Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 June 22

= June 22 =

Term for non-voter who is counted in apportionment
Is there a term for a person who is not eligible to vote but who counts toward a population for apportionment purposes (as was formerly true of women and slaves in the US House of Representatives)? Neon Merlin  02:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of such a term. Apportionment is supposed to count everybody, and lots of folks aren't eligible to vote.  Minors, non-citizen immigrants, (in some states) people with criminal records, etc. 67.122.209.126 (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A Google search for this topic consistently turns up the wording "non-voter".- KoolerStill (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I know of one example that's the half-reverse of this. In Australia, our Constitution can only be changed by referendum.  For a referendum proposal to succeed, it must gain a "double majority": a majority of votes in the total count of all voters throughout the country, and also in a majority of states.  The 2 self-governing territories, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, participate in the voting (indeed, voting is compulsory).  Their votes are counted in the total count, but play no part in determining whether there's a majority in a majority of states (because they're not states, merely territories).  I know of no term to describe territory voters in the context you describe. --  JackofOz (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Where is this stained glass window located, and who created it?
The window in question can be seen at http://www.flickr.com/photos/jayt47/3212958113/in/set-72057594129234850/. I have been in communications with the author, and he said that he forgot all the details about this photo. I doubt its location is at Husbands Bosworth: looking through the set of photos, this image was taken just less than 10 minutes from the Bosworth Battlefield Heritage Centre (where the diorama is located). Hence, I suspect the window could be at Sutton Cheney or somewhere nearby. If anyone knows the church this window is at, please do tell. Information on the creator and period in which the window is created are also appreciated. Jappalang (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks comparatively modern, not medieval. So 19th. century or even early 20th. century would be my guess. Find a church near the Heritage Centre that was built or renovated by the Victorians. Look at the online OS map to see where the nearby churches are, If you know what village or street they are in, then you will can identify the church through the internet. For some counties there are websites with illustrated articles about every church. 78.146.242.171 (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest you look for a local history website or local church website. Note, however, that many stained glass windows were made anonymously, or by a local company rather than an individual.--Shantavira|feed me 15:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Pevsner, Leicestershire and Rutland mentions a C19 chapel in the park at Bosworth Hall, Husbands Bosworth; the parish church, All Saints, has C19 stained glass, West window by Powell & Co., 1861, a bit early for the painted glass window in the flickr photo.--Wetman (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is obvious art nouveau influence on the style used in those windows. So it is most likely 1890-early 1900s as has been suggested. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Federal subjects of Russia
Is a Federal Subject of Russia like a US state? I'm trying to work out in my head just what Ingushetia is in my own words so that I can understand the article. Dismas |(talk) 07:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Does Federal subjects of Russia help? Adam Bishop (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No. That's why I'm here.  Dismas |(talk) 08:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I misunderstood. Well, some of them are like US states, some are like US territories, some of them are like Washington DC, and some are like independent countries inside Russia - like if Hawaii, for example, had remained an independent kingdom within the territory of the US, or if each Native American group had its own independent country within the US. Ingushetia and the other republics (Chechnya, Karelia, Yakutia, etc.), are meant for minority ethnic groups. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I see. So it's a pretty loose definition.  And the particulars are determined by the group or area that is being declared a federal subject.  Thanks,  Dismas |(talk) 20:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What does "independent" mean here? &mdash;Tamfang (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Squamish Nation
I am trying to verify the UN recognition of the Squamish Nation, as claimed in this 'press release' passage (May 2008):

"The Independent Sovereign Government of the Squamish™ Nation (ISGSN™) will administer the traditional common law jurisdiction over the Squamish™ lands as recognized by the UN as an Independent Sovereign State bearing the Country Code SQ and Economic Numeric Code 333 effective immediately. We thank UN Human Rights Special Rapporteur Luis Rodriquez Pinero for his acknowledgement and acceptance on February 13, 2008 of our Registered Notices."

