Humanities desk
< May 2	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 4 >

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.

May 3

What happened to Mauro David?

This is about dates for Italian hyperrealist painter Mauro David whose image features in that article. While voting for pics, found this one [1] - the file has the artist Mauro David 1949-2007 - did something happen to him? I find it confusing because he's been congratulated on his talk page as if still living. Thanks in advance for any help, Manytexts (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the biographical note on his website, he died on the 6th January 2007. DuncanHill (talk) 10:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, commons:User:Mauro David isn't him, because that user's only edit was on February 25, 2007. I suppose the congratulatory talk-page posts were made by people who didn't notice the death date. Pais (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks people, that solves it for me. Looks like he might have been affected by long-term exposure to paints & solvents too. Cheers, Manytexts (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree: Should mother-in-laws & father-in-laws (and their family) of my cousins, uncles and aunts be added?

Good morning (here in South Africa).
I'm busy building a family tree and have already got all my "close" relatives' information neatly written down.
But now: should the genealogical tree also include the mother-in-laws & father-in-laws (and their family) of my cousins, uncles and aunts? Is it irrelevant or necessary?
Thanking you in advance
Suidpunt (talk) 08:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the family tree is meant to be handed down to your children and their children for posterity, then I would put the in-laws in. As regards aunts and cousins, I would concentrate first on compiling all the direct ancestors.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's good to focus on direct ancestors primarily. It's also good to enter as much as you know and as much as you can find out, because someone else might need or want that info someday, and once someone is gone, they may take that knowledge with them unless you've written it down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)You can do whatever you want with it. The more names and information you have, the better. You can, of course, make note of blood relatives vs. in-laws. Also, keep in mind that your own spouse is not your relative. If you have kids, they are related to both of you, and also to any in-laws that are in your direct line or your spouse's direct line. It's usually customary to at least list the spouses of relatives, where known, and how far you take their trees depends on (1) how far you feel like taking it; and (2) how close you are to them personally. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends on you, and how addicted you are to the research! If I hadn't gone through my family tree thoroughly, I wouldn't have found the genetic basis for the rheumatoid arthritis I have (I've traced it in 5 generations). Nor would I have found the relationship to Edward III I have (in common with approx 80% of English people, apparently). Sometimes you find the in-laws and the aunts etc are the same... and that can give you pause for thought! Good luck with it. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought regarding the listing of aunts, uncles, etc. I just recently discovered that one of my paternal uncles was killed by the notorious Pendergast gang in Kansas City, Missouri when the Irish gangs ran the underworld there. I was intrigued to learn this. My suggestion is to add any interesting facts about your relatives, as I'm sure your decendants will be pleased.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I've found out with shaking up my own family tree, you may find some golden apples, some rotten apples, and assorted fruits, nuts and squirrels. That's no small part of the fun. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing the enthusiasm Jeanne Boleyn, Baseball Bugs and TammyMoet!

The only problem I have left then is to distinguish between what is juicy family goss and what is fact. I don't know about you guys and gals, but I'm not going to summarise my family members' unwritten biography: the main problem is that I would have to rely on a lot of hearsay, and that my own perspective of my family members, like I guess you towards your relatives too, is "tinted"/ subjective.

