Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 September 29

= September 29 =

Voting intention polls
Look at Opinion polling in the next United Kingdom general election there is variation of several percentage points for different polls taken on the same day. What is the margin of error of these polls? If the difference isn't within that margin, what causes it? --Tango (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

In Statistics  we  learn  that  the  Margin  for  Error  is  part  of  a  Confidence  Interval,  and  in  this  case  the  Confidence  Interval  is  for  the  Proportion of  Voters  out  of  the  whole  number  sampled,  compared  to  a  control  source,  say,  the  actual  vote  at  the  last  election,  which  itself  would  be  as  true  a poll  of  any  nation  as  ever  one  could  get. The complicated  thing  here,  is  that  there  are  a  number  of  political  parties,  and  each  proportion  for  each  one  has  to  be  compared  with  how  the  party  did  at  the  previous election. One concern  is  how  representative  the  poll  is  of  the  British  population  as  a  whole,  but  another  thing  I  thought  of,  is  the  fact  that  each  poll  is  done  at  random,  within  the  guidelines  of  making  it  representative. My thought  would  be  to  poll  the  same  people  every  time,  and  see  how  their  opinions  changed  over  five  or  so  years. These people,  preferably  great  in  number,  say,  for  a  country  the  size  of  the  United  Kingdom,  even  as  many  as  100, 000,  like  what  the  US  might  refer  to  as  a  type  of  " Neilsen Voter "  would  be  replaced  gradually  as  some  of  them  pass  away  or  move  on,  just  as  occurs  in  the  country  as  a  whole. After all, the  General  Election  will  still  be  having  most  of  those  who  voted  last  time  in  there,  so  the  overall  population  only  changes  gradually  over  time. Certainly most  of  the  electorate  that  brought  Clement  Attlee  in  at  War's  end  were  not  there  to  return  Mrs. Thatcher to  power  after  the  Falklands. So the  margin  is  due  to  the  uncertainty  that  those  one  has  polled  really  do  reflect  the  actual  national  opinion  as  it  is,  even  if  representative  in  many  ways,  since  people  are  individuals,  and  even  variables  within  an  election. An analogy might  be  understood. Think of  those  polled  as a  sample  of  the  whole  population. Imagine then  a factory  making  three inch nails  by  machine. Even then there will be variation in the  lengths of these nails  to  say  ±  ⅛ ",  or  so.  If  the  population  of  the  nails  is  large  enough,  they  become  normally  distributed,  taking  on  the  shape  of  a  bell  like  curve,  with  the  greater  frequency  of  average ( mean )  values  near  the  middle,  and  the  outliers  -  either  uncharacteristically  large  or  uncharacteristically  small,  towards  the  ends.  If  we  take  a  sample  of  nails,  and  a  large  enough  one,  then  the  distribution  of  this  sample  may  mimic  that  of  the  population,  with  the  same  or  a  similar mean value  and  such.  But  how  can  we  be  sure ?  We  can't - that  is  why  the  statistician  analyising  the  poll  calcuates  a margin  of  error  or  uncertainty,  such  that, to  a  given  percentage  of  certainty,  we  can  be  confident  that  the  proportion  of  those  voting  for  the  parties  in  real  life  are  those  shown  in  the  poll. In calculating  averages,  this  is  to  do  with  standard  error,  which  is  the  value of  one  of  the  measures  of  spread for  the data, divided  by  the  square root of  the  number  of  respondents - the sample  size. For proportions,  and  exspecially  multiple  ones,  it  will  be  more  complicated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopherlilly (talk • contribs) 05:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)  The  Russian Christopherlilly (talk) 05:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are incorrect. The results of the previous election and the size of the population shouldn't have any significant impact on the margin of error. See Sample size. I just don't know how to work out what the margin of error actually is for this kind of poll (if it was just a yes/no poll I could do it, but it isn't). --Tango (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No, matey, I am always right ! Just kidding. I get what you mean. If your sample is greater than thirty, then, yes, it should have a Normal distribution similar to  the  overall population. My concern is, why leave it to chance ? There of course has to be a balance between getting as accrate an answer as possible and not spending too much money and time on conducting too large a survey. I am  sure  those who take a poll on  the  eve of the election then go and compare their results to the actual vote to see either how wrong or right they were, or how fickle the electorate really is. In New Zealand we used to call them Heylen Polls, but now each of the two major networks, Government owned ( but not controlled ) TVNZ and the private TV3 network, will each  do  their own. Former PM Jim Bolger didn't trust polls - of course, as I said, the best poll is  the election itself. They should be as often and as democratic as possible, so that only then does the Government have a mandate to do what they want for the next few years, without consulting us. I cannot think of how  to  do  this  either. But certainly it does have to do with confidence intervals and the Z values relevant to tables for the Normal Distribution. Of course, this distribution concerns Party alleigeance and is qualitative, as much as anything else. Keep thinking. The Russian.Christopherlilly (talk) 04:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Whilst I know nothing about the specifics of these polls, my guess is that they all have a sampling bias and thus should not be taken at face-value. Given they seem to come from different newspapers, this appears rational to assume.--Leon (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * They are commissioned by newspapers, but they aren't done by them, they are done by independent polling organisations. I would hope the bias is reduced as far as is possible. (The newspapers then choose the results from the poll that most support the point they want to make, of course, but I look at the polls themselves, not the newspaper articles based on them.) --Tango (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't mean to be cynical(!) but why do you believe that the bias is minimized in as much as it is possible, given who commissions them?!--Leon (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because ICM, YouGov, Ipsos MORI etc are reputable organisations, who pride themselves on providing accurate, rather than partisan data. Whilst there is some dispute (e.g. YouGov having nicknames such as 'WhateverYousay,Gov', and a reputation for polling to the right), for the most part they wouldn't be believed if they let the leanings of whomever hired them influence their data.  As part of this, all UK pollsters release their full data set, questions asked and crosstabs, to allow anyone else to analyse their information and determine its neutrality - short of lying about the raw data, which would be considered heinous, it's quite difficult for that bias to be present without being obvious.  --Saalstin (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Because most of the polling agencies are members of the British Polling Council, which has rules intended to increase the confidence people can have in the results. While they are commissioned by newspapers that often have biases, the agencies doing the polls are independent and, I would hope, have some professional pride. --Tango (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I could probably find a reference, but there are known variances between the methodology used by ICM, Mori etc, in converting "raw" poll results into the published figures. Given a sample of ~ 1000 people who have answered the survey, they will have to adjust the proportions of respondents (age, sex etc) to match the proportions in the population. Some "pollsters" will adjust for each respondent's answer to "How certain are you to vote in the next election?" so as to reduce the weight of those who may not vote. Some will ask "How did you vote in the last general election?" and weight the sample to match the historically true results. Or they may adjust the answers given by the sample voters by a formula designed to correct for the supposed tendency of right wing voters to lie more than left wing ones.