So far, I haven't been able to find any UN reference to the Squamish Nation with a country code (SQ)or a list of Economic Numeric Codes (333). I'm not sure that Pinero has ever been the UN Spec Rapporteur.

Can anyone with better research skills help to prove or disprove the claims made in the press release. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.134.43 (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a joke, maybe a reference to Mad Magazine's game '23-Man Squamish'. Rhinoracer (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ya, there is certainly no UN recognised Squamish Nation. TastyCakes (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's 43-man Squamish! Anyway, we have an article Squamish Nation, but it's not an independent sovereign state... -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Authoritarianism and Cronyism
Is authoritarianism just a formalisation of cronyism, or is there more to it than that? Not a homework question. 78.146.242.171 (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, sure you can have both but you can also have either without the other... TastyCakes (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Explain? 78.147.137.38 (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A nation in time of war may show a major increase in authoritarianism, but there's no reason to expect an increase in cronyism. Warofdreams talk 13:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Two Short Stories - I think they were in the same book
Hello, I wonder if anyone here can help me, I am trying to track down two stories that I read a long time ago. I think they were in the same book but they might have just been in two similar books, they are both short stories and are both quite scary / creepy.

I thought the first one was called "The Pond" but I can't seem to find anything about it by searching online, it is about an old man who has a pond with frogs in it, and he catches the frogs and kills them and stuffs them and dresses them up in little suits like victorian taxidermy, until one day the frogs take their revenge.

The second one, I don't know what it is called, but it is set in the future and it is about a young boy who reaches a certain age and he has to take a test - his mother and father wish him good luck and he ends up getting killed because he is too clever for his own good.

If anyone knows anything about either of these stories it would be great. Thank you for all your help. Nixonnelle (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I know that second one, but I can't recall who wrote it, except I'm fairly sure it was a well-known Golden Age science fiction writer . The reason the child died was because everybody had to be average to avoid conflict. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The second story is Examination Day - the link is to a Twilight Zone episode based on it but credits it to "(Based on the short story "Examination Day", by Henry Slesar. The story was first published in Playboy (February, 1958)." Exxolon (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The first story is The Pond by Nigel Kneale - See . Damn I'm good! :) Exxolon (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You can find Examination Day in the anthology Realms of Darkness and The Pond in the anthology 65 Great Spine Chillers, both edited by Mary Danby. Can't find a single anthology with both stories in though. Exxolon (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Iranian electoral system
This was touched on briefly before, but does anyone know the details of how votes are supposed to be counted and validated in Iran? I heard on the news that there is no independent electoral commission. What is the extent that the voting is supposed to be monitored, and where along the chain are people claiming the rigging was done? While I've heard plenty of noise calling for a recount, I haven't heard anyone talking about changing the validation process. Is it safe to assume the protesters want an overhaul over that as well? TastyCakes (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Guardian Council seems to have supervisory authority in the area of elections. The possibility exists that Ahmadinajad actually won the election, but Khamenei and some people on the Guardian Council decided to fake up some numbers to widen the vote margin in order to put Ahmadinajad's victory beyond all doubt! -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. See http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/06/26/too_little_too_late -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We should state in the interests of neutrality that the actual result of the Iranian election has not been established beyond reasonable doubt, and either candidate could reasonably have won. Prokhorovka (talk) 12:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Dog that bobs for beer...