Family trees are for sharing, right? One of my relatives has been arrested by the police for marijuana; I read about this in an electronic newspaper archive - when I searched family names - it was published 14 years ago. Nobody, except me and the person himself, knows about it. Even as hard cold facts, how do one deal with such information that nobody gets hurt in the process? (Ironically, there's an article about another cousin of mine solving a crime; he was a brilliant detective back then). Shouldn't I rather ask the family members to write their own history (well, if they're alive, obviously)? Suidpunt (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Asterix: when I refered to "family members", I meant "relatives") Suidpunt (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to be very sensitive about in constructing family trees is to protect living persons. That's one of the core axioms at ancestry.com. In general, I have bare-bones info about living persons, and nothing at all about those under a certain age, such as 50. What method are you using for collecting this data? Computer? Paper? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sensitive information, like what you've described, should be kept confidential, at least while someone is alive. You can still compile basic information within your own notes: birth date and place, marriage date and place, death date and place, children's names and the same info, etc., etc.; and any other information you may know, such as residences and especially photographs, which are very valuable to a tree, as they put faces to names. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once they're gone, the confidentiality issue has not totally gone away, because they may have children that don't want the public to know about their parent's arrest record or whatever. So the information has to be handled sensitively still, because you never know how someone is going to use it. In my far-extended family tree, I like to say that I've got politicians, paupers, preachers, and pilferers, among other things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My family recently discovered that an old relative had destroyed letters she had inherited from a yet older relative. She felt that these documents reflected badly on the family. On discovering this, we felt that she had destroyed something wasn't really hers to dispose of. Of course she knew the people involved as people: to us they're just names on a chart. So it goes with your relative's marijuana bust, and it's probably sensible and thoughtful to handle such stuff differently about living (or recently deceased) relatives than for the long dead. On discovering that you'd suppressed stuff, because it made you uncomfortable, those to whom you leave your genealogical study might feel you've trodden on their right to know everything and make their own mind up. So if you find stuff that's genuinely embarrassing, you might consider writing an addendum to the family tree, and keeping that to yourself. Keep it with your will (and possibly leave it to a younger relative who cares about this kind of stuff) and when you die that information can be integrated into the family tree, now that it's colour rather than scandal. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 14:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Finlay for the advice! I’ll keep that in mind; my cousin is really a lovable, sensitive person and already said to some of my relatives that he feels like the black sheep in the family (though nobody knows why, except me – and he doesn’t know that I know) – I only care about his feelings.

@Baseball Bugs. Answering your question, I'm using MyHeritage Family Tree Builder as an electronic database, but the way of collecting data is either face to face (and literally writing it down on paper, especially those cousins of mine who love to give laconic answers [who one has to pulse for info]) or using Facebook-communication. For the elders, it's telephony for sure. Most of the time I'm using a "dual-core" system: what's on the computer, must be on paper, and vica versa. For Newspaper archives, I visit the country's most popular paper's website itself, click on the [archive] button and start searching.

How ironic - I, on the other hand, have problems with those ABOVE 50 - getting in contact with my Dutch relatives from my father's side is rather difficult! For deceased South African relatives, I use www.eggsa.org for searching photos of graves in getting dates of birth and death. I'm not sure what Americans can use. Thankfully, I'm the youngest cousin; most of my cousins is around 53-40 years old and parents already; I'm 21, which means that I'm just a few years older than their children's level. My mother (also the youngest of her generation) is in contact with her "talkative" siblings, whose age vary between 60-80. Contact is extremely vital; do visit funerals, marriages, pick up the phone and, remember the Golden Rule: ASK QUESTIONS. Suidpunt (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do sympathise. In one part of my family, I have someone who was jailed for "issuing" (forging counterfeit coins), another jailed for what appears in the official records as "B------" and which I presume to be buggery, and another who was imprisoned for neglecting his children, who were taken away from him and sent to Canada. None of this, however, happened in the last 110 years. These details are all kept with the relevant people, and for the Canadian link I've written a newspaper piece to try and find descendants of them. However, on my published family tree I don't show any such details. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need the sympathy more than me, TammyMoet. That's terrible! Well, they got caught. Shame. Poor fellows. But what about those that never has been brought to book? There's but yet another rumour (scandal) that runs in the family; or is it a spider in the trousseau? Back in the Netherlands then, my great-grandfather, from my father's side, raped his own granddaughter, the daughter of his eldest son. I'm not fowling the family nest, it's already rotting for good! The genetic (blood) relevance between me and him is, luckily though, a mere 12.5%! But yet again, is it fact, or Victorian Gothic Fiction? Perhaps, I'll never know...Suidpunt (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, before I get carried away - thank you so much for all your answers submitted. I really enjoyed reading it! So, off I am to find my cousins', aunts' and uncles' long lost in-laws... Happy Researching everyone! Good Night! (South Africa) Suidpunt (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smallest winning vote in Canadian election

