Humanities desk
< January 24	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 26 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 25

Copyrights and linking to URLs

I vaguely remember hearing a story some time ago about a webmaster in Europe (can't remember which country) who was successfully sued by the owners of other European websites for copyright violation because he'd linked to their URLs. Am I remembering rightly, or have I mangled something in my memory? And if so, how is it that websites in this European country are able to link to any other websites without getting sued for the same reason? Nyttend (talk) 01:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of relevant international cases on this—see Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing. Most cases that have been decided in favor of the site owner revolve around deep linking—e.g., skipping a site's pay wall or ads or whatever. But not all of them. Courts have successfully made a muddle of the issue by not really clarifying the technical differences relating to what is allowed and not allowed, and, to be fair, the technical differences are not necessarily very clear either (deep linking is not handled any differently than any other kind of linking in the HTTP protocol, for example). This is, to be sure, an evolving area of case law. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suffice to say that the courts bungled that case. Unless I am mistaken, a company can easily mask all their premium content from the unpaying public with a login mechanism. Vranak (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if you push for technical solutions, there will always be technical workarounds, and pretty soon you are in DRM territory. Which isn't an attractive option either. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but make the workarounds illegal. When linking to an image on a free website becomes cause for a successful lawsuit, we've clearly strayed into fascism. I think it similar to telling somebody what you read in a newspaper and being fined $1000 for revealing company secrets. Vranak (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err, so you're arguing for a technical solution, rather than a legal one, but then if someone tries to circumvent the technical solution, you just make that illegal. Why not just outlaw it in the first place and skip the run-around, especially since technical solutions generally do not work and only serve to clog up the works? I don't really see the connection between linking images and fascism, to be honest. I'm not a fan of onerous copyright regimes but it's not like linking images is a fundamental right (any more than copying music illegally is, which is just as easy). I don't see the newspaper analogy—it's more like sending someone an MP3 over e-mail. Easy to do, but not copyright kosher. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's very simple really. If you want something to be private on the web, you put it behind some protection. If you don't even bother with that first step -- even if it can be circumvented -- you don't have a leg to stand on. Besides, I am a little suspicious of keeping anything private, unless of course traffic is too high and you can't afford to upgrade. Vranak (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It comes about in complicated ways. If I copy a picture of Mickey mouse from the Disney website onto the computer that runs my website so that this image shows up in my web page - then I've illegally copied that image and since I broke the copyright law - I'm in deep trouble. But suppose I put an HTML <IMG SRC="xxxx"> tag into my web page and instead of 'xxxx', I put the URL of a picture of Mickey Mouse from somewhere on the Disney web site - then I'm still going to be sued because the same picture of Mickey Mouse shows up on my web site. But when you think about it, I didn't copy that picture. The picture is still on Disney's computer and was inserted into that page on the user's computer when he visits that page - at no time did I copy the file - the image was never even sent to my computer! But it looks like I copied the image when I didn't - and the law has pretty much decided that it's still a breach of copyright to do that. Clearly, the law had to change to accomodate that obvious loophole - and it more or less has. But it gets tougher if I instead wrote <A HREF="xxxx">Click here to see Mickey Mouse<\A> - because now, the end user clicks on those words and goes off to a legitimate page on the Disney web site where the picture is. The legal case for the second of these being illegal is very fuzzy indeed...but some people have been successfully sued for doing that. The difficulty is that it's only a small step between that and me simply linking to the top level http://www.disney.com site - which has to be legal in order for the World Wide Web to function at all! But it's tricky - I think it's OK to link to their main "Mickey Mouse" page: http://disney.go.com/characters/#/characters/classics/bios/mickeymouse/ but I might be breaking the law by linking to their logo image: http://a.dolimg.com/media/en-US/globalmedia/legal_footer/images/games.png (although in this, specific case, I'm going to claim "fair use"). The law is exceedingly vague at this point. SteveBaker (talk) 07:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Finnegans Wake in the public domain?