My name is Justin Hughey and i have a dog that will blow your mind. He bobs for beer, pulls me on a snowboard as well as a skate board. Last fall he tracked a gut shot deer that most people would have gave up on. I would like to send video feed to Bush Beer company. As well as make an apperance on the David Letterman show. I am not the most computer friendly person. I am a man of the woods of northern Michigan. Possibly the next Ted Nugent. My grandfather invented the fist machanical broadhead. I have a story to tell of epic proportions. The kinda stuff that people make movies out of. How do I make it happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.164.35 (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Contact public relations at Dubuisson Brewery (Bush) and Late Show with David Letterman. Nobody here is, as far as I know, remotely related to either group. --  k a i n a w &trade; 15:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Congrats on the dog, and I look forward to hearing your works on the radio. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of the first Ted Nugent, and the only one in Wikipedia, doesn't seem to fit with your profile (See Ted Nugent) unless you left playing guitar out of your considerable accomplishments. Is there another famous Ted Nugent for whom we don't have an article? (Also, what's a "mechanical broadhead"? We have nothing relevant at Broadhead (disambiguation)) --Dweller (talk) 10:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The same Ted Nugent that you are referring to (the guitar player) is famous for hunting, which he refers to as "never eat meat you didn't kill yourself." He had a very short-lived reality show in which he took a bunch of city people (and a vegetarian) and forced them to hunt.  Personally, I remember his non-musical career mostly for his failed attempt to kill Muzak. --  k a i n a w &trade; 11:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * For "mechanical broadhead," see the bulleted "Broadheads" description at Arrow. Deor (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Which didn't have more than 2 lines of information. So I went through some sites yesterday and added a reference. Tried to trace the history of the mechanical broadhead, and the web doesn't say much, except for sales talk. I came across a page with the list of patents for the broadhead, there was no Hughey (if that is his grandfather's surname). I guess patent is the only way for an inventor to get credit? Jay (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Supposed early Scottish kings
I'm in possession of an early 19th-century American book (first edition completed 1808, although this is printed in 1839), written collectively by ministers of a tiny Presbyterian denomination on the Appalachian frontier in order to explain and defend their doctrines; before it discusses doctrine, it relates the history of Christianity in Scotland, beginning long before the Protestant Reformation. It opens with the conversion of a supposed King Donald I at the beginning of the third century, who was succeeded by several nameless kings before the appearance of a King Crathilinth, c. 277. Googling "Crathilinth", I've gotten a few results, all either Scottish-written histories or conservative Presbyterian histories (including some Scottish Presbyterian histories), dating back to the middle of the 18th century. Obviously these men weren't kings of the Scots, or Kenneth MacAlpin would be rather less significant; and Pictish and Scottish Monarchs shows no names at all similar in the Picts section. Any ideas where and when this Donald-and-Crathilinth story came from, and if there's any historical backing at all for it? Nyttend (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 277 A.D. is into the deep legendary zone when talking about Scottish history. If the name isn't somehow related to Cruthin, then I have no idea...  However, the son of the "Finnguala" or "Fenella" who killed Kenneth II of Scotland was named Crathilinth, according to one on-line source (but he would have been 10th century, not 3rd). AnonMoos (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is, indeed, much dispute about the early history of Scotland, and you will find many lists of kings. Initially I couldn't find anything similar in the "semi-legendary" lists of the Dalriadic Scots, Picts, or kingdom of Strathclyde, which seemed the likely places, and I wondered if these remarkable gentlemen were conveniently useful figures for ministers of a "Presbyterian denomination on the Appalachian frontier in order to explain and defend their doctrines", but in fact there does seem to be considerable support for the historicity of these men up until at least the 19th century; perhaps they have been discounted since ? Anyway, it seems that George Buchanan is the source for this history of Scottish Christianity/kingship.  Buchanan's theory is noted here, in The history of the Reformation of religion in Scotland by John Knox and William M'Gavin  (although the piece about Donald is in M'Gavin's 1841 prelude to Knox's history), although in dating Donald's reign he mentions the invasion of the roman emperor Severus, which doesn't quite tie up.  