Hey all,

I was wondering, is there a list anywhere of canadian seats, just showing last night's winners and their % of the vote? I know Winnipeg South Centre was won with only 38.8%, was wondering if there were seats that were won with less (presuming 4-way marginals in Quebec would probably be the most likely for this). All I can find so far and on Elections Canada are seat by seat results, and would rather not go through all 308 of those :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.197.254 (talk) 11:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

39% is actually not that low of a plurality in Canada. In 2008, the Bloc Quebecois won Gatineau district with 29.2% of the vote. I'm sure eventually someone will post a spreadsheet of the results that you can search. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a published list, but I knocked a quick check together from this data - it looks like 31% in Vancouver Center, 31.8% in Ahuntsic, with half-a-dozen more under 35%. In the general case of four-way marginals, I think the record in the UK was <4% between first and fourth places, in Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber - the winner was on 26%! Shimgray | talk | 22:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hedy Fry won Vancouver Centre this time with 31% of the vote. I don't know if that was the smallest plurality. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was the shortest on my list, but I'm not promising my back-of-the-envelope analysis was accurate ;-) Shimgray | talk | 00:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The CBC reports that two Ontario ridings [electoral districts] will have judicially-ordered recounts because the apparent margin of victory was less than a thousandth (0.1%) of the total vote cast: 26 votes in Etobicoke Centre (Greater Toronto Area) and 14 votes in Nipissing—Timiskaming. The story also mentions some other close margins. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For election statistics by riding, as well as a downloadable text file that you can paste into a spreadsheet program like Microsoft Excel, visit Elections Canada at http://enr.elections.ca/home1.aspx (Il y a aussi une page parallèle en français.) —— Shakescene (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

¶ Yes, there is an easily searchable spreadsheet for this kind of thing, it just wasn't the one I first picked at the the Elections Canada web site above ("latest results"). Instead it's the less promisingly named "Report of Candidates Who Received the Most Number of Votes on Election Night"; you can download it directly by clicking here. Hedy Fry (Liberal-Vancouver Centre, incumbent) is indeed the winning candidate with the lowest percentage of votes (31.04% against 26.04% for Karen Shillington, NDP); the runner-up with the highest percentage of votes is Nettie Wiebe (New Democratic Party), who got 46.91% of the vote in Saskatoon–Rosetown–Biggar, Sask. against 48.70% for Kelly Block (Conservative Party of Canada) [the Liberal won only 2.3% and the Green Party candidate 2.1%]. The winners with the five lowest percentages of the overall vote are

31.036% : Hedy Fry (Liberal Party of Canada), Vancouver Centre, B.C.
31.798% : Maria Mourani (Bloc Québécois), Ahuntsic, Québec,
33.422% : Jinny Sims (NDP), Newton–North Delta, B.C.
33.760% : Philip Toone (NDP), Gaspésie–Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Québec, and
33.767% : Ryan Leef (Cons.), Yukon, whose margin over Larry Bagnell, the sitting Liberal MP, was Canada's fifth-closest in number of votes (132) and sixth-closest in percentage (0.82%).

Among other superlatives I gleaned by sorting the spreadsheet are these:

The Crowfoot riding in Alberta has the highest percentage for a winning candidate (Kevin Sorenson, C, 83.94%), the lowest percentage for a second-place candidate (Ellen Parker, NDP, 9.14%) and the largest percentage margin between the first and second candidates (74.79%) [The Green candidate's 3.3% beat out the Liberal's 2.3% for 3rd place; 1.3% went to two others.]
In absolute number of votes, the lowest total vote, the lowest votes for a winning candidate and the lowest for a runner-up were in Nunavut: Leona Aglukkaq (C) won 4,111 votes to 2,360 for Paul Okalik (L) out of at total vote of 8,247. The runner-up with the second-lowest absolute number of votes (3,478) and the second-lowest percentage (9.83%) was Mohammed Ali (NDP), losing to Candice Hoeppner (C, 26,899, 75.99%) in Portage—Lisgar, Manitoba.
Outside Labrador and the Territories, the lowest total vote and the lowest winning vote ~~and the lowest second-place vote~~ were ~~all~~ both in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. (I think P.E.I. is guaranteed a minimum of 4 M.P.'s regardless of population, just as every State has two U.S. Senators.) The total vote was 18,468, including 7,292 for Sean Casey (L) and 6,040 for his closest challenger Donna Profit (C).
The highest total vote was 90,460 in Oak Ridges—Markham, Ontario, won by Paul Calandra (C).
The highest total for a winning candidate, and the highest margin in absolute votes was in Calgary Southeast where Jason Kenney (C) won 48,206 votes against 6,943 for Kirk Oates (NDP), for a margin of 41,713.
The four lowest margins in percentage correspond to the four lowest differences in absolute votes:

_5 (0.011%) in Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, Qué.: François Lapointe (NDP) 17,278 (36.343%) over Bernard Généreux (C) 17,273 (36.333%)
14 (0.033%) in Nipissing—Timiskaming, Ont.: Jay Aspin (C) 15,507 (36.61%) over Anthony Rota (L) 15,493 (36.58%)
25 (0.048%) Etobicoke Centre, Ont.: Ted Opitz (C) 21,660 (41.21%) over Borys Wrzesnewskyj (L, incumbent) 21,635 (41.16%)
45 (0.177%) Winnipeg North, Man.: Kevin Lamoureux (L) 9,097 (35.77%) over Rebecca Blaikie (NDP) 9,052 (35.59%)

Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, B.C., had both the highest absolute number of votes for a runner-up (25,792, or 40.24%, for Troy de Souza, C) and the fifth-smallest percentage margin (0.63% against Randall Garrison of the NDP, who won 26,198 votes or 40.87%). In losing, Mr de Souza won over six times as many ballots as the winning candidate in Nunavut (Leona Aglukkaq, C: 4,111) and over three times as many as the winner of Charlottetown (Sean Casey, L: 7,292); in fact he won over three times as many votes as were cast in all the 820,000 square miles (2,100,000 km²) of Nunavut for all candidates combined (8,247) and still lost his riding. [last point added at 22:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)]

—— Shakescene (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

denim brands

what are the top denim (jeans) brands for men? --Dhoand oirl (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Define "top". In terms of sales? Quality? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See designer jeans for some suggestions.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of brand reputation. --Dhoand oirl (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's still vague. Reputation for "pricey", or reputation for "utility"? If it's the former, see the designer jeans article noted above. If it's the latter, look at popular name brands like Levi, Wrangler, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Levi's brand of denim jeans has the longest history and is known worldwide. The name has become a genericized trademark so not all levis are necessarily Levi's. An anecdote says that Levi's removed a crotch rivet following complaints from cowboys of discomfort after warming themselves by camp fires. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carhartt, L.L.Bean, Lands' End…the list is endless, sort of. Bus stop (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking along the lines of what's "hot" and what's not? Manytexts (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dior do some sexy jeans. They're dear, bout £185 for the cheapest pair but theyll last u forever. Gucci, balenciaga, versace, paul smith, burberry etc all do very good quality "couture" jeans --Thanks, Hadseys 01:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval fiction - English capital

I'm writing fiction, and right now I'm struggling to make up a fitting name of the capital of my 'version' of England in a medieval world. At least some of its culture and city-names etc are based on medieval England, and the name of the capital should preferably not be anything too similar too the name "London" but it should be a name worthy of a capital.

Of course, making up english fictional city-names aren't that difficult as you can make up a name and mostly combine it with for example these words:

-bury, -borough, -chester, -bridge, -ham, -wich, -mond, -sted, -pool, -castle, -port, -ford, -by, -hampton An example being the real city of Nottingham (Notting-HAM)

But when trying to make a name for a capital it just doesn't sound right, and I have also been trying to make up a name that doesn't have any of the aforementioned words or other similar ones in it, just like 'London', or 'York'. Those two kind of stand out from the typical names of English cities and towns. Of course, there weren't that many cities in the middle ages but many settlements were already there nonetheless, which would eventually grow bigger throughout the ages.

I have already tried "Crownwall", but I figured it was too similar to "Cornwall" (for obvious reasons that doesn't work), and I also thought about "Kingsport" for a while but the capital is not going to be a port city so I can't use that either.