Just curious about the copyright status of Finnegans Wake by James Joyce. Tried finding out myself but got confused. Thanks, ♠TomasBat 02:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the public domain in countries where copyright lasts 60 years after the author's death, such as Canada. Since it was published after 1923 it is not in the public domain in the United States. Marnanel (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on which jurisdiction you are talking about. In the U.K. it is not (70 years after author's death = 2011), in the U.S. it is not (95 years after publication = 2034), but in countries with 60 or shorter after author's death, then it is. Whichever country you are in determines the laws you have to abide by (see Berne Convention). --Mr.98 (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[The UK copyright expires on the following January 1, techicaally making Joyce's work copyright until January 1, 2012. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 15:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)][reply]

A Dessert That Looks Like Turkish Delight

What is the ingredient called "matica" or something found in a transluecent dessert that is not as colorful as Turkish Delight?174.3.98.236 (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Mastic? Nanonic (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our local Turkish supermarket[1] sells Turkish delight described as "mastic flavour". As I could only think of the mastic which is used in sanitary plumbing, it was a bit of a puzzle to me but all is now clear. Alansplodge (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Significance of "z"

What is the significance of adding a "z" at the last of a word. I have noticed these in many blogs and social networking sites. For example:

"better" is written as "betterz" or "bettarz"
"navel" is written as "navelz"
"boys" is written as "boyz"
"girls" is written as "girlz"

What is the meaning of this? When should I use spelling like these? --Qoklp (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neverz. :) -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're all evolved forms of Leet since it's entry into mainstream conciousness and it's application to various internet memes such as lolcats. The S->Z transformation can be traced back as far as the word Warez and possibly earlier. Nanonic (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For plurals, that's the way it's pronounced. "boys" is not pronounced "boy" + "s"; it's pronounced "boy" + "z". I guess writing it as boys emphasizes the plural. --99.237.234.104 (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an occasional user of the naughty z, I'd say it just emphasizes the silly. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Text-only communication is difficult. We don't have good ways to express tone, emotion or intent by intonation as we do in normal speech. When humans invented writing, it wasn't intended to be used for informal conversation - but here in the Internet, that's almost the only way it's used! We're gradually finding ways to add back what we're missing from spoken language. Emoticons and adoptions from "Leet-speak" is often used to add 'flavor' to bland text. There are hundreds of these things out there in the online world: Sometimes I'll say "Mmmm'k" instead of "OK" to indicate some doubt about what I'm supposed to be agreeing with...that's not in any English dictionary, grammar or style guide (I think it started in South Park) - but it expresses something that's tough to say in mere words. Sometimes I'll say something and follow it with a bunch of ^H^H^H^H^H's - which (for incredibly complicated reasons) means that the preceding word is one that I've humorously left in the text when I "really meant" to delete it. So I might say humorously say "Qoklp is an idiot^H^H^H^H^H really smart person" - meaning that "officially" I'm not calling this person an idiot - although that's what I really think. In many places, TYPING IN ALL CAPITALS IS CONSIDERED TO BE "SHOUTING".

So, similarly, replacing the 's' with a 'z' is a way of lightening tone, expressing silliness and sometimes adding a nuance of meaning that wasn't there before.

As for when you should do it - well, don't! Not until you've absorbed enough of the culture of the group you're talking to to know what their conventions are. For example, here on the Wikipedia reference desk, we've developed a possibly unique convention that writing things in small text indicates that a response is intended as a joke. You don't see that in many other places and if you just start sticking small font jibes at people into non-Wikipedia reference desk posts, or "crossing out" the word "idiot" with ^H's then you may end up seriously upsetting someone who expects to see a smiley-face emoticon instead.

Like verbal 'slang', these conventions come and go - and are geographically unique (although the word "geography" takes on a different meaning on the Internet where Wikipedia talk pages and FaceBook blogs are like different countries with their own dialects and accents).