Buchanan was a 16th century scholar who wrote a various histories of Scotland, which drew on earlier histories written by Hector Boece.  On looking for Buchanan's list of kings, I've found A chronicle of the kings of Scotland, from Fergus the First, to James the Sixth, in the year M.DC.XI. by David Chambers, George Buchanan, John Whitefoord Mackenzie, which offers information about Donaldus (p. 20) and Crathlintus (p. 23).  Now, the preface says that the early part of the chronicle (which concerns us) is translated from David Chalmers of Ormond's History of Scotland, and that Buchanan only edited it.  We don't have David Chalmers on WP (why? I wonder) but he certainly existed.  So, there is the source for your story; I don't know when it fell out of favour. The full list of Buchanan/Chalmers kings are noted here.  This version of Scotland's history can be read in abbreviated form in Encyclopaedia Perthensis;  of 1816.  (Delightfully subtitled the Universal Dictionary of the Arts, Sciences, Literature, &c. Intended to Supersede the Use of Other Books of Reference.  Who needs WP?).  Gwinva (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hee hee, the plot thickens. Having hunted out my library card to access the DNB, I discover that good old Davie Chalmers was a double-crossing spy/agent during the Bothwell/Mary episodes and subsequent troubles, owing a favour to Elizabeth I's spymaster Walsingham while also in the service of Mary (and writing anti-English treatises) and was also an adviser on Scottish affairs at the French court, during which time he wrote  Histoire abbregée (1572): which was "written in French and dedicated to Charles IX, presented parallel narratives of the kings of France, England, and Scotland from earliest times to his own. [...] It placed Scotland in the mainstream of European history as seen by French readers, and emphasized the continuity of the Franco-Scottish alliance against England (dated by Chalmers to AD 792). Just to make sure, he included a description of that alliance as an appendix."  Apparently he claimed aunthenticity by "his assertion that he saw the mysterious chronicle of ‘Veremund’ from which Hector Boece had earlier claimed to derive his own mythical account of early Scottish history."  He wrote further works for a French audience about how civilised Scotalnd was, and how harmonious its realtionship between kings and subjects. So, take that as you will! I am sure he only presented the truth objectively, and was not at all swayed by political expediency. (This guy is fun; he really does deserve the plaudits of WP.) Gwinva (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the work! The story in this book (produced by the two-ministers-strong "Reformed Dissenting Presbyterian Church", truly a small church; it only lasted into the 1850s) is that the missionaries that converted these kings were pure Presbyterians, free from all those evil papist corruptions — an anti-Catholic theme common to the writings of the dissenting Presbyterian churches that traced their ancestry to the Covenanters of Scotland.  Given the not-so-careful state of history studies before the modern era, I'm not surprised to see this appearing during the Protestant Reformation; next thing you know, someone will claim that St. Patrick and the Albigensians were identical to the Covenanters!  Ahh wait, someone [see pages 24/25] already did that.  Nyttend (talk) 03:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Amusing! But given that, I think our Presbyterian gentlemen cannot have read Chalmer's account terribly closely, for blessed Donaldus was "weill inftructitt in the Catholick Faithe fend be Wictorius the xv Peap frome Rome" Pope Victor I? and, since then, "Scotland, thankis be to God, hes newer left the Catholick fayth". Of course, Davie was writing to convince a Catholic French audience to continue their alliance with the in-the-process-of-reforming Scotland, so perhaps he prevaricating, and he was really a triple-crossing agent for the Presbyterians. Gwinva (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point; my mind isn't really on this topic right now, so I'd not paid attention to the date or noticed that it is obvious that the Scotsman writing in France wouldn't be a bigtime Covenanter, at least not openly. But it's clear that Knox and Buchanan are different; if you would read this book, you'd see that this denomination held the teachings of the church of the Scottish Reformation as being nearly equal to the Bible, a traditional tendency of many dissenting Presbyterian churches — quite annoying to me, a member of one of them who is quite uncomfortable with a few old-line positions that aren't held anymore.  