Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 July 27

= July 27 =

Do male religious ever take female names?
Religious name has shed no light on my enquiry. When nuns take a religious name, they have access to the full gamut of saints' names, both female and male. Nuns with male religious names personally known to me in a previous life included Sister Benedict, Sister Anselm and Sister John.

However, I've never heard of a monk or brother taking a female religious name, and they seem restricted to male names. What's the reason for this?

Personally, I would like to meet a Brother Felicity or a Father Theresa. Or a Pope Margaret. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The latter informally known as Pope Peggy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Not quite what you're looking for, but Mary is often used as a second name for males in Europe - it's one of the names of the recently-crowned Philippe of Belgium, actor Klaus Maria Brandauer, and former archbishop of Paris Jean-Marie Lustiger (although that's his real name, not a religious name), etc. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As for the latter - his birth name (as a Jew) was Aaron; Jean-Marie was his baptismal name as a convert. I don't know its source, whether he chose it himself or it was bestowed upon him. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah! I meant to say he didn't change his name when he became a bishop, but you're right - so it is a religious name, in a way. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Here are a stack of other Jeans-Maries. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  11:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Voltaire was born François-Marie Arouet. Using Marie as the second name in a double-barreled given name is common in French; there are many XXXX-Marie names common among French names.  Also don't forget that many names which are today considered common female names in Anglophone culture (Tracy, Stacy, Shannon, Terry, Skyler, Courtney, etc. ) used to be exclusively male given names in prior generations, so it works the other way too.  -- Jayron  32  13:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There are also several historical French men named Anne, such as Anne de Montmorency (his French Wikipedia explains he was named after Anne of Brittany, and that Anne was both a male and female name at the time). Dominique is also spelled the same for both men and women in French. Still, none of these are exactly what the OP was asking about...I can't think of any male religious who took a female name. It's possible that someone took a male form of a female name to honour a female saint but I can't think of any examples of that either. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See also Lord Anne Hamilton, named after Anne, Queen of Great Britain. Proteus (Talk) 14:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence - Nunh-huh 15:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The perennial multilingual variants on "Maria" honor not a human namesake but the veritable Mary (mother of Jesus). Other than several unisex names noted by User:Adam Bishop, and User:Jayron32 suggested reciprocity for which no examples are forthcoming – I offer a tenet of unreconstructed feminism in Western culture: an intrinsically or characteristically female attribute is associated with inferior status when attributed to a male, or certainly not without risk to his masculinity. Among these, given name ranks with choice of vocation, clothing and hairstyles, etc. The reverse not being true is due to the socioeconomically superior status of predominantly male characteristics and pursuits. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I assume it's something along those lines, Deb. In certain contexts it's perfectly OK, even sexy, for a woman to wear male attire.  Marlene Dietrich made an art form of it.  But a man wearing female gear, in public - nooo, that's too weird, and implies all sorts of deviances that are best kept private.  Apart from the uni-sex names mentioned, women sometimes take strictly male names (Michael Learned and Lionel Shriver spring to mind). Even our own dear Governor-General, Ms Quentin Bryce, has a given name that I've only otherwise ever seen given to boys.  But boys named Sue are destined for a life of ridicule.  So I assume the same ethos has taken root in religious communities, which would sit well with the traditional male dominance of Christianity.  But I'd like to see some academic discussion of this issue, if anyone can track something down.  Thanks for your contributions so far.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Just a small note that all the Marias are indeed named after a human namesake, as I am unaware of any religion that considers Mary the Mother of Jesus to be anything other than human. 31.54.195.135 (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Quite so. All the saints after whom people are named were humans, except perhaps angels like Michael, Gabriel etc.  Jesus also figures as a given name in Hispanic culture, but although he wasn't a saint per se, the Jesus part of his existence was the human part.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  18:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, some religious men take the name of "Marie" or "Maria" as part of their name (but not their whole name). 69.125.134.86 (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Philosophy - ends in themselves
Kant said that people were ends in themselves. But I am sure I came across a philosopher or school of thought that said that the only things that were ends in themselves were people. Does anyone know who or what says this? IBE (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you might be thinking of Simone de Beauvoir. The book Ethics of Ambiguity lays her theory out; which really is very similar to Kant's, except that (because her metaphysics is that of Sartre), the conscious act of affirming human freedom becomes the overriding concern for the moral actor.  She also has a novel, The Blood of Others, where the whole story is just to drive that theory home: Acting in such a way that fully respects people's freedom is how to act morally.
 * So yeah, I'm guessing that's what you might be thinking. To correct any misconception, I should clarify terms here.  No philosopher is going to say exactly that people are the only things that are ends of themselves.  Just think about it: "ends" are the objectives of the will, and an "end in itself" is some final objective which is not instrumental toward another objective which is also envisioned by that will. But people will all sorts of weird and not-so-weird things all the time:  People turn on a television programme and watch it just to "have fun" and nothing else, no further thought required.  Well, that's a counterexample right there.
 * So, no, no philosopher strictly has said that people are the only things that are ends in themselves. Now, if you more precisely ask about philosophers saying that treating people as ends in themselves is the only moral thing to do, then maybe a more interesting answer can be given.  Kant of course says that, when acting towards other people, one must treat those people as ends in themselves, in order to be moral.  However, that is not to say that one cannot have other ends in themselves in mind and yet still be moral.  So, for example, according to Kant, you could choose to read a book just because you are curious and want to find out what the book communicates.  As long you have a fair, meeting of the minds with the person from whom you get the book, and you do not renege on any prior promises or responsibilities while you read the book, then you can be perfectly moral in reading a book just to sate your curiosity with no further thought to the matter.  However, according to Beauvoir, this would not be enough for the existential human to be moral.  For her, you should really sincerely deal with and suffer over the question of how your one action here fits with all your other actions and how these in their totality affirm freedom in general and thus treat people as ends in themselves.
