Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 November 13

= November 13 =

US Libel Laws and the Truth
It's my understanding that stating facts is an absolute defense against charges of libel/slander in the US. So, if I call Mary Walker a whore (as in, paid money for sex) in the New York Times, she has no grounds for a suit if she is in fact a whore. But suppose I believe Mary Walker to be whore, and call her one in the Times. If Mary Walker is not a whore, does she have a case? It seems odd that libel suits would rest on the state of mind of the defendant. 96.246.58.133 (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Libel laws do not depend on the state of mind of the defendants. It doesn't matter what you believe as a person, if you publish something that defames the character of an individual (or sometimes a group), it is your responsibility as the author/publisher to ensure that you are publishing something that has a basis in fact.  Calling someone a whore would generally not pass muster in any case (whore is an intentionally derogatory term beyond its implications as a sex worker); calling someone a prostitute would require factual evidence (police arrest records, video tapes, or some other investigative approach that demonstrates the person in question is receiving money for sex).  If you don't have solid evidence, and the person can show that your published statement caused personal, social, or financial harm, you're liable.


 * In fact, I believe that even if the person actually is a prostitute, they can still sue you for calling them one if you don't have sufficient evidence. They might even be able to get you for loss of income, which would be ironic.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * May I ask what training you have in fact had in US libel law? The above does not correspond very well to my limited understanding of it.  One particular error is the claim that using a derogatory word is itself actionable &mdash; as I understand it (and I want to emphasize that I am not trained and do not offer any warranty on this point) it is in fact a defense against libel that the language was a mere insult with no precise meaning.  So for example, as I understand it, you can call pretty much anyone an asshole as loudly and publicly as you want, without fear of being liable for libel (or slander), because it doesn't really assert any precise claim about the other person.
 * That's not to say you'd be completely in the clear. The police might arrest you for disorderly conduct, particularly if you seemed to be looking for a physical confrontation.  But libel?  I very much doubt it.  --Trovatore (talk) 08:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I find Ludwigs' analysis highly questionable under U.S. law... In fact Travatore's analysis seems quite right; the more opinionated, however inflammatory, the communication, the more likely as a practical matter it's found to be an opinion rather than a statement of fact. The libel distinction between fact and opinion is as old as the common law, and so I'm concerned that Ludwigs's approach may be wrong generally. It's even more tenuous when you consider the First Amendment, which is particularly concerned about that distinction, as a constitutional matter. I have 0 opinion about the fact pattern given by the OP, nor would I suggest anyone else comment on a specific legal question. But as I said, I question the previous answer for the above reasons. Shadowjams (talk) 10:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh, I'm no lawyer, so I'll bow to more informed opinions. My sense was just the the scales being used here were the balance between freedom of speech and harm to reputation.  Speech deemed to be harmful without due foundation is actionable (or at least should be under a rationalized system).  -- Ludwigs 2  10:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd hope libel law is more concerned with unfair harm to reputation rather than harm to reputation; under any common law system truth is a complete defense (who has that burden is a critical issue though in practical terms). Leave truthful damage to reputation to other doctrines, like the torts of invasion of privacy and false light. Shadowjams (talk) 10:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ludwigs is wrong. The state of mind of the defendant is very important in U.S. libel law.  The article United States defamation law is really pretty good.  For public figures, it must be shown that the person publishing the information must have had "Actual malice" in publishing the information.  That is, the person had to have known the information was false (or at least "reckless disregard" for the truth, which is worse than "mere neglect" in fact checking).  The bar is lower in the case of private individuals, but intent of whoever published the information is still very much taken into account. Buddy431 (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I will go farther and say that, despite popular opinion, a lot of law, in the US as well as in other countries, depends on the state of mind of the accused. The only difference between capital murder and second-degree murder, for example, is the state of mind of the killer.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not a lawyer, and for a definitive opinion, you would have to speak to one. However, what I have been told is that media are on very shaky ground when they accuse someone other than a public figure of illegal behavior without hard evidence to back it up. The case Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. is relevant here. A newspaper columnist accused a high school basketball coach of perjury. When the coach sued, the newspaper said in effect that the columnist believed his accusation to be true, so the case should be dismissed. It went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the coach. If a case like the one surmised by the questioner above were to go to trial, the result would probably depend on why the newspaper believed the prostitution accusation to be true, and what effort it had made to confirm the accusation. If the newspaper made no good-faith effort to ascertain the truth of the matter, it's likely the defamed person could win a big settlement if the libel damaged her reputation. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to follow up on my comment, if "I thought it was true" was an absolute defense to libel, it would be almost impossible to win a libel judgment. You'd have to prove not only that the accusation was false but that the defendant knew it was false, something which would be very difficult to do, to say the least. Yet people win libel judgments all the time -- or, more often, get out-of-court settlements in libel cases. Now there is the above-mentioned actual malice standard when it comes to public figures, something which is very difficult to prove. I can't think of a single public figure who's been able to overcome that difficulty to win a libel case. But lots of non-public-figures do win libel cases. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It is un-freakin-belivable how much bullshit is written on the RD whenever the subject is the law. Why does everyone consider themselves experts on the law, whereas they would never claim to be experts on science?  (Answer:  Because they think watching TV law shows and using "common sense" makes them experts.)  People just pull answers out of their ass.  STOP IT.  First of all, the OP's question is appended with "It seems odd that libel suits would rest on the state of mind of the defendant."  Why?  Why does that seem at all odd?  If I go door-to-door in my neighborhood and say that my neighbor is a drug cazr whose millions are kept in overseas accounts, and a) I have seen him conduct drug deals and I have looked at his bank statements, or b) he has a mustache and I think mustaches are evil -- WHICH is more likely to be libel?  So, yes, the defendant-libeler's "state of mind" is relevant.  You have an obligation to not be "reckless" in regard to the truth, and if your libelous statement is based on reckless presumptions rather than researched facts, you are actionable for libel/defamation if your statements are false and they could damage the reputation of someone.  As for "whore," there are categories of "libel per se," whereby certain statements (if untrue) are libelous simply by definition (as defined, in the US, by legislatures -- given that the law is constitutional).  In fact, someone might once have received money for sex and STILL be able to win a suit for defamation if called a "whore," as should be obvious. 63.17.63.136 (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Who introduced the horse in India?
What is current accepted answer to this question. What is the mainstream view about the discovery of horse remains in Surkotada and Hallur? 180.149.48.246 (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * See Domestication of the horse. Apparently, the horse was probably domesticated by 3000 B.C.E., by which date horses were appearing in Central Europe, outside of the steppes where their wild ancestors were indigenous.  If the horse had reached Central Europe by 3000 B.C.E., I see no reason why they couldn't also have reached India, which is no further from the Eurasian steppes than Central Europe.  As to "who introduced" the horse in India, we can't know, because it occurred before there was a historic record.  However, it seems completely plausible that the horse could have been introduced by peoples on the northwestern fringes of India, who picked up the practice of fighting battles on horseback from their Central Asia neighbors. Horses could easily have reached the interior and even the south of the subcontinent through trade.  The arrival of horses need not imply the arrival of an alien population of people. Marco polo (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt this is the "current accepted answer", but of course it used to be believed that the horse was introduced by the "Aryan invasion", as I'm sure Marco is alluding to. This is mentioned in the Indo-Aryan migrations article, and Aryan invasion theory has links to other aspects of the topic. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Jackson / Rosas
Andrew Jackson's enemies generally characterized him as an uncouth tyrant. But was he ever explicitly compared to Juan Manuel de Rosas, his Argentine countarpart? The two seem quite similar in my mind. They were contemporaries, both had a rural base of support, both were military men, both had despotic tendencies, and both served as bugbears for centralist, liberal movements in their respective countries. Were comparisons drawn between them, either in the U.S. or in Argentina? L ANTZY T ALK 04:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * At the time Argentine-American relations seem to be mainly focused on a dispute over the Falkland Islands; Argentina claimed that American warships had destroyed Luis Vernet's settlement in retaliation for Vernet's seizure of seal-hunting ships in a dispute over fishing rights. For more than a decade after this, "the United States chose to ignore the Argentine Republic. After the withdrawal of Francis Baylies in 1832, the Jackson administration waited two years even to replace George W. Slacum, the refugee consul. Three successors, appointed to Buenos Aires in 1834, 1836, and 1837, retrieved identical admonitions not to exercise 'any functions of diplomatic character.'" (p. 121, Harold F. Peterson, Argentina and the United States, 1810-1960). You may also want to look at Argentina and the United States: an alliance contained (David Sheinin).