While I'm at it, I'm also looking to find a name which I can combine with -chester.

So if anyone feel a little creative today I'd appreiate your time and effort, truly.

I tried asking something similar here on wiki once before, with luck, so why not try again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.123.18 (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the Reference Desk is for providing information and sources, not artistic input. ╟─Treasury Tag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 12:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically speaking, the seat of government of England wasn't London Proper, but Westminster, so perhaps you could work out a -minster type thing. Kingsminster or something... --Jayron32 12:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a time, Winchester was the capital of England. Googlemeister (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such as "Noreastminster"? Or how about "Primeminster" or "Yesminster"? Or, although this doesn't quite fit the OP's premise, a Peabody and Sherman episode where two cities named London were at war with each other because they had the same name. The solution was Peabody convincing one of the two cities to rename itself "Nodnol". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the history of the country involved? London gets its name from the Roman Londinium, for example. An Anglicanized version of a name given to it by the prior occupants of the country would help it seem to be "older" and more historical than the conventionally-named nearby towns. HominidMachinae (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try again: the Reference Desk is for providing information and sources, not artistic input. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannator─╢ 12:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the problem here with asking such a question, Mr. Wiki-police-officer, and although you insist I should not edit this page anymore I'm doing so nonetheless, a little bit in spite but mostly to thank those who took the time to answer me. So tnnx, Jayron and HominidMachinae And HominidMachinae, you do have a good point, the kingdom will have a history, obviously, and there will be a previous empire, almost like Rome, which once ruled a large area, including my 'version of England.' What you said is a good thing to keep in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.123.18 (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We answer this sort of question all the time, and it's precisely the sort of thing we do much better than a search engine: it is a creative data processing task, in which we should be linking to relevant history and language topics in the encyclopedia. This is not the sort of 'debate' the guidelines warn against, but if you are unable to answer in a referenced manner or without debating, feel free to answer a different question. 86.164.70.27 (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we're providing information, I don't see the problem. Remember for Britain that the Romans sometimes Latinized a previous Celtic form (and there are two different kinds of Celtic there), and the Latinized forms were later Anglicized and Vikingized (or Vikingized and then Anglicized). So if your version of England also has numerous invaders and inhabitants influencing naming patterns, you could somehow work from there. Who built the city, what language did they speak, and who lived in it after them? Was the city always the capital, under each set of inhabitants, or did it become the capital later, after some invasion? Adam Bishop (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about Thamesham with the link between Thames and settlement ham. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winster? Cabot Stone? Churchland? Avery Downs? I dunno...Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 19:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see how that sounds. "It was a dark and stormy night when we rode into Dunno..." Yes, that's a good start to a prizewinning Monomyth, all it needs now is a publisher. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You express an interest in a name ending in -chester, which I think is a fine choice, since it implies a place fortified under the Romans, which a medieval capital is likely to have been. English names ending in -chester typically begin with an element that began as a Celtic or Latin name that was then Anglicized. Why not use the name of the Thames, which came to the Romans from a Celtic language? It may have even been adopted by the Celts from a pre-Celtic language. Starting from Anglo-Saxon *Tamescæster, you could end up with something like Temchester or Tamchester. Marco polo (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see this worthy question opened up again because I was just getting fascinated - especially with discoveries like Londinium, and all the -ized morphings, added backgrounds like -ham and -chester helping to make more sense. You put the "help" into help desk & I'm encouraged to come here again. Manytexts (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my fictional game world, I call my London equivalent "Kingsborough". To me, it sounds like an English capital city that never was. Feel free to use it. —Kevin Myers 03:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's always Aldburgh, simply 'the old city', by which London was sometimes refered back in the day, when it was already left over from earlier civilizations. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People would confuse that with the other place called Aldeburgh. 2.97.208.37 (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might find Somerton interesting - reputedly the capital of Wessex around 900 AD. Astronaut (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about Stone-something, such as Stonechester, Stonebridge, Stoneburgh. Stone buildings would be a notable feature of a capital, rather than the cheaper and less pernament wooden buildings everywhere else. Long names would tend to have been shortened in everyday use, so Stoneburgh seems more credible. 2.97.208.37 (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geography question