So as you can see there are enough factors to explain the differences between polls. If you study the table, you may detect the consistent variation between the respective series of polls. Sussexonian (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone rem Australian radio show the Argonauts Club?
I joined the Argonauts Club (an Australian radio show that ended in the early 1970s) when I was about 13. I was Democritus 48, and looked forward to the show, 5:30 p.m. each week day. I rowed Jason’s trireme with enthusiasm but not enough enthusiasm to get to Golden Bar or Serpent’s Tooth. What I remember most (now) is the quality and depth of the show’s segments on music and the arts, far in advance of what anyone expects a child to absorb these days. And of course those sing-a-longs and the Muddle Headed Wombat and Jimmy’s antics, and the stable loveable Mac, surely the most comforting father figure one could imagine. Until Dad bought a TV.

I recently added some comments to the very brief article in Wikipedia on the Argonauts Club, and I am going to make it a little project to get a decent article going there. I would be so happy to hear from anyone who was a member, or just a listener. I do remember Mac and Jimmy well, and you can read some of my initial notes, rather unreliable memories, on that Talk Page to the Wikipedia article I mentioned. I will circulate your contributions to me to other people who write, so we can all hear what others recall, and what pieces of this radio history we can put together. There will never be anything like it again. We listened to Phidias, while today’s children watch Big Brother, and now much worse on the Internet.