Nyttend (talk) 05:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Buchanan and Knox are quite different! It seems likely your American friends drew on Buchanan's version, if M'Gavin is anything to go on: "The conversion of Donald I. king of the Scots, about the beginning of the third century.", which leads to a very Protestant-sounding establishment, which thrived under Crathilinth ("The resolute care and diligence of king Crathilinth and his council, with the help of those pious and learned men, surpassed all difficulties"), and so on and so forth, with things unfortunately degenerating over time until "at last, without a struggle, the church of Scotland submitted to the yoke of the triple tyrant; she became an integral part of the great mystical Babylon ; and became so identified with the church of Rome, in respect of rites, ceremonies, and administration, that it is not necessary to relate the remainder of her history vегу minutely, seeing it would be almost the same as that of any of the other kingdoms that gave their power to the beast."   Poor old Davie would be quite upset.  No wonder he hid in France and Spain writing his own histories.  Gwinva (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reading over the section again, I just noticed — it's from Knox. Here's halfway down on the first page, transcribed as accurately as possible: "Crathilinth came to the throne, about the year 277. He soon began to aid by his CIVIL POWER, the cause of christianity, by encouraging those who favored it, and by setting himself against its enemies, the DRUIDS, or HEATHEN PRIESTS. The Druids, however, having great interest and reputation among the people, greatly impeded his righteous designs for a considerable time, till several ministers and private christians, who were forced to fly thither for shelter, from the rage of persecution under AURELIUS and DIOCLESIAN, came over. By the assistance of these, the Druids were greatly overcome; and, at last, according to the prefacer of Knox’s history, he had the christian religion established in his dominions: as it was not long after, by CONSTANTINE THE GREAT, in the Roman empire." Later down on the page, we read about how the church of Scotland was Presbyterian until overthrown by the schemes of the papal ambassador Paladius, who was sent at Scotland's request to defeat the Pelagians — sounds like a mangled and anachronistic version of St. Augustine of Canterbury.  Nyttend (talk) 06:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That "prefacer of Knox's history" to whom we owe this tale is probably a chap named David Buchanan (c.1595–1652), a relation of George Buchanan, who prepared an edition of Knox's History of the Reformation in 1644, according to his DNB entry.  He was, it seems, an apologist for the Presbyterians.  I can't find a full view version of his preface on Google books, but I came across him in M'Gavin's preface:  "After the invasion of Severus we read no more of Christianity for nearly a century. It is not to be supposed that it ceased to exist in Scotland ; but, not being in favour with Donald's immediate successors, it would he in too much obscurity to attract notice. David Buchanan, the author of a preface to an old edition of Knox's History, fixes its revival under the reign of Crathilinthus ; but his celebrated namesake, whom this writer generally follows, places it in the reign of Fincormachus the immediate successor of the former."  According to M'Gavin, David Buchanan drew on Boece, (p. IX) and they all seem to blame Palladius for the rot (or the "devil's work in God's name").  Gwinva (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, we have the dastardly Palladius here on WP. Worth reading: once a disciple of Pelagius, he later recanted, and headed off to Ireland.  But he prevailed on the pope to send Germanus of Auxerre to Briton; our article states that Germanus did in fact go in "429 in response to the growth of Pelagianism". Gwinva (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have come across some interesting commentary in The Cambridge History of English and American Literature regarding Boece and Buchanan. Boece: "His one aim [was] to prove to the world that Scotland and her people had a history which surpassed that of every other country in point of interest and antiquity. His name is now a byword for the inventive chronicler; but he was not so regarded by his contemporaries, and, even so late as the eighteenth century, his astounding narrative of fabulous kings and natural wonders was seriously accepted by the majority of his countrymen." His was the source for Shakespeare's dreadful distortion of history in MacBeth.  Buchanan then rewrote it all in his Rerum Scoticarum Historia, (1582): "the underlying object of the book is the inculcation of those principles of political and religious liberty of which Buchanan had been the consistent champion throughout his career."  