 * That's interesting. I didn't know any of that. But I wasn't really interested in actual relations between the two men or their countries. I was just curious about whether they were perceived as politically "homologous", so to speak. To put it another way, did the Argentine Unitarians see themselves as the equivalent of the American Whigs, or vice-versa? Or were they too distant to know or care about each other's existence? L ANTZY T ALK 19:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A quick search of the Google News Archive finds a March, 27, 1852, Hartford Weekly Times editorial that compares Rosas to Jackson: "In temperament, he is much like old General Jackson: obstinate, self-willed, and resolute to desperation." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That's just the kind of thing I'm after. I'd never explored the Google News Archive before. L ANTZY T ALK 05:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

difference between a king and a bully
what is the difference between a king and a bully? Why is the bully hated so much more than the king? --95.88.20.6 (talk) 07:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Some kings were bigger bullies than others. For example these English kings, John and Henry VIII were classic bullies (although the preferred nouns are tyrant and despot); whereas this monarch Henry VI of England was instead most likely bullied by his consort Margaret of Anjou. I disagree with your view that the bully receives more hatred than a tyrannical sovereign. Prior to the 20th century most kings or emperors were bullies to some extant but operated on a far grander scale than the local heavy or high-school thug, hence the hatred by a vastly larger amount of people, whose lives were adversely affected by their king's (or queen's) policies.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * sociologically, the difference between a king and a bully is largely a matter of legitimacy. Kings are assumed to legitimately have the authority and power to do what they do; the same assumption is not made about bullies.   By extension, of course, kings are often required to act in ways that supplement their legitimacy as monarchs, while bullies are not constrained in their actions.


 * Hannah Arendt theorized about this a lot. She made very clear distinctions between power (a collective action taken by people en masse), force (a potential for violence, often magnified by technology), and authority (a legitimized transfer of power from the populace to a given individual). So, a king might wield force, in the form of armed military or police, and wields power as it is invested in him as authority by the populace.  A bully, by contrast, relies exclusively on force, and never has authority in the proper sense because everyone recognizes him as a disreputable bully.-- Ludwigs 2  10:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No difference at all.John Z (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are interested in reading a novel, this question is dealt with extensively in The Once and Future King, referring to it as the concept that "might is right". -- k a i n a w &trade; 16:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There were many kings who were reasonably fair and enlightened rulers. Some were tyrannical, but in general people didn't tolerate tyrannical kings too long.  While Kings were granted the right to rule, pragmatically they (the good ones, that is) tended to rule in the best interests of their nation, at least as far as they saw it.  -- Jayron  32  03:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet revolutionaries tended to assassinate the more tolerant monarchs rather than the tyrants, as in the cases of Tsars Alexander II and Nicholas II. Louis XVI was not despotic like his grandfather and great-grandfather, yet he was seen as an oppressor of the people.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Cats and mirrors
I realise this is a hard question to answer, but do cats recognise themselves when they see their own reflections in the mirror? My cat doesn't appear to show much interest in his own reflection whenever he happens to glance in the mirror. I am wondering if they are aware of what they look like.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * According to Wikipedia, cats fail the mirror test.Shantavira|feed me 12:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * My cat spends a lot of time in front of the mirror for some reason, but doesn't get all worked up about it like the puppy in the video at that article. It's a difficult test to interpret, but maybe cats just figure out quicker that, hey, that's just a reflection, and leave it alone.  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  13:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * More OR here but I have five dogs and four cats. Most of them have at one time or another in the past gone up to the mirror and sniffed their reflections.  There has been only minimal reaction other than that with the greatest being one of the cats sort of doing a side step dance in what looked like play.  Dismas |(talk) 14:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to briefly describe the mirror test for our readers here, it goes like this: you stick a red dot on the animal where it can't see it (like on the forehead or between the eyes); you give the animal a mirror; does the animal look in the mirror, see the dot, and "reach for" (or respond to) the dot on its own body? The animals listed as having passed are:  the great apes, rhesus macaques, bottlenose dolphins, orcas, elephants, and European Magpies.  Humans can't pass it until they reach "the mirror stage" at about 18 months.  There is a clever use of behavioral conditioning to demonstrate that pigeons may pass, described in the Animals that pass section of the article.  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  16:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Couldn't resist adding a link to Groucho passing the test.--Shantavira|feed me 17:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's strange because my cat reacts whenever I dye my hair a different colour, he also reacts to a life-size, close-up photo of myself I have on the wall.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are very attuned to humans; the Cat article says:"'However, several natural behaviors and characteristics of wildcats may have preadapted them for domestication as pets. These traits include their small size, social nature, obvious body language, love of play and relatively high intelligence...'"But they can "ignore" aspects of their sensory environment that aren't "real", too. I've seen cats start to pounce on a shadow of something moving, then realize it's just a shadow, and ignore it. (Then again, they sure do seem interested in bright red dots -- which, come to think of it, may be a good way of presenting the mirror test to them).  