Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 December 14

= 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)

- 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. Half  Shadow  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:
 * to increase productivity, by promoting technical progress and ensuring the optimum use of the factors of production, in particular labour;
 * to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural Community;
 * to stabilise markets;
 * to secure availability of supplies;
 * 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)"
 *  --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? --  k a i n a w &trade; 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.  -- Jayron  32  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)

Again, this is the problem. If I am not too inaccurate, the United States has over 20,000 murders a year. The reason the Death Penalty is not much of a deterrent is because of this legal wrangling. Sure, you want to be certain the convicted person is guilty. But once that is established, get it over with ! Due to recidivism, even amongst petty criminals, how much more so will they with a taste for blood. Let them hear the Gospel, but even if they accept it, God commands they die for their crimes. Jesus saves us from our sins, but not from the physical cosequences of those sins. Someone like David Berkowitz should have been executed over thirty years ago, but because man does not follow God, God decided to save that man. I rejoice at that, and I think now, well, they decided not to execute him, it's all legal, it would be rude to kill him now, especially since he has repented, and some families of the victims have forgiven him. Neither he nor I want him to see freedom. Not because I believe he would kill again, but he knows now his place is where he is most needed, to show other desperate and unworthy men the way. Even this Tommy Lynn Sells, or Osama bin Laden, or any other butcher you could name. No, they don't deserve God's mercy, but then, who on earth does ? Neither do I, yet He is gracious. My thought is, give them every opportunity to repent, but even if they do, like Carla Faye Tucker, they must still be punished for earthly crimes. The Apostle Paul is very certain of this, where he says : " For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar. " ( Acts 25 : 11  )  This indicates that even in the New Testament of grace, there are still crimes God views as worthy of death. The death penalty for murder was not instituted with, nor taken away after, the Jewish Law, but given long before to Noah:  "  And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man.  Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. "  ( Genesis 9 : 5 - 6  )See also what I wrote on the Georgia Death Row question. The Russian.C.B.Lilly 08:44, 19 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, 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 Reference desk/Language

Corned beef
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)


 * 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.  -- Jayron  32  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.  -- Jayron  32  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 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 Doh! Misread the comment. Sorry. 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)
 * Yes, well, I was talking about canned meat. Spam is to meat as instant "coffee" is to coffee, or Richard Nixon was to honesty.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   08:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't get canned tuna, salmon, sardines etc in Australia either then? Or is that not meat? Here in NZ there's even starting to be chicken versions of canned tuna  . Not surprisingly, I found evidence of that in Australia too    . In NZ the canned chicken appears to be imported, if that's the case in Australia too then it's evidentally only a minisicule amount of the chicken sold in Australia  which I don't find surprising but still...
 * Anyway you do get raw corned beef in NZ and that's are probably the more common meaning of corned beef and of course with that you also get the the stuff sold in delis aisles of supermarket. But you also definitely get the canned stuff too, it's popular in Pacific Islander cuisine . My guess would be that's the case in Australia as well  . I appreciate they're a much smaller percentage of the Australian population but still, they are 'Australians' yes? BTW, there's even from 1916(okay I appreciate that's a WW1 ratio).
 * Nil Einne (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there you go. For every broadly true general sweeping statement, there are exceptions.  But no, I don't categorise fish products as meat.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   18:48, 17 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: 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)
 * Poinsettia (about which I posted a query on the Talk page)
 * Holly leaves
 * the colors red and (pine) green


 * 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. 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 . 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.  -- Jayron  32  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: ←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)
 * Did you not see the Mitre10 ad which is playing at the moment :-P? I think you'll also find garden centres including the Warehouse often have sales on poinsettias (or at least advertise) and stock up on them during Christmas. For example     and in fact IIRC the info tags on them may mention Christmas. How long this has been going on I don't know but there's definitely some association here although I agree pohutukawa for example has a stronger association (but isn't a great potted plant). Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I try to avoid ads wherever possible, but from what I recall of the Mitre 10 ad, it was just someone thinking a poinsettia would make a good Christmas present, which doesn't necessarily mean it's a plant associated with Christmas. You may be right that it's starting to come in here as a specific Christmas plant though. Grutness...wha?  00:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The wording as I recall was something like 'poinsettia, that's Christmasy' which does IMHO anyway (I heard the ad after I noticed the discussion albeit before your comment so it stuck). Edit: I was bored so searched for the ad (didn't take long as I have a PVR and it was in the second show I looked in), the precise wording 'a poinsettia, that looks pretty Christmasy, mum will love that'. It obviously doesn't definitely say it's normally associated with Christmas in NZ but does imply whether because of the colour or whatever it seems the kind of thing you would associate with Christmas. P.S. I try to avoid ads too but often 'watch' TV when doing stuff like cooking and don't have an auto skip ads set up on my PVR so do hear them sometimes Nil Einne (talk) 15:05, 17 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 1940, 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, 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. Holly, with its evergreen leaves and red berries, offered the only colour available at that time of year. 78.144.207.126 (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The red is about the blood according to the Hogfather...hotclaws 06:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

OP sums up: Thanks to all for your input. My likely avenue of inquiry will lead to "collectables" dealers or fellow archivists who can attest to a red/green/white holly-leaves/poinsettia theme in the UK prior to the date of the artifact's issue. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 08:03, 18 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)