Which are the important and busy transportation canals north of tropic of cancer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.228.58 (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean in that general vicinity, or do you mean all the way to the North Pole, in theory? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went to Canal and observed an entry for Lists of canals. That might help get you started. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a guess, but the OP may not mean "canal" in the sense used by a native English speaker. If they mean shipping routes more generally, Category:Shipping routes may be of more use. We don't seem to have an article on maritime trade routes per se, which seems an omission. A map like this may be of interest. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The (man-made) Suez Canal is north of the Tropic of Cancer, as is the (natural) English Channel. Both are heavily used transport passages. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two other possibilities are the Saint Lawrence Seaway or the Intracoastal Waterway. Neither is a single "canal", but both consist of collections of canals, rivers, lakes, bays, etc. which are major shipping routes in North America. --Jayron32 14:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There must be thousands of "important and busy" canals north of the Tropic of Cancer. Without even looking at any of the Lists of canals I can think of the Erie Canal and the Landwehrkanal, and all the canals in Amsterdam and Venice. Pais (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Among the busiest natural channels are the Strait of Dover, Øresund, Strait of Gibraltar, Bosporus, Dardanelles, and the Taiwan Strait. The busiest constructed canal is the Kiel Canal. Marco polo (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But channels are not canals? I would argue the Grand Canal (China) is also one of the largest (longest) and busiest canals north of the Tropic of Cancer. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Kiel Canal article says it is the busiest artificla seaway in the world, with total traffic of 43,000 in 2007. Usage statistics are difficult to find for the Grand Canal but some google searches turn up numbers like "more than 30,000 boats employed year round in transportation along the canal". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put a vote in for the Welland canal in Canada, which ship passengers find far more pleasant than going directly over Niagara falls, and also allows them to save money on barrels. StuRat (talk) 05:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill's Iron Curtain Speech

My question is regarding Churchill's Iron Curtain Speech. According to the Wikisource link below, it includes the sentence: "From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent."

My recollection (not from hearing the speech but from hearing about it) is that the speech included a prediction/warning to the effect that (the curtain) shall not (or may not) be lifted in our lifetime.

There is no such line in the speech as given in Wikisource. I'm wondering if the line I recall is one I "invented" or whether it was used in another version of the speech or in some related document.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Sinews_of_Peace

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The words "lift" or "lifted" are not found in the text of Churchill's speech here. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Viscount Grey said The lights are going out all over Europe and I doubt we will see them go on again in our lifetime. He was referring to the imminent First World War though, but I wonder if you were remembering this statement? --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, what Grey actually said was: The ~~lights~~ lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we both got it wrong, according to Wikiquotes, the expression was The lamps are going out all over Europe: we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime. Your version and mine are mentioned as misquotes, but granted yours is closer to the real quote than the one I provided. :0) --Bill Reid | (talk) 08:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must need new glasses. I looked it up in my Oxford Dictionary of Quotations to make sure I had it exactly right (because when one is correcting another, it simply does not do to make an error oneself). And there it is, large as life - The lamps are going out .... But what did I see? The lights are going out .... Sorry about that. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that you're mixing up Churchill's 1946 Fulton speech with Margaret Thatcher's comment on it in her 1990 Aspen Institute speech? It includes these lines:

For today we are coming to realise that an epoch in history is over, an epoch which began in 1946 when an American President and a former British Prime Minister shared a platform here in the United States at Fulton, Missouri.
They saw with foreboding what Winston Churchill famously called an Iron Curtain coming down across Europe. And they forged the great Western Alliance which bound us together through a common sense of danger to the lives of free peoples.
For more than forty years that Iron Curtain remained in place. Few of us expected to see it lifted in our life-time.

--Antiquary (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. The lights are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime is very familiar. The memory I was wrestling with must have come from it.