 * So that's why I think you might be thinking of Beauvoir: For her, treating people as ends in themselves doesn't seem to be a requirement for moral action only when dealing explicitly with other people, a requirement which can be met by rote rule-following, as it is for Kant. Rather it is something which must be consciously, sincerely, gravely, even painfully affirmed throughout one's life, no matter what one chooses to do. It has a position of utmost elevation in Beauvoir's ethics.   -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quality answer. I probably wasn't thinking of de Beauvoir, because I hardly know anything about her, and have read about a page of her work. Well written, but the last French philosopher I care about is Cournot. By an "end", I do mean as a fact of morality, or perhaps we might say, ethics. I don't fully get your example of the book lending, but the vibe I get is that Kant has a more negative philosophy, in the sense that you only have to avoid immorality, and then you are ok to enjoy your book. De Beauvoir seems to be saying (according to your report) that you have to think in positive terms, and make good stuff happen all the time, and add to the total morality of the situation, conceived in existentialist terms. I would intrude here and say that you can include yourself as an end, and to heck with all the drama about what your actions are about and so on, because thinking about it will drive you mad, so let ethics committees go on about that sort of thing, and save yourself the time. So from my point of view, Kant and de Beauvoir are about the same, with the exception that de Beauvoir seems to want everyone to be neurotic as well. Just my take. By "ends-in-themselves", I really mean in the following much simpler sense. People matter, and people's needs matter. That makes them ends in themselves. Suppose for argument's sake we all agree on that. Some people might say that justice is also an end in itself, so punishing baddies is a good thing, far beyond any practical benefits it might have. This is the position I adopt in a book I'm working on, and I want to contrast it with the viewpoint that you/I are almost attributing to Kant and/or de Beauvoir. But I don't want a straw man, so in a break with tradition, I need to put a genuine reference in my book. IBE (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think the negative vs. positive is very helpful for Kant vs. Beauvoir. In the one example I gave, I can see how it seems like it, though.  It's more about rule-following vs. having "authentic" moral/emotional concern, where "authentic" has that existentialist meaning.
 * Well then, let's just ignore Kant for this issue. Are you talking specifically with regards to punishment?  The idea that punishment has no positive value except insofar as it helps people goes all the way back to Plato (Protagoras 324b–c, and in other dialogues), but many philosophers would have that position (Bentham would be a clear example, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, chapter 13). -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey thanks - quality feedback, exactly what I was after. So I have a fair bit of reading to do, but you have given me the next port of call. Also, if you know of something I can read that gives a summary of this "authentic" concern of de Beauvoir, I would be very interested. I have to limit my reading of books to those that have come up on my radar in some fairly prominent way, and I would prefer to read de Beauvoir's fiction to her philosophy, unless something piques me in a deeper way. IBE (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For a summary of the general account of existential authenticity, see . This does not speak clearly to how it relates to Beauvoir's ethics, though. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Cage and Heinlein
When I saw the film Knowing, I had a very strong sense that I'd come across the plot before in a Heinlein story, which I eventually identified as The Year of the Jackpot. A Google search came up with one guy who made the same connection, but I think you could get that for many random combinations. Anyone have any suggestions for how to figure out whether the filmmakers were influenced by the story? --Trovatore (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The interview with Ryne Douglas Pearson (who wrote the scenario) on the Christian Cinema website (http://www.christiancinema.com/catalog/newsdesk_info.php?newsdesk_id=989#) doesn't mention Heinlein. End of the world and predicting the future are pretty common themes in SF literature. Ssscienccce (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there was more to it than that, though. I can't quite put my finger on it. --Trovatore (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (Oh, but thanks for the links; they are very interesting.) --Trovatore (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Vegetarianism in history
Has their been a premodern culture where affluence and wealth is marked by a diet that is marked by consumption of more vegetables where non-meat are for the rich and meat is a common food the majority of the population can consume (excluding priesthoods with religious obligations to not eat meat)?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Have a look at History of vegetarianism. The practice dates from as far back as classical Greece. The Pythagoreans might fit your description. HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it Dehumanizing
When a part of a particular industry which previously is perform by humans is now performed by machines or computers, is the process of replacing humans called dehumanizing? 72.37.242.3 (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes on your first question, at least I find. And I don't know about the second, as far as dictionaries go, but that's a great word for it and I'll use it regardless. Thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the OP only meant to ask one question. No, that's not the normal use of that word.  See our article Dehumanization.  For ideas on what word you can use,  see Automation and Technological unemployment.  Rojomoke (talk) 07:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The expression "the dehumanizing effect of ever more automation" is used at THE McDONALDIZATION OF INFORMATION.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I would read that as meaning that automation removes skills and job satisfaction from the humans in a process, rather than actually removing the humans. Alansplodge (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The term you're looking for is mechanization. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Concert big screen video delay
I've just seen a picture from a Rihanna concert showing her on stage and in 'live' images on screens behind the stage. Slight differences between her body position on stage and in screens indicate the screen images are delayed by a fraction of a second.