 * You probably won't revisit this question now it's been archived, Lit Scholar, but in case you do - I went to a New Year's party and my host proved to have a copy of the book, so I can now give an answer.
 * The story (like most in the book) is very short, barely 3 pages. In summary, a Frenchman meets some men in a Paris street who ask him, as a favour, to ask a woman in the street what time the Bordeaux Diligence (a stagecoach) starts: though puzzled, he does so. She, apparently disturbed, tells him to ask a gendarme; the gendarme is shocked and arrests him; the magistrate he is brought before is outraged and has him put in 'the dark cell'; the trial judge is outraged, gets an immediate 'guilty' verdict from the jury, and sentences him to 7 years in a prison colony; on hearing his story, his fellow prisoners shun him, and the Governer treats him harshly.
 * When he is finally released and returns to Paris he encounters the woman, now old and ill, in the street again, and asks her for an explanation, which she agrees to give if he comes to her home at midnight. When he arrives she is lying on her bed, and tells him to lean over her because her voice is faint. He does so, she bites his ear and falls back dead.
 * And that's it. I've left out some non-essential details, but the story remains, Kafka-like, with no explanation or resolution.
 * Note that most of the stories in the book, which Lord Halifax compiled over decades and which his son added to and annotated for publication, were sent to him by acquaintances and purported to be true, only one is known to be his original composition; however, 'The Bordeaux Diligance' is annotated by his son as having no known authority or source, and likely no truth behind it. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2010 (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.  -- Jayron  32  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 :
 * "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)
 * Those photos are faked, dammit, and you know it! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "One of the wilder stories circulating about Sept 11, and one that has attracted something of a cult following amongst conspiracy buffs is that it was carried out by 19 fanatical Arab hijackers, masterminded by an evil genius named Osama bin Laden, with no apparent motivation other than that they "hate our freedoms." -- noosph e re 23:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I, too, have seen some of those conspiracy documentaries. Now, I do believe that John Fitzgerald Kennedy was the victim of a conspiracy. If you watch the Zapruder Film, you can clearly see the Chief Executive's head move back and to his left, indicating a shot from the area known as the Grassy Knoll. I am sure even in Texas, bodies in inertia tend to obey Newton's First Law, not to mention the fact that at the time, a number of people there made their way towards the knoll, because that is where they thought the shot came from. If the blow up of the Mary Mormon picture is accuarate, there is a figure in it resembling a gunman. Lee Harvey Oswald was there, and involved, I don't know if it was he who shot Officer J.D. Tippit, but he was as he said himself, a patsy. I am fine with that. And I may even have my doubts about the Apollo Moon Landings, but I am not as sure about that - I am one who was growing up when all that happened, so I wanted to believe it all, and to think, a conspiracy aout that would have to be huge. Who knows ? But in saying that, I am not keen on believing every bloody conspiracy theory that jumps up out at us. I do not believe MI5 or MI6 or even Bruno Richard Hauptmann murdered Princess Diana. I do not believe anyone murdered Kurt Kobain. I do believe people in addition to David Berkowitz were involved in Son of Sam, and I do believe in a One World Government conspiracy, its latest tool being the global warming fiasco. The things I believe have proof. If there is proof, and incontravertible proof, excellantulous. ( One of my made up words ). But if there isn't, and just speculation, I don't wanna hear it until it is proven so. I saw the films of PLANES going into both towers. Planes do not look exactly like missiles. The first plane was filmed by a French cameraman, who, with his brother, was doin a documenty on the FDNY. You all may have seen it. Fireman were going down a manhole I think to check a gas leak, there was a sound, the camera was pointed up, and you saw the PLANE go in ( NOT the Exocet or Sea Wolf or Trident or Sidewinder). I believe the fire captain's name was Pfeiffer, and he was on the radio, and even then, he said to his controllers that it looked deliberate. I guess their intention is to try to say the US deliberately attacked and killed nearly 3000 of their own people, just so they could have thousands more killed in two wars nobody wanted. Now, looking way back, I believe the United States Government was aware of Japnese aggression, and may have allowed them to make the first strike, but even then, they did not rig Pearl Harbor. That was all Japan. It is not certain how much certain people in the Government suspected, and what they could have done to either prevent it, or at least catch them at it, but it gave Roosevelt the excuse he needed to join the United Kingdom in attacking Hitler. As for excuses, I also believe there were weapons of mass destruction, and it is not as if Saddam Hussein was going to allow anyone to see the evidence, so he secreted them out somewhere. Okay, this I cannot prove, so may be I am no different to the Loose Change crowd, but then, I expect people to make up their own minds. I am not going to just type a few words on a keyboard, and expect it to be believed, so by the same token, just because they come up with a documentary that gives a few interesting theories, doesn't mean any one has to believe that with out at least checking it out. The Russian.C.B.Lilly 09:23, 19 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.  -- Jayron  32  00:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I see, I wondered about that. Thank you. --85.226.44.238 (talk) 11:13, 16 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 . 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, 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 - 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 than 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)


 * Well, gee, what other feature could be more important than the corporate headquarters? :-) --Anonymous, 03:10 UTC, December 17, 2009.