Gwinva (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] More and more information! I've not read much on this topic, so it's all new to me. A pity that Buchanan was so innovative; it really gives a bad name to Scottish Presbyterians. At any rate...it seems like the idea that this line of kings is accurate isn't entirely abandoned in a few circles: see this chapter from a Ph.D. dissertation of the 1960s, written for Ambassador College, which taught British Israelism. Nyttend (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's interesting! We have Davie Chalmers using Boece's "forty kings" to support Catholicism and Scottish support for their kings; Buchanan decides it backs up Prebyterianism and the political right to depose crowned rulers (for which read opposite sides on the Mary debate); and now British Israelism! I, too, have been looking for modern opinions on the matter, and have came across Hugh Trevor-Roper's scathing condemnation of Boece, Buchanan et al; and an interesting connection between these stories and the founding of American democracy (ie. the consent of the governed). Thomas Innes in the 18th century wrote an essay criticising the Boece/Buchanan version of history, so it wasn't blindly adhered to for centuries, even though a lot of their legends have informed modern Scottish thought (eg. about the Stone of Destiny). While Buchanan and Boece's motives are called into question, I don't think we can think too hardly of them...all historians have one bias or another in their selection or presentation of facts, and while many of their claims have been disputed it doesn't mean they invented them; they probably just recorded stories and myths that were around, and interpreted them according to their own slant (don't we all?). How many other histories are full of disputed "facts"? It seems Boece drew on 14th C John of Fordun; who in his chronicle mentions many of our figures: Scota, Palladius, Severus, Arthur, but a quick glance through his chronicle doesn't seem to show Donald or Crathilinthus. Gwinva (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My impression from what I was reading (I'd not had time to read all the links you gave me) was that these Scottish historians had clearly invented everything, rather than taking it from not-so-reliable sources. Aside — would this be sufficient reason to block the historians, since they persisted in using unreliable sources, and they don't seem to have cited the sources properly?  Ahh wait, we want them to take a lot of time in original research, so let's not block.  Anyway...yeah, I got the impression that Buchanan's account of early Scotland was no more historical than Virgil's of early Rome.  Interesting to see all the uses to which these kings' stories have been put.  The book that led me to begin this section has a "moral" at the end of each chapter; the moral for Chapter I is: "'From the things contained in this chapter, it is plain that the doctrine of the church, at its first introduction into Scotland, was anti-pelagian: That the government of the church was anti-prelatic, and so presbyterial and scriptural: That it was the opinion of the primitive christians that the true religion should be established, supported, and defended by the laws of the land, in opposition to all false religion; and that all idolatry, blasphemy, and heresy, should be suppressed, and extirpated by the civil magistrate.'" In case you wonder, Chapter I is entitled Of the Introduction of Christianity into Britain, and its Progress from that time to the Reformation., and it ends at the eeeeevil [said with a sneer like in the cartoons :-] "Paladius"; Chapter II begins with the "Romish fraternity" getting all outraged with the "dawning light of the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ" that they succeed in burning Patrick Hamilton.  Nyttend (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I remember reading somewhere in all that the theory that Boece wasn't deceptive (or inventive) so much as overly credulous, believing old tales and weaving them together, and filling in the gaps. I  wonder if the "forty kings" is somehow symbolic; a number to be reached in order to confirm the validity of the kingdom.  We have forty kings in 1 & 2 Kings; 40 days for the flood, 40 years in the wilderness, 40 days temptation (etc). Googling "forty kings" is interesting; plenty relating to this matter, but we also have Ireland's 40 kings, 40 kings in the Arabian Nights and other symbolic uses... Gwinva (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

need digital images/templates/early canonical lists
Dear Researchers, I have been looking for a few months for digital images of early archaeological evidence of canonical listings of the Bible. I have been unsuccessful in finding templates or digital images of early archaeological canonical listings. Please assist me in finding digital images or templates of early listings of the canon of the Bible. For example digital images of Codex Ecclesiae Africanae, from Carthage A. D. 419 Hopefully these will be public domain images. I am interested in buying (if necessary), with permission to use for publication in a book, digital immages of early archaeological evidence listing the canon of the Bible. Cordially, Frederick Peter Pogorzelski —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.46.226 (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure whether what you're asking about currently exists in exactly that form -- there weren't really "official" pronouncements on this subject until the major church councils of the 4th century, but few documents from those councils survive in their original form. Mostly we have excerpts and summaries contained in works which were authored in later centuries, as included in manuscripts written down in still-later centuries.  If there have been major Dead-Sea-scroll type discoveries in this area, I haven't heard of them, and our article Biblical Canon doesn't mention them.  Probably a lot more relevant information has been turned up in monastery libraries and archives than in archaeological digs, but monastery libraries generally contain rather few 4th century manuscripts (with a few famous exceptions, such as Codex Sinaiticus...) AnonMoos (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-Catholic President of France