My email (deleted for privacy)

Let’s share some memories! Myles325


 * Yes, I realize that privacy is not what you are looking for but neither, I suspect, do you want spam. If you sign your post (with 4 tildes, or click on the signature block on the edit screen), people can contact you at your talk page. (I have signed for you this time.) Enable your email function on your talk page, and anyone interested can contact you that way, too. To the extent that you are gathering sourced information for the WP article, this is an unusual but likely acceptable way to go about getting others interested. To the extent that you are setting up a fan club or social club, it is not. // BL \\ (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wrote the above thinking Myles325 was a new user. I should have checked the linked page first. Miles has been on Wikipedia since early 2007, so, if anything in what I have written sounds inapporpriate because of your long service, Miles, I apologize. // BL \\ (talk) 04:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not at all, Bille. (That's getting you back for calling me Miles, (|) ). I am trying to gather PUBLISHED information on this club, which was, for its time, a very popular and remarkably intelligent children's program. I think that Australian history and culture is poorly represented in WP, but that is nobody's fault except our own. Myles325a (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Myles, I certainly remember the program. I was never an Argonaut, though; I was just content to listen in, which I did on countless occasions.  My memories of it these days are rather unreliable, so I don't think I'd have much if anything to contribute.  --  JackofOz (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Educational Pioneer
Back in about 1980, in our Intermediate ( 11 - 12 year old ) class, our teacher suddenly one morning singled out certain students and gave them harder exercises and appeared to treat them unfairly. He later revealed this was an experiment based upon what a US schoolteacher had done years before. I later saw her on a news story also, and the idea was that she was trying to prove that if children are treated badly by a teacher based on say race, then of course they will not perform as well, and their race has no bearing on performance. ( This assumes all children have the same schools regardless of race, and that the only difference is a teacher's prejudices - of course, black children for example will do worse also when their schools are not up to the standard they should be. Racists try to show how non whites are inherently inferior, forgetting that if people aren't given equal chances, then naturally there will be differences ) My question is, what was this woman's name. where and when exactly was she, what inspired her to do what she did, and where is she now ? The Russian.Christopherlilly (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe she lived in the midwest, and was active about the 1960s —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopherlilly (talk • contribs) 05:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You're talking about Jane Elliott. See the article, and her web site at www.janeelliott.com, for further information.  --Anonymous, 10:02 UTC, September 29, 2009.


 * See also The Third Wave. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for  that. Now it  is  all  very  clear. Our teacher  those  two  years  was  a  very  insightful, intelligent  man,  who  could  see  how  pecking  order  occurs  naturally  in  schools. Those he  singled  out  were  the  better, more  confident  students  who  would  not  be  as adversely  affected  by  it. I kind  of  agree  with  what  she  did. My only  concern  is  using  children  as  an  experiment,  especially  without  their parents' permission. However, how else  would  she  have  gotten  anyone's  attention. Those opposed  to  her  could  complain, but  perhaps they needed to get off their backsides and make sure all children received equal treatment  in  school. After all, Jane  Elliott  only  carried  out  a  test. Blacks and Hispanics among others were treated  far worse for real in  schools. I even recall a Jane Curtin ( isn't she lovely ) movie made in the nineties and  set  in  1975  about  primarily Irish parents not wanting Black kids bussed into their schools. How quickly  they  forgot  the  words   " Irishmen need not apply "  which  probably affected my Irish ancestors when some  moved to England themselves. I also recall the Wave ( 1981 ). Shame we  haven't had it on NZ  TV  since. Even here,  Maoris  and  Pacific  Islanders  fall  behind in education,  in  a  society  where Whites make the vast majority. But one Maori friend of mine has said that such inherent unfairness should not be used as an excuse to fail. What could   I   say ? I can't  be  bothered learning because I must be thick seeing I'm  part Irish ? When in fact the Irish are among the best educated in Europe. In any case,  help should be given to those who need it,  and a level playing field during the test match that is our education. The Russian.Christopherlilly (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

UK/US drug bust in South America
I have a few questions after reading this news article. thanks F (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What is the UK navy and US coastguard doing in South America in the first place?
 * 2) Why do they have authority to seize the cocaine, arrest the suspects and destroy the ship in a place that is not their territory?
 * The BBC article gives some more information.
 * 1) "HMS Iron Duke's primary task, while on a six-month deployment, is to reassure and assist the people of the UK Overseas Territories during the hurricane season.


