Humanities desk
< December 4	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 6 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 5

Christmas in the Finnish Orthodox Church

Will the Finnish Orthodox Church even in the 29th century celebrate Christmas according to the Gregorian calendar? --84.61.129.27 (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How could we possibly know that? They could change their calendar before then, but otherwise, yeah they probably will. (Maybe Robot Santa will change the date. Who knows.) Adam Bishop (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think they don't already do so? As far as I know they switched calendars in the 1920's. 85.156.72.50 (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finland may have changed their secular calandar, however many Eastern orthodox chuches have not changed their liturgical calandar from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar, for the simple reason that they do not recognize the legitimacy of such a decision being handed down unilaterally from the Bishop of Rome. So you often find that the date of holidays in such Eastern churches is off by several weeks from the modern Gregorian calandar, regardless of what calandar the secular society those churches are located in uses. --Jayron32 18:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately facts are easy to look up if there is an encyclopaedia at hand: Gregorian calendar was used in Finland from 1753 on. The Finnish Orthodox Church switched to the Gregorian calendar in 1923. 80.186.0.23 (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there ya go. --Jayron32 01:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The remotest places on earth, or in mainland Britain

What are the remotest places on earth on land? There could be several alternative criteria for evaluating remoteness. And if you live near there, then it is not remote for you. The criteria I am interested in are: a) which spot on earth would take the longest to get to for a traveller starting from London or New York and using the normal tourist types of transport (so no parachuting out of a plane or Artic/Antartic expeditions or deep-sea diving or jumping into a volcano)? b) which spot on land is furthest from a drivable road? Similarly for places in mainland Britain. I would like to restrict this to places it is possible to get to and return from. 92.27.148.85 (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might find Pole of inaccessibility interesting. --Tango (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky for you we have an article about this that might interest you: Extreme points of Earth#Remoteness :) Mac Davis (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Inaccessible Island which was long inaccessible, because the island is surrounded by one-thousand-foot-tall cliffs. As for Britain, Yahoo Answers suggests Cape Wrath, the Assynt Peninsula or the Island of Foula. I have no idea what those are. The Guardian has a page on it too, with a video.[1]. Mac Davis (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of those qualify. Foula is an island and thus not mainland Britain. Assynt is easily accessible by road. Cape Wrath is the point furthest away from London (and requires a ferry trip and a minibus ride to get there - but still road accessible). There are plenty of places in Britain that require a long drive and a long walk to get there. I would think that the interior of the Great Wilderness (Fisherfield) or of the Knoydart Peninsular would be good guesses.195.128.250.106 (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was correspondence (in the New Scientist?) around this very issue -- how to measure remoteness in Britain. One correspondent opined that the most remote spot would be the one furthest from a pub. A second letter-writer propsed 10 Downing Street, as being the furthest removed from reality. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with Rockall...hotclaws 21:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Livius Drusus children flock

Looking at the article on Cato the Younger it lists some of the "children flock" that Marcus Livius Drusus cared for. I see 5 here, however could there have been as many as 7 children that he cared for. Who then would the other two be?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It lists 6 if you count Cato. Why do you think there is a seventh? Adam Bishop (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Six looks like the amount of infants counting Cato, using that article's information.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article Quintus Servilius Caepio the Younger, he married Livia Drusa, sister of Marcus Livius Drusus the Younger. Livia bore him three children: Servilia Caepionis; another daughter, also called Servilia; and a son, Quintus Servilius Caepio. According to the article Cato the Younger, both Servilia Caepionis and Quintus Servilius Caepio were "adopted" by Marcus Livius Drusus. So whatever became of the other daughter, also called Servilia - since her brother and sister were "adopted" by Marcus Livius Drusus the Younger? Could she also have gone with her siblings to Marcus Livius Drusus, as one big happy family, since at that point Livia remarried to Marcus Porcius Cato Salonianus. I assume this other daughter is Servilia the Younger.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the younger Servilia did go with her siblings.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article Marcus Livius Drusus Claudianus, he changed his name from Appius Claudius Pulcher. While there may have been 7 names involved, there was in fact only 6 infants. No wonder I am confused.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German citizen

What must I do, aside from marriage, to achieve German citizenship? There is no German in my lineage. Mac Davis (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the article you linked to? The "Naturalisation as a German citizen" section precisely answers this question. --Tango (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while I've never had to hire a German lawyer, my understanding is that lawyers in Germany are much, much more affordable than in most English-speaking countries. If this is something you're serious about doing, it could be worthwhile for you to set up an appointment. --M @r ē ino 04:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Derivative Works

(This is not a request for legal advice, just for some legal understanding.)

I consider myself fairly copyright savvy but I've had some difficulty really understanding what something licensed as "no derivative works" (e.g. as one of the Creative Commons licenses) would really mean. I know that the concept of what is and what is not a derivative work is pretty broad.

Let's say one had a photograph from someone else that was licensed CC-BY-ND (and that you satisfied all attribution requirements of the BY clause).

Could one:

Reprint the photo as part of a book, without any changes made other than resizing it to fit the page?
Reprint the photo as part of a book, without any changes made other than resizing it to fit the page AND setting it to grayscale because the printer is in black and white?
Reprint the photo as part of a book, without any changes made other than resizing it to fit the page AND setting it to grayscale AND tinting it red?
Reprint the photo as part of a book, without any changes made other than resizing it to fit the page AND setting it to grayscale AND tinting it red AND putting text over it?
Reprint the photo as part of a book, without any changes made other than resizing it to fit the page AND setting it to grayscale AND tinting it red AND putting text over it AND photoshopping a goat into the photo?

My intuitive feeling is that it becomes a "derivative work" only when real creativity is involved (that is, you are transforming it), and so #5 would be a definite "no" (it is reminiscent of the classic mustache-on-Mona-Lisa), but I'm not really clear about #3 or #4. In a way, this sort of reasoning is somewhat backwards—usually one is not trying to claim that one's modifications are totally non-derivative, but in the case of CC-ND you actually get MORE freedoms if you can claim you are making no real substantial transformations. That is, if you were in a "I am modifying this a lot" point of view—like one does if you are trying to assert that have created a derivative work out of something in the public domain—you would claim that tinting it red was really quite creative, since you could have chosen really any color, and the choice of color was so wonderfully transformative, etc. In this case, though, you get more out of saying, "this is NOT a creative change," as otherwise the CC license doesn't apply (and it is regarded as just copyrighted).

Items #1 and #2 seem pretty mechanical to me and thus plainly non-derivative, but I've put them in there just as part of the spectrum of possibilities.

Anybody have any thoughts? I doubt there is really case law on this as it applies to the CC-ND provision in particular, but I'm just trying to reason my way through it. Again, all of this is purely hypothetical, and yes, I know that only a lawyer could give you real advice, and yes, I know that in fact, the only place where this would be decided for sure would be in a court of law, which nobody wants to be in! --Mr.98 (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to have the best chance of getting this question answered, the better place to ask is the Wikipedia:Media copyright questions noticeboard rather than here. --Jayron32 18:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect that nobody could give you a definitive answer without taking it to court, since what you are after is an interpretation of the law. A lawyer is your next best bet. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble you'll find is that there's lots of jurisprudence about what is a derivative work (because copyright owners want their money) but very little that distinguishes between a derivative work and the same work (because the difference gains or loses no-one any money). CC-ND says thou shalt not "transform", but doesn't really specify what "transform" means; in practice it's impossible to use a work without transforming it in size and (modestly) in colour, if for no other reason than printers and screens don't reproduce anything perfectly. There are a few lawsuits where copyright owners sue to prevent distribution of altered versions of their works (even when they're not losing money); one such was when some "family friendly" group made a no-sex edit of Titanic and recorded it over legally-bought copies of the original (so there was no loss of money for the owners). The producers nevertheless sued to prevent this: as copyright owners they enjoyed the right to control what derivative works of Titanic were made, and they didn't want the bowdlerised version being sold. I don't think the case actually went to trial. That case relied upon the transformations being substantial. CC-ND doesn't define how substantial a transform is permitted (on the face of it, it prohibits even the most trivial and inevitable ones). So I think the real answer is "nobody knows" and, as with a lot of things in legal land, it'll cost a million dollars just to find out. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 11:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Museums in Chelyabinsk, Russia

Hello, I was wondering if anyone could figure out what museums were in Chelyabinsk; the Wikipedia article doesn't mention anything. I know of a gallery there, Челябинский Музей Искусств, but I can't seem to find anything else when searching tourism sites.

The institution I'm looking for was 75 in 1998, and the "regional museum of local history" had an touring exhibit of the Muppets of The Muppet Show and Sesame Street. There's an article mentioning the exhibit here... -- Zanimum (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like maybe: Cheliabinsk Oblast Regional Museum of Local Lore.—eric 22:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a perfect fit! A 1923 opening... but is it still around? The website they link to is gone. I'm going to try emailing to them no matter what, but does it say whether or not their still around on the linked page? -- Zanimum (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

island

what is the smallest inhabited ocean island? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.246.167 (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the lists at the bottom of List of islands may have what you're looking for and more. Dismas|^(talk) 21:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the five islands here: [2] seem to be oceanic islands and barely large enough for the single house built there. Rmhermen (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]