I don't know how that quote from long before I was born got into my mind. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But see above: it's not "the lights" but "the lamps". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lamps, thank you. More appropriate to the time it originated. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There could be a British English thing going on here, where they use "lamp" and even "torch" to describe what, in American English, is more likely to be called a "light". StuRat (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. But when it comes to a quote, it's the actual words people say that are meant to be reproduced verbatim, not a modernised version or one made to sound more familiar to a particular audience. That's what paraphrases are for, maybe even indirect quotes - but definitely not direct quotes. This is something a lot of journalists have lost sight of: they will report someone as having said "ABC XYZ", with quote marks and all, when what they actually said was "ABY CXD ZE". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The practice of reproducing old sayings verbatim, rather than modernizing them, has led to the preservation of some rather archaic language. This could be good or bad, depending on your perspective. StuRat (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think pre-first world war, most homes and streets were still lit by gas lamps and I think that would have been used both sides of the Atlantic (or maybe they did use gas lights in the US at that time). --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But were they called "lamps" in the US, then, or called "street lights", as they are now ? Note that the word "lamp" is used in the US, but mainly just for table lamps. And, in the US, the word "light" is pretty much exclusively used for the metaphoric sense, rather than "lamp". StuRat (talk) 04:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bucklin voting/Borda count in Oklahoma

I understand that Oklahoma briefly used an electoral system which was basically a hybrid between Bucklin voting and the Borda count. I've read the Oklahoma Supreme Court case which ruled the system unconstitutional, but I'm trying to find details on the adoption of and legislation regarding the system. Can anyone help? Thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►draftsman─╢ 17:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Rule of Cool?

I was reading arguments about the legality of the killing of Osama bin Laden, and it got me thinking about whether the idea that some action may or may not have been lawful but accomplished some greater good has ever been (successfully) used as a legal defense. I'm not a lawyer but it seems like this might be more likely in a common law court as opposed to a civil law court. Is anyone aware of a case where such a defense won (and survived appeals)? 96.246.68.89 (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My law professor from the great state of Oklahoma called this the HDDK defense: "He done deserved killin'" It's rarely attempted as far as I know but not impossible, though I would imagine in this enlightened age it's less possible than in prior eras. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Westerns it more often occurs as "He needed killin'", I think. It's more a part of oral lore, popular literature, and/or the Hollywood version of history than an actual legal defense. AnonMoos (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that in this case, as pointed out below, it is a case of Jury Nullification. But that is a distinct possibility in a highly justifiable case. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main thing to know is that the words "law" and "legal" get a heck of a workout whenever they're applied to international affairs. At the national level, you (usually) have a government that has a monopoly on violence -- in other words, it's the government that locks up or even kills prisoners, and if a private citizen tried to start his own court or jail, he wouldn't get far. International law lacks that monopoly, which means there's a huge gap between its ideals and its reality. --M @r ē ino 20:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courts often take public policy considerations into account, although I can't offhand recall any cases when a greater good defense was allowed in a murder case. The general concern is that such a view would set up every man as an executioner, which is not the intent of the law. Jury nullification is also a possibility. John M Baker (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A guy who killed an abortion doctor tried that defense. It didn't work. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jury nullification, not likely. Prosecutor nullification, that's another story... Wnt (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

necessity and right of self-defense come to mind130.102.158.15 (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In some countries, notably France, crime passionnel (or crime of passion) was a valid defense during murder cases. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In some countries, such as England, there is wide discretion for prosecuters as to whether they want to bring a charge; in England cases are only brought if they are "in the public interest" and can be dropped if doing so is judged by the authorities to be in the public interest - see Crown Prosecution Service#Decision to prosecute. I'm not going to research it now, but I believe there have been a number of cases involving soldiers shooting civilians dead (often related to Northern Ireland) where a decision not to prosecute was made.--Colapeninsula (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that is usually based on the Coroner's verdict which could be Lawful killing. The case of John Charles de Meneses has been a recent test of this. Alansplodge (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ambition

What are some French sayings, idioms, or aphorisms about the positive quality of ambition? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See this search for "ambition" at Wikiquote for French. --M @r ē ino 21:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...where the 2nd hit is a translated line from Hamlet by a British author. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And there are collections of French quotations on ambition at Dicocitations and Evene. --Antiquary (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to try the Language Desk. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]