Is this delay normal to all video technology? Or just characteristic of concert technology? Does it happen in the camera, or on the screen device, or in between? (I assume the feed was not transmitted anywhere very far away.) Hayttom 09:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs)


 * ACH! Suddenly I'm suspecting the screens are showing a pre-recorded video, in which case the chorographic synchronization is actually pretty impressive.  I should have noticed the background doesn't match.  Anyway, I'll leave my question to see what people comment about expected video delays.  Hayttom 10:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs)


 * Video is delayed when it is processed by any kind of Television standards conversion equipment, which may be involved if the stage displays do not match the video cameras in resolution (pixels) or framerate. I don't know the specifics of the Rihanna concert video but the linked article describes possibilities. One set of cameras probably provides video feeds for the stage displays, ordinary NTSC/PAL broadcasts, Internet videos and saleable high-definition discs, all requiring different video standards. Glancing at Rihanna's 2013 concert on YouTube (it's over an hour) I find a scene at 0:23:39 where both the singer and the screen are in view. I agree there is a perceptible time lag. DreadRed (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Ai khanoum in Afghanistan
Why Ai Khanoum village in Afghanistan is called a Greek ciyt when its name is Turkish. Ai khanoum means Moon Lady. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.154.22.218 (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Because the settlement was founded by Greeks during the formation of the Empire of Alexander the Great, and was part of a Greek-ruled territory for a considerable time (see Bactria and Indo-Greeks for the history of Greeks in South Asia). The modern name of the settlement is, according to the Wikipedia article about Ai-Khanoum, from the Uzbek language (a language related to Turkish), but that the modern name is Uzbek does not in any way contradict that the settlement was founded by Greeks.  -- Jayron  32  19:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

calling someone by their last name
can you talk about calling someone by a last name (without mr or mrs) in american culture? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, there's more than one possible context for this. First, it's standard in academic papers, when referring to the work of other academics.
 * It's also used in the military when addressing subordinates, and between young males as a sort of tough-guy posturing. Probably there are other uses. --Trovatore (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This isn't a discussion board. We don't just discuss things.  If you would like answers to specific questions, we can provide those.  And if your question is if people are simply referred to by their last names in the US, then the answer is yes.  The circumstances of someone being referred to by their last name changes depending on the familiarity of the people involved and the setting that it's done in.  Is there anything more specific that you'd like to know?  If so, please provide more specific questions.  Dismas |(talk) 19:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I think Trovatore has mostly answered me. So, outside of papers/acaemia and the military / or douchey posturing, it's really not standard? (i.e. in a normal professional setting)? For example if you're some manager you wouldn't call a different manager by their last name? (without mr/mrs). that sort of thing. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That's spelt "douchy", and yes, it is used in business, especially between and to equally ranking and subordinate males. μηδείς (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a WP:RS citation for the spelling claim? DreadRed (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There are a number of different uses of last-name-only. In newspapers, the first mention of someone usually gives their name, then subsequent references will typically be last name only, unless there would be some ambiguity, i.e. two or more article subjects with the same surname. For example, "In his first at-bat today, Yankees shortstop Derek Jeter struck out. In the third inning, Jeter hit a run-scoring double." This is a long-standing practice in journalism, and is pretty much the standard Wikipedia follows also. In oral communication in business, I've observed that people will sometimes use just the last names, for any number of reasons. Oddly enough, it's sometimes said with affection and familiarity, and other timed with derision (not to their face, of course). Also, when referencing a list of names, under many kinds of circumstances. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * ...pretty much the standard Wikipedia follows... " - This being the reference desk, here's a reference: WP:SURNAME. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be very rude to refer to your female manager by her surname alone. Note that "Ms" is often used in American business settings; Miss or Mrs only if you know that she prefers that title. In a business context even between males it indicates familiarity. If you are a learner of English as an additional language, don't do it. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