 * The warship, which was launched in 1991 and cost £140m to build, is also on stand-by to take part in anti-narcotics operations. "


 * 2)They were in international waters. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Follow-up on (2): You may find our article on the UN Convention on the High Seas useful, as it sets out the rights of warships to pursue and combat piracy. I would guess that either another treaty has extended the same sort of rights to combating the drug trade or that this case was classified as piracy due to false registration or the like.  &mdash; Lomn 13:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * For a similarly historic case of the U.S. doing something similar, but in the sovereign territory of another country, see Manuel Noriega. Basically, the U.S. Military went in and arrested the president of Panama on drug conspiracy charges.  Going into a sovereign country, arresting their Head of State for breaking laws in your country, is the definition of chutzpah on an international scale.  -- Jayron  32  04:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "We are the cops of the world." →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Louis, Rhineland-Palatinate
Tamara Bach was born in 1976 in Limburg an der Lahn and grew up in Louis, Rhineland-Palatinate.

This is what the new article on Tamara Bach says, but I am unable to find Louis as a village or town in Germany. Can anyone help figure this out? --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The article in the German Wikipedia says that she was raised in Ludwigshöhe. Although, as the article on the town explains, its name does mean "Louis's Heights", I don't think we want to (partially) translate it in our article about Ms Bach. The appearance of "Louis" in the article is probably a result of someone's use of a computerized translation program. Deor (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I am the someone, using the Google translation program. I will make it Ludwigshöhe. Thanks for the help, there is a lot to learn when contributing to Wikipedia. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Naval presence on lakes
Do any countries maintain a naval presence on large lakes, such as the Great Lakes, Lake Victoria, Lake Titicaca, or perhaps the Caspian Sea? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 14:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * See Bolivian Navy Googlemeister (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Also Swiss Navy--Saalstin (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Swiss Navy" is a brand of sex lubricant. :) Mac Davis (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And Caspian Flotilla. Recury (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Any on the Great Lakes? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 14:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The US Navy does seem to have some presence there, like the Naval Station Great Lakes. I'm sure Canada does too. Still looking for more info though. Recury (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Has there been anything resembling military hostility between the U.S. and Canada since the War of 1812? →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not seriously, no. There was a boundary dispute in 1859 nicknamed the Pig War, but cooler heads prevailed before any humans were hurt in that one.    And anyway, "Canada" as we now understand the term was not involved either  in that dispute or the War of 1812, as it did not exist until the confederation of Canada in 1867; the areas were British colonies before.  (Even after confederation, Canada was not really independent until after World War I; see dominion, Chanak crisis, and Statute of Westminster.) --Anonymous, 20:55 UTC, September 29, 2009.


 * Looking through the Canadian Navy articles, I don't see a mention of anything on the Great Lakes. Now's our chance! Recury (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that the Webster–Ashburton Treaty (or some other treaty) barred any sort of naval build-up on the Great Lakes by the United States or Canada. — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  14:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, Ed, that the W-A Treaty is a part of the openness and demilitarization of that border, but the earlier treaty that first established the non-military character of the Great Lakes was the Rush–Bagot Treaty. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The only Canadian Forces naval facilities that actually operate warships appear to be on the coasts: Canadian Forces base. (The Canadian Coast Guard and other law enforcement agencies are generally responsible for search and rescue, customs, and other Great Lakes tasks.)  In addition, the Naval Reserve operates a number of stone frigates at inland locations: List of Canadian Forces Naval Reserve divisions.  At least one of these stations – HMCS York – is located on Lake Ontario. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * HMCS Prevost is on a large-ish river...Adam Bishop (talk) 04:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't forget the mighty Ohio Naval Militia, which consists of a few unarmed boats and about 30 volunteer sailors between the ages of 17 and 67. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * See http://www.uscg.mil/d9/. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This dockyard has a couple of warships in case of American invasion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Aye matey, we Bee ready if Tecumseth that. Arrrr! Have I missed International Talk Like a Pirate Day? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