The President of France article says that the President is "honorary proto-canon of the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome.". Would this apply even if the President were not Catholic? Has there ever been a non-Catholic President of France? What if the President were female? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The closest I can imagine to this would be a queen regnant before the abolition of the monarchy — I know that at least one royal position (co-prince of Andorra) is now possessed by the President of the Republic, so it's likely that this position too was held by the monarch — and there were, if I remember rightly, a few queens regnant. At any rate, there were female regents during the monarchy.  All this is to say: I believe that it would be possible for this to be true in the event of a female president.  Nyttend (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As both the Kingdom and the Empire of France were governed by the Salic Law, there was never a queen regent. The honorary canonry could be held by (for example) the infant Louis XIII, during the regency of Marie de Medici, without trouble. The post has no responsibilities, and can thus be held safely by a minor. The gender of his legal representative made no difference. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How could I forget the Salic Law? My mind must have been on something else...  Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There have been queens regent, but not regnant. &mdash;Tamfang (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Leon Blum, who was Jewish, was de facto head of state for a month in 1946-47 as chairman of the provisional government. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The President of France has inherited many real and honorary titles which carry over from the Kings of France based upon the fact that these titles require someone to hold them, even if the actual office they attached to (King of France) does not technically exist anymore, such as the aforementioned "Co-prince of Andorra". For a parallel situation, the Queen of England still holds the title "Defender of the Faith", which was given to Henry VIII by the Pope, all despite the fact that she is no longer Catholic, she still maintains the Catholic title given to her office by a Catholic pope.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  13:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * When Henry broke with Rome, the Pope took away the 'Defender' title, so Henry told his Parliament to grant it afresh. — I kinda wonder why the title of co-prince of Andorra couldn't descend to the heirs of the counts of Foix even after they lost the crown. —Tamfang (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Besides the aforementioned Leon Blum, our article on his successor and close associate Vincent Auriol list him as an Athiest, and not a Catholic. Auriol held the presidency under constitution (rather than provisionally, like Blum) for 7 years.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  13:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

wheel in prehistoric America
Which, if any, of the prehistoric cultures in America made use of the wheel? --Halcatalyst (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't give you any sources for this, but I'm quite confident that none did. I know that the Incas didn't know it, and they were widespread enough and other South American cultures were primitive enough that I can't imagine that it was known anywhere in South America.  I'm quite confident that the other more developed peoples, whether contact-era Aztecs or much earlier peoples, were unaware of it; and the remaining inhabitants of North America weren't developed enough that they would be likely to have had it.  Part of the problem is that most of the Americas are either too forested or too mountainous — imagine trying to ride chariots in the Andes or pull wagons through the dense forests of North America; the early white American settlers found plenty of footpaths in the forests, but they were the first to build roads there.  The only areas that would be reasonably suited for wheels without the construction of roads would be areas such as the Great Plains of the USA and the pampas of Argentina; I don't know about the pampas peoples, but I know that the Sioux and others on the Great Plains knew nothing more than sledges.  