When did separate toilets for blacks and whites end in South Africa?
In what year? Thank you --Sïleïni (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa suggests that legal apartheid ended in stages between 1990 and 1993. -- Jayron  32  19:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * When it comes down to segregation, I wonder why people got so fixated in separate toilets (and separate water fountains). Isn't a segregated education or health care more important? OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it to the historians to determine if this is a real reason, but I should note that cholera epidemics have occurred in the region as recently as 2009 (see Cholera outbreaks and pandemics) and for obvious reasons toilet hygiene is indeed required to avoid its spread. It is easy to see why whites who believe themselves unlikely to be infected because they have good access to clean water might want to avoid using the same toilet or water source as people who might be emitting huge amounts of these lethal bacteria.  However, I have no idea if that played a role in this history. Wnt (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, a segregated education is more important, different ethnicities excel with different learning styles. Using a one-fits all approach, results in those who fall by the wayside as incompetent or of inferior mentality, when their only impairment is that they are incompatible with the particular learning style. For instance, if I remember correctly, those of aboriginal ancestry, generally have a poor 3-dimensional visualization, but excel in art. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * However, the segregation of the nature of the question, is not so rationally orientated - it was entirely racially motivated. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Big     here - if there is any proven cognitive difference between races it will come as news to me.  I haven't even heard of proof of differences for the stuff that seems kind of hardwired and prone to genetic variation, like facial recognition and sense of direction.  Of course, I recognize that differences in upbringing could lead to different levels of skill in two- versus three-dimensional visualization.  (I find it hard to believe that Bushmen would be worse at 3D problem solving per se, but I can imagine they might be unfamiliar with standard conventions about what 3D figure a two-dimensional test question or answer is trying to represent) Wnt (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "different ethnicities excel with different learning styles"? OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It was the "ancestry" part that stuck out to me. Wnt (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * What exactly is not being understood, "different ethnicities", "excell", or "different learning styles"? What about "ancestry"? Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about genetically isolated populations or recently so, so there are variable degrees of cognitive distinction. It is attributed to the subsistence mode of the isolated population (hunter-gathers vs. agriculturists). The subsistence mode controls which learning style is more effective. Over generations, the cognitive adeptness is skewed to accommodate the specific learning style to the detriment of the other. This has to do with the lateralisation of brain function. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of any proof that cognitive adeptness can be skewed, other than by experience. The observation of general intelligence - that we can't find a tribe of humanity anywhere that is genetically incapable of working mathematics or writing a novel - this is one of the most important mysteries of science, so of course I would be interested if you could back up this claim.  (An exception involved the Sl/c-kit pathway which was published at one point to affect direction finding in humans and mice, but I'm finding followup on that to be remarkably scarce - I'm starting to wonder if the result was reproducible) Wnt (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't imply 'incapable', just that it is not a relatively easy task. Sure, I'll find some sources later today. Though, I don't see why it is so objectionable, certainly you're aware of the reason for the evolution of higher cognition in humanity compared to other primates; and you're aware of the naturally occurring lateralization of brain function which I mentioned earlier; it is then not illogical to see how an adequate evolutionary pressure can select for one particular lateralization in a genetically isolated population. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 *  1989.  The Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, Act No 49 of 1953 that enforced segregation of all public facilities was scrapped by President F.W. de Klerk on November 16, 1989, a few months before the unbanning of political parties in 1990 and the start of negotiations to end apartheid.. DreadRed (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually that reference is a copy of an old version of Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, 1953, which has since been edited to cite the date 20 June 1990 instead, sourced to . However, that source is for a parliamentary vote and I'm not sure what else the bill had to go through before it became actual law. Wnt (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That stuff was called petty apartheid. Not so petty at all when it came to the rules against interracial intimate relationships, or the pass laws. Or indeed the separate facilities if you were black and needed to use those facilities. People really did suffer under these vindictive and unnecessary regulations. Since we're talking about racism, please note that people are not "hard-wired" for anything. The computer I'm working on is hard-wired, but hard-wired to be flexible. People are born with a brain, and the brain is evolved to be flexible to a degree far beyond that of the computer. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Caroline Ingalls
Caroline Ingalls

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

at the bottom of her story "for a lack of a better term" it states that she "Laura did not attend her mother's funeral, and in fact never saw her again after the death of "Pa" (Charles Ingalls)." my question is this a 22 year gap that she never saw her mother, was there a problem between them that kept them from speaking or seeing each other for 22 years? if you can't answer this for me can you please direct me to someone who can I am not a investigator so I don't know the tricks so to speak.

thank you

Kenneth huie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuban101 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Googling seems to indicate that there's no generally accepted reason why Laura didn't see her mother for so long, but plenty of discussion and speculation - here, for example, based on what is known about the lives of the people involved. It doesn't look like we can give you a definitive answer.  -  Ka renjc 19:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

this is my very first time using this web site so I feel like im doing this wrong,cause I cant figure out how to send this, I just wanted to say thank you for your response to my question about caroline ingalls,so thanks very muck Kenneth in alabama — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.110.57.37 (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Is seppuku/hara kiri still common in modern Japan?
The article just gives a few modern examples; I am still confused about this. How common is this among suicide methods?Is this favored by some kind of people e.g yakuzas?--AndiZy (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * According to Seppuku, "Seppuku as judicial punishment was abolished in 1873 ... Dozens of people are known to have committed seppuku since then". Clarityfiend (talk) 23:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * With a current population of 127 million and a few dozen such suicides since 1873, I suppose that qualifies as not common. Mingmingla (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yukio Mishima was a notable and fairly recent exponent (1970). I suspect what is putting people off is that it's generally not the seppuku that kills you, but a trusty friend who is willing to polish you off once you've started the process. I would imagine that there might be some administrative issues with the authorities afterwards. Alansplodge (talk) 07:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)