During WWII, the US Navy needed a lot of flight decks for pilot training. So they converted two coal-burning paddlewheel passenger vessels into rudimentary aircraft carriers, Wolverine and Sable, and deployed them on the Great Lakes. These vessels carried no armament and no facilities for aircraft beyond their flight decks. The invasion of Canada was not on the program. PhGustaf (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the peaceful relations between Canada and the United states, having a naval/military presence on any of the Great Lakes is totally unnecessary. Instead, there is a "policing" presence that meets the needs of each country. If it ever became necessary for there to be a naval/military presence on the Great Lakes, I wonder how each country would get their respective naval forces on the Great Lakes - there are too many shared points (including the St.Lawrence River). However, it would be very possible (if not probable) that an American aircraft carrier parked near the mouth of the St. Lawrence (or even further away) would suffice to keep us Canucks on our own side of the lakes. . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.136.118 (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In Clive Cussler's Night Probe!, I believe that Canada sends a destroyer and the United States sends a guided missile cruiser up the St. Lawrence... — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  00:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The US Navy does built warships on the Great Lakes, Marinette Marine in Marinette, Wisconsin is on the Menominee River which empties into Lake Michigan. The most recent warships built there include the new Littoral combat ships USS Freedom (LCS-1) and USS Fort Worth (LCS-3). -MBK004 00:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. BUT, are they used on the Great lakes for naval/military purposes or are they built (as described above) and then enter into naval/military service once on the oceans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.136.118 (talk) 13:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Viscount Exmouth served on Lake Champlain during the American Revolutionary War. This is the main character Sir Edward Pellew from the Hornblower television series. Sleigh (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

meal frequency
Why is it typical for Western societies to have 3 meals a day as opposed to 1? Are there any cultures that typically only have 1 meal a day (assuming they have sufficient food)? Googlemeister (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OR alert Have you ever tried it? It sucks.  You eat a huge meal early in the day, then you get lethargic and tired and feel generally deplorable.  Those are eventually accompanied by continued hunger late in the afternoon or evening.  See Thanksgiving for what is probably the closest we get.  Seriously though, it's not healthy.  Your body has to divert resources and blood (oxygen) to deal with the massive influx of food, most of which will get stored as excess reserves.  Then, later, your body has to break all that down to get the energy it craves.  It's much healthier to eat small amounts frequently.  Plus, you get less headaches from dehydration and hypoglycemia. ~ Amory ( user  •  talk  •  contribs ) 20:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You would only get headaches from dehydration if you were not drinking enough liquids. That would not really be related to how many meals one eats each day.  Googlemeister (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I often eat one meal per day. On 60 Minutes last night, General Stanley A. McChrystal revealed that he ate one meal per day. Mac Davis (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's just a matter of training your brain and stomach to expect one feed per day. After a while, it becomes normal.  As a benefit, you regain the time expended on preparing and consuming those other two meals.  I doubt any healthy people other than athletes in training need eat more than once per day.  Weepy.Moyer (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I know of no source that would recommend only one meal per day for anyone. For children, teens, nursing or pregnant women, the elderly (all of whom may well fall in the "healthy" category), as well as the ill, such "advice" as Weepy is giving is likely to be dangerous. For the rest of us, it is nutritionally unsound. That we can do it is not the point; nor is the example of a few who do eat only one meal per day. There are also people who manage, even appear to thrive, on 3 hours' sleep per day, but that would not be a sensible goal for most of the rest of us. // BL \\ (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A number of small meals per day seems to be what's recommended, not stuffing yourself like a turkey for one meal. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

By Jewish tradition, on a weekday one eats two meals, one during the day and one at night. In addition, some eat a snack (for example, bread or cake) known in Hebrew as "pat shacharit" after the morning service. It should be pointed out that there is no prohibition against eating a lesser or greater number of meals on a weekday. However on the Sabbath, one is obligated to eat three meals.Simonschaim (talk) 05:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * During Ramadan, people fast during the day. Even then, people eat two meals, one at each end of the day. I'm told (OR) by friends who've fasted for Ramadan that you stuff your face before dawn just to get through the day, and still get hungry and lethargic. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 05:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So all known cultures eat 2 or more times a day? Googlemeister (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming food is available, yes. This doesn't count nations suffering from famine, of course. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it has a lot to do with what naturally feels best to people, not just culture. People tend to get hungry more frequently than once a day, so they eat more than once a day.  Some of that may be due to habit, but there's probably a pretty large physiological component.  Hunger isn't learned. Rckrone (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The ancient Greeks ate two meals a day: a light lunch (ariston) and a dinner (deipnon). I can confirm the claim above that eating fewer than three meals a day will make you sluggish. It will also contribute to weight gain, as it decreases your metabolism. Athletes often eat five meals a day. They don't have to be large meals. They can be five snacks a day if you want to keep your weight down.--Drknkn (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, what about for religious purposes? Perhaps some of the ascetic or monastic groups? Googlemeister (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)