Nyttend (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wheels were apparently used in a few toys, and some reasonably flat roads did exist, but there were no draft animals to make the use of wheeled vehicles really practically effective. Without the animals, just about all you could have at that level of technology would be a wheelbarrow... AnonMoos (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Although, if I remember rightly, the Sioux etc. used dogs to pull their sledges; surely dogs could pull a wagon if they could pull a sledge. Nyttend (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The real question to ask is not whether they theoretically could have used a wheel to do X, but instead "Would using wheels to accomplish task X really have made people's work significantly easier, given the constraints of their overall way of life and level of technology?" In the pre-Columbian period, I think sledging would have mainly been used to transfer possessions from one campsite to another campsite a few miles away, and by no means always over smooth terrain... AnonMoos (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Also llamas. TastyCakes (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There's some discussion of why llamas are not effective draft animals in ''Guns, Germs, and Steel... AnonMoos (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I remember that part of the book, but llamas are used as pack animals and could probably have been harnessed together to usefully pull a cart, at least as effectively as sled dogs... TastyCakes (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If the Andes were as flat as the Great Plains, then that might have worked. Incan cities were separated by huge vertical distances, which complicated every aspect of transportation. Llamas are apparently quite good at negotiating steps (compare:horses), which is part of what made them so useful, but wheels don't do very well on either stairs or steep cliffs. :) Matt Deres (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's a link to the toys, a site which also states larger wheels didn't exist. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A carriage road in mountains is hugely more complicated than a well-made trail. Strings of mules moved salt along the salt roads of early Europe, and packanimals supplied the fairs of Champagne, in quite open gently rolling terrain.--Wetman (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC).


 * My question was prompted by a visit to Cahokia Mounds, which was the largest pre-Columbian city in the now-U.S., larger than London at the time. The chief's palace was on a 14 acre mound, which was built with dirt scooped out with clam shells and carried one back load at a time. I only heard of this remarkable place about a year ago. --Halcatalyst (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A section of a log placed on the ground is like a wheel, and can be used to facilitate the moving of heavy loads short distances. Bus stop (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But it's a "roller", not actually a wheel... AnonMoos (talk) 01:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Book burning quote by Umar
I think there was a quote by the Muslim Caliph Umar about book-burning, something along the lines of "If the book is against Islam, burn it, if it's not, then the Quran is good enough". Does anyone know whether the quote was real, and if so, what the circumstances of it were? 72.66.188.199 (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The tradition is that he said it when burning the Library of Alexandria. The whole story is a myth of much later invention. Algebraist 21:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What Algebraist said. Also, the quote as I heard it was: "If a book contains things that aren't in the Quran, it is sacrilegiuos. If it contains what is in the Quran, it is superfluos." TomorrowTime (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Azeb Mesfin
Then what would be Meles Zenawi wife's birthday. Since we have an article about Azeb Mesfin, would she be same age as Meles, or would she be younger than Meles, if so is it likely to be over 6 years younger?. Meles was a former national leader of Ethopia, then he became a prime minister. What is a diff between national leader and prime minister. Is prime minister a higher or lower power than national leader?--69.229.243.248 (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no idea about the first question (his wife's birthday), but as to the last: prime minister is a specific post that exists in many states; 'national leader' is not, at least in most countries: it is a description, not a post, so it is not possible to say whether PM is higher or not. ('national leader' doesn't occur in the current version of Meles Zenawi. --ColinFine (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I went on Bing search, and the page was written in I dunno language. But on the content page say ...44th birthday update on April 6, 2009. 2009 minus 44 gives me 1965 then if Azeb is 44 on 4/6/2009. If users who answers post live in Ethopia or knows somebody in Ethopia would at least give a most logical guess. They could be close to right.--69.229.243.248 (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Do we even know when Meles marry Azeb. If their kids is in high school then Azeb must be in her mid-40s. Sarah Brown is younger than PM Brown by 12 years. I believe alot of African first ladies in their upper 40s.--69.229.243.248 (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)