rubric at the top of the page that we do not really do opinion questions, nor do we encourage starting debates. And in other news, to cover a probably base, we do not do your homework for you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Islam religion in Arabia?

Hello. I've been wondering for quite some time about the religious manners of the Arabs before Islam was foundedin the 600's. Were they Judaist, Christian, or followers of a religion native to their culture? 88.112.62.154 (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Islamic Arabia may be of use, as might Ancient Semitic religion. It seems to be a complicated question, with each little area doing their own thing, so some of the links in the first article to individual kingdoms might be most useful if you've got a specific area or time in mind. Matt Deres (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And Arabian mythology, and the chief goddess of Mecca, Allāt. I thought jahiliyya might be helpful, but that article stinks... Adam Bishop (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Specifically in Muhammad's area, there were reportedly a large number of idols in the Ka`ba enclosure at Mecca, of which the three best-remembered now are Allāt, Al-‘Uzzá, and Manāt (because of the Satanic verses controversy). The most specifically relevant article seems to be Arabian mythology (though it it perhaps somewhat conflates pre-Islamic pagan concepts with later folklore). AnonMoos (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Georgia's Death Row

American serial killer Carlton Gary is set to be executed by lethal injection on Wednesday. He was convicted in 1986, my question is, is the average of stay on death row in Georgia more than 20 years?, or is it a special case?. --SouthAmerican (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Page 69 of this document gives this data on the Georgia death row inmates:

Count Pct      Years Served
2     1.92%    Less than one year
1     0.96%     3 to 3.99 years
1     0.96%     4 to 4.99 years
1     0.96%     5 to 5.99 years
2     1.92%     6 to 6.99 years
5     4.81%     7 to 7.99 years
3     2.88%     8 to 8.99 years
4     3.85%     9 to 9.99 years
5     4.81%    10 to 10.99 years
7     6.73%    11 to 11.99 years
4     3.85%    12 to 12.99 years
7     6.73%    13 to 13.99 years
9     8.65%    14 to 14.99 years
6     5.77%    15 to 15.99 years
5     4.81%    16 to 16.99 years
6     5.77%    17 to 17.99 years
3     2.88%    18 to 18.99 years
9     8.65%    19 to 19.99 years
3     2.88%    20 to 20.99 years
3     2.88%    21 to 21.99 years
2     1.92%    22 to 22.99 years
4     3.85%    23 to 23.99 years
2     1.92%    24 to 24.99 years
1     0.96%    25 to 25.99 years
1     0.96%    27 to 27.99 years
1     0.96%    28 to 28.99 years
1     0.96%    29 to 29.99 years
6     5.77%    Thirty + years

Mean (average)          16.05 years
Median (middle)         15.085 years
Mode (most frequent)    7 to 7.99 years

--Sean 18:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The mode looks like 14 to 14.99 years to me... And was there nobody executed in between 1 and 3 years? --Tango (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, 14 to 14.99 and 19 to 19.99. --Tango (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Christmas movies during WWII

I can name several movies that are shown on TV over and over again during the Christmas season, but I was wondering if there were any Christmas classics made before or during World War II. I can't seem to think of any that old and I'm writing a story that takes place during the war. Thanks! ?EVAUNIT^{神の人間の殺害者} 18:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• List of A Christmas Carol adaptations gives a number of movie adaptations from before WWII. It's a Wonderful Life was released only a year after WWII. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

List of Christmas films has a number made during or before 1945. Babes in Toyland (1934 film) is probably the most famous. --Sean 18:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Constitutional rights + same-sex marriage (not a math equation :)

Constitutional rights (CR) are those rights bestowed upon the people by the government (via its constitution) such that infringement upon said rights, whatever they may be, constitutes contradiction and is therefor illegal, at least until the constitution is changed -- that's how I understand CRs in summary format. For those intelligent persons who assert that same-sex marriage is a US CR, what exactly is the argument. That person X (who is male) is allowed to "marry whom he loves" (who happens to be female) but that person Y (also male) is prohibited from the same (but, in Y's case, the person whom he loves is also male)? That seems to me to be a valid equality issue, if such a "marry whom one loves" clause is itself a valid clause. I'm not here to debate the issue, just to understand what the two sides say. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You want to muddy it further, you could also consider polygamy and polyandry as those contain the similar "marry whom he/she loves" argument, and is also illegal. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Your premise that constitutional rights are " bestowed upon the people by the government" is incorrect. The principle is that those rights are natural rights that, as the Declaration of Independence says, with which people are "endowed by their Creator". The Constitution, and its amendments, merely clarifies and codifies those rights. That may seem like nitpicking, but it goes to the philosophical underpinning both of the US law and constitution, and higher courts (particularly the supreme courts of the US and individual states) will draw upon the principles of due process and natural justice when clarifying a legal situation. That is, you can have rights that exist a priori, that no-one knew you had, but that can be deduced from the underlying moral principle. Legal arguments as to the current constitutionality of gay marriage revolve in part around natural justice and the Equal Protection Clause, namely that those who wish to engage in a gay marriage are denied protections and benefits in law that are available to others. It has been argued that marriage itself (as a legal entity) is unconstitutional, because it affords additional protections and benefits to persons depending on their marital status. 87.113.46.161 (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)