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  18:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And I wouldn't be surprised if there had been some selection pressure for cats to be able to see the shadow of something, and figure out from that where the object (say, a bird) casting the shadow really is. They would have to perform the same sort of "spatio-perceptual calculations" on an image in a mirror to know where the actual object is, even if on themselves, as in the test, and that may also be where the "hardware" features/cognitive capacities of the animals who do pass the test come from, too.  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  18:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Another thing is that while my cat noticed my photo, he never bothers with other cats, dogs, people etc., on the tv screen.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It may just not keep their interest, though I've definitely seen cats respond to "video catnip" (or, for that matter, just youtube clips -- try bird close-ups with lots of bird calls, or clips of other cats meowing) for a little while. :) Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  19:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would imagine cats go by the sense of smell. Seeing as the television screen does not emit the odour of the cats they are showing, felines watching them realise they are not real.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In my experience, some cats watch the TV screen and some don't. There's no obvious explanation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * THey may have less Persistence of vision than us, and just see a lot of flickering. I recall comment to that effect here in the past. 92.15.7.155 (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Askers and guessers
Not so long ago I read an article or debate somewhere that investigated the proposition that people or cultures could be divided into "askers" and "guessers". That is, when wondering if something was appropriate or feasible, some people would ask outright whether or not this was the case, while others would try to infer from the situation whether it was. Does this ring a bell with anyone? I'd like to track down the source. Skomorokh  14:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The concept originated in this answer to a question at ask.metafilter.com. It was discussed by a columnist at The Guardian as well as on other websites.--Cam (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, wonderful, thank you so much for the speedy and exact response Cam. Mahalo,  Skomorokh   15:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That Guardian column seems so British. Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  17:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In what way? 92.15.7.155 (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In, you know, that way. Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  13:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, being British, I don't know, and would never think of asking, but I can guess!    D b f i r s   08:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Economic growth, least unemployment, and inflation in the 20th. century
Was low inflation associated with low economic growth and high unemployment in the 20th. century? I mean in the UK or US. Thanks 92.15.30.196 (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In the second half of the 1970's and the early 1980's, high inflation was associated with big economic problems, while in the 1930's in the US deflation was associated with big economic problems. Low inflation is generally better than either of these alternatives (other things being equal)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, was moderate inflation best? I recall the inflation of the 70s was due to big increases in oil prices. 92.29.122.31 (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The graph in this article (http://tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/a2-macro-fluctuations-economic-activity.html) seems to show that - for the UK at least - inflation of around 1-2% has a relatively strong correlation with decent GDP growth. Only over a period of about 25 years but might be of use to your question. ny156uk (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 25 data points is not enough for statistical significance. 92.29.122.31 (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * When I was studying economics in the 1970s it was considered that a country's inflation rate was inversely proportional to its unemployment rate, a relationship described by the Phillips curve, but since the emergence of stagflation in many economies around that time we seem to have heard a good deal less about the Phillips curve, at least as an infallible guide to achieving low inflation or low unemployment. Antiquary (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * High inflation, low unemployment? I can remember the 70s as prosperous times, despite the inflation. The current set-up seems like a capitalist plot - the wealthy keep the value of their money while high unemployment keeps the wages of the servants/employees down. Recent financial events rather suggest that low inflation is a bad idea. 92.29.122.31 (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm, so high inflation is good for everyone else, when it destroys the value of their savings? I don't think so.  Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please keep your brainwashed propaganda to yourself. In the USA, the vast majority of people have NEGATIVE wealth -- their debts are greater than their assets.  So the point you have been brainwashed into believing about "savings" is irrelevant.  Usually, a high inflation rate is better for borrowers and worse for lenders, as should be obvious.  But the populists have been erased from brainwashed history, or else demonized as "anti-semites" or "isolationists" or whatever else is convenient to ignore their economic arguments. 63.17.32.70 (talk) 05:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * At least you've got some savings and a job in the first place. It helps pay off debt and hence encourages investment and growth. 92.15.7.155 (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

What type of marketing is this?
I have recently witnessed especially musical acts entering into talent shows and then attracting a lot of attention by performing terribly or acting foolishly. What type of marketing does this make part of, and does it have a name and has it been described and studied? — Adriaan (T★C) 19:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean a competent musical act pretending to be inept? It sounds like some sort of media prank, but if it has a special name, I don't know it. Can you provide a specific example of a group that did this? L ANTZY T ALK 19:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oscar Wilde said "There is only one thing worse than being talked about and that is NOT being talked about." I tried unsuccessfully to find the origin of "Any publicity is good publicity". HiLo48 (talk) 00:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Try here: Succès de scandale. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Martin.

US federal law based on changing facts
What happens if a federal law refers to something that changes in fact? I'm thinking of the various acts of Congress specifying that various federal district courts would include specific counties in various states. To explain my question — let's say that the Northern District Court for X State includes counties A, B, and C, while the Southern District Court for X State includes counties D, E, and F. The X state legislature decides that it's silly to have County C, so they merge Counties C and F under the name of County F.  Do the district boundaries change, since the federal law says that all of County F is in the Southern District, and County F's boundaries have changed? Or do the district boundaries stay the same, since Congress defined the boundaries and said that they happened to coincide with the county boundaries as they were when the federal law was enacted? I suspect the latter is true, but I don't have any evidence to back it up. Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Like you, I suspect that the laws apply to the boundaries as enacted and not as it exists today. As an extreme example, the states could essentially "game" the system by reorganizing and renaming all of the counties in its jurisdiction.  Imagine a state which did that, and then claimed that federal law did not apply since none of the counties mentioned in the statute existed anymore?  -- Jayron  32  19:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My guess is that Congress would just change the provision of the law to affect the new arrangement. It would be a very small amendment that probably would be a rider on something else ("On law XYZ, section 5, replace 'Johnson County' with 'Jackson County'"). --Mr.98 (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is just an example of a common legal issue: Whether one statute's reference to another statute is intended to incorporate subsequent changes to the other statute.  In general, the answer is supposed to turn on whether the legislature that passed the referring statute intended the subsequent incorporation or not.  I'm not sure what the answer would be in the example you provide.  John M Baker (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If a state did what the OP describes, the federal government would easily obtain an injunction until the federal law was changed in conformity or the state law was stricken by a court (the state would have absolutely no chance to win any law suit concerning the issue, based on preemption and the Supremacy Clause). The injunction would be based on obvious irreparable harm (meaning harm for which no other remedy would be adequate, not something that can't be repaired -- I mention that fact because many posters on the RD think they are experts in the law because they use common sense, and common sense tells us that "irreparable" must mean "cannot be repaired," ipso facto).  63.17.32.70 (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Poltava
Hi. I'm looking for more info on this painting File:Marten's Poltava.jpg, can't really find anything. Cheers. P. S. Burton (talk)  22:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What kind of information do you want? The context is the Battle of Poltava.  Nyttend (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm mostly interested in finding out where the painting is now, if it is in a museum or a private collection. P. S. Burton  (talk)  01:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Martens painted it for the Tsar, who commissioned it. It was included in the tricentennial Battle of Poltava exhibition in 2009 mounted by the Moscow Historical Museum and was included in the exhibition. It's illustrated, I'm sure, in Peter Englund, The Battle That Shook Europe: Poltava and the Birth of the Russian Empire, a detailed description of the Battle of Poltava; the book will give the current whereabouts It may be in the Historical Museum's own collection, or perhaps it's at the Historical Museum of St Petersburg.--Wetman (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wetman refers to the State Historical Museum (there is no similar museum in St. Petersburg). The canvas hangs in the picture gallery of the Catherine Palace. A better illustration is here. Another Martens' painting on the subject is exhibited in Poltava. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. P. S. Burton  (talk)  13:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)