SteveBaker (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My wife, incidentally, would take issue with the idea that is that written language is devoid of emotional cues. People have been using written communication extensively for a long time now—even "common" people have for the last 150 years or so. Yet it is only with these electronic gizmos that people start feeling the need to pepper everything with graphics and misspellings as a way to indicate emotional states, sarcasm, etc. She sees this as a decline of language instruction and people taking the easy way out. (There are plenty of ways to indicate emotional cues in writing—writers have been doing that for centuries.) I agree with her maybe 50%; I see some of this as a problem that people are writing now who wouldn't have done so in the past in any significant amounts, and really don't know how to do any kind of evocative writing, which is a somewhat different way to phrase the problem. Horrifically, though, one sees this kind of language being put by college students in their term papers, smilies and all, because that's the only way they know how express themselves in text... THAT, I refuse to accept, as a teacher! --Mr.98 (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased to see I'm not the only one clinging to the outdated^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H subtle nuances of "^H". — Lomn 15:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which we oldsters remember as the backspace on the old teletype machines. "^" being the control key). 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though Steve has a good point about "geographical" meaning, such things can also have a temporal location. I doubt many younger internet users would get the joke about ^H being a backspace that would delete previous characters (removing them from the screen on VDU terminals, but displaying literally as "^H" if you has a teleprinter that simultaneously printed on paper). I think it goes back to the days of typewriters where you could backspace the carriage head and overtype what you had just written, typically with hyphen characters. A similar effect can be achieved using the Wiki markup like this: "Qoklp is an <s>idiot</s> really smart person" and appears as "Qoklp is an ~~idiot~~ really smart person". Astronaut (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Z for S substitution predates 1337-speak by at least a few decades, if not more. Boyz II Men was one of the most popular singing groups of the late 1980's, back when the interwebz was basically where a few defense industry computer geeks hung out. Heavy D and The Boyz comes from around the same time. People over at The Language Desk would probably be able to dig up some much older refs for this. I would not be shocked to find such misspellings, intentional or not, to date from many many many years before now. Oddly enough, slang and cute misspellings existed longer than the internet did. Heck, the term Okay has been said to be an abbreviation of "all correct" ("oll korrect"), as an intentional cutesy misspelling, for a long time, and serious etymologists consider that a very likely scenario. It would be no different than the s/z switch here. --Jayron32 21:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Replying to a comment above) Sure, there are ways of expressing emotion in writing, but until the last decade or so written communication were read days or weeks after being composed. The writer usually puts a good deal of time into a book or letter, so fleeting emotions that last for seconds aren't written down. In contrast, it takes only a second to type a message on MSN, so it's necessary to express these fleeting, seconds-long emotions, something that written English has never been used for. --99.237.234.104 (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used to belong to a youth-organized and youth-run gay youth group back in the early '80s (back when it was still fairly risky and radical to come out). One of our guerilla awareness-raising campaigns was to tag various public places around our city (such as subway stations) with the words "GAY KIDZ" in magic marker as graffiti. (Yes, I know, it was vandalism, but if it made parents think twice or other kids realize they weren't alone, we felt it was worth it.) I think we felt "gay kidz" looked cooler than "gay kids". Marco polo (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Inbreeding

Are Hawaiian royalties more inbred than Charles II of Spain? Charles II descent from only from about 200 years of inbreeding between cousins and cousins and aunts/uncles and nieces/nephews so he was deformed. Hawaiian royalties descend from all unions described above and half-brothers and half-sister marriages even a full sibling marriage and a daughter and father marriage in the span of less than 100 years, but they were not known to have any deformaties founded in Bourbons. KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inbreeding tends to emphasize genetic defects, but it can't cause them. Charles II had a great many ancestors with the defects causing the Habsburg lip, so the inbreeding in his ancestry served to focus the effects. On the other hand, the Hawaiian royals (and another famously inbred dynasty, the Ptolemaic dynasty) presumably didn't have any genetic defects that cause deformities, so there's no reason for deformities to appear. --Carnildo (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a negative trait only manifests itself when an individual has inherited double recessive forms of a gene, then interbreeding can greatly increase the number of double-recessive descendants of people who had one dominant and one recessive (and so appeared perfectly healthy).... AnonMoos (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. What inbreeding does is reduce genetic variation. That tends to make the expression of recessive traits more likely. Dominant negative traits quickly get bred out of the gene pool, while recessive negative traits don't (since people with only one copy of the gene can reproduce with no difficulty). That means most negative traits are recessive. That means having more recessive traits tends to mean having more negative traits. A lack of genetic diversity also means that the entire population (or family in this case) is likely to be susceptible to the same infections, increasing the chance of them all being wiped out at once. (When an entire population is inbred it also means it can't evolve as quickly to deal with changes in environment, since the now-beneficial traits don't exist anywhere in the population so you have to wait for mutations that could take hundreds of generations rather than just having an existing trait spread throughout the population over a few generations. That isn't really an issue with a single family, though, especially when we can use technology to deal with changes.) --Tango (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WW2 Casualty Rates by type of land unit? (infantry / tank / artillery)

I already have a pretty good idea of how things went for the naval and air arms, hence their omission. I'm wondering, if one was drafted (or volunteered) into a major power's armed forces during WW2, what were the relative chances of survival? Was it better to be infantry or a tanker? Artillery seems the safest, unless you get overrun... then you're really SOL eh? I know these figures will vary widely depending on which nation we talk about, but I'd be happy with some good info for ANY of the major European combatants... thank you! 218.25.32.210 (talk) 06:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which nation's military are you most interested in? The rates would probably be very different for the different nations. Germany's tank survival rates could be very different from the UK, or the US, or Japan. Googlemeister (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either America/UK or Germany on the Western Front in 1944 onwards would be interesting. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without checking my sources, something like 90% of combat casualties in World War II-era armies were suffered by the infantrymen. While tank losses where high, tank crewmen had surprisingly low casualties - most tank crews escaped unscathed when their tanks were destroyed. Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

prime minister

who is the pm if australia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simbusiva (talk • contribs) 09:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Prime Minister of Australia. By the way, you could have Googled this yourself and found out much faster than by posting your question here and waiting for someone to respond. Dismas|^(talk) 09:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be Ricky Ponting ? Or maybe Robbie Deans ? The Russian Christopher Lilly 14:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was Bruce. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Lands of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Crown lands of France is a great article, for a defunct monarchy to boot, but I am dismayed to not know of any similar article or website which might have the same information for the British Isles (a region that actually still has a monarchy over most of the land), for the Anglo-Irish, Scottish or Manx monarchs, although I have seen some maps of Wales and Cornwall which delineate those issues, such as between the Prince of Wales, Earl of March and also the Duke of Lancaster. Please help me find information, especially in pictures, which may show me the Crown lands irrespective of any particular title, although I am aware that the Lancastrian inheritance does in fact have its own peculiar title with respect to the Crown. What would be even more helpful, is if somebody could actually make these articles. I don't know if this should be referred to another page at Wikipedia for article requests or whatnot. Cheers! 70.171.236.188 (talk) 10:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main article is at Crown Estate. There are some maps at that organisation's website - here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. It seems that there are no longer any broad swathes of territory held by the Crown anymore, but a map showing the expansion and contraction of their possessions isn't at that website. It's amazing how the French history is extensive, yet an extant monarchy has little of the same coverage. Thanks anyway. Perhaps somebody else knows, or has access to records so they can make graphics for Wikipedia Commons, just like the article I referenced above. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several books in existence on what, before the 20th century, tended to be called the "Royal demesne". The only relevant historical information at the Crown Estate site seems to be that:

"After the Norman Conquest, all the land belonged to William "in right of The Crown" because he was King. Despite centuries of change in law and custom, the underlying ownership of The Crown still exists and there is always a presumption in favour of The Crown unless it can be proved that the land belongs to someone else. The Sovereign's estates had always been used to raise revenue, and over time large areas were granted to nobles. The estate fluctuated in size and value but by 1760, when George III acceded to the throne, the asset had been reduced to a small area producing little income..."

Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, does this directly tie into English enclosures and Scottish clearances, the eviction of Irish from their lands and the penal transportations to the Province of Georgia and New South Wales? Has land mostly reverted to commoners now, rather than remain in the hands of powerful parliamentarians? 70.171.236.188 (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you need this book: [2] --TammyMoet (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think people here are totally confusing two different concepts. There's the "royal desmesne" which is what the Crown lands of France is discussing, which is basically those lands over which the French King has "effective sovereign control" as a legal Head of State and then there's the "Land which the crown owns outright as a private posession of the Crown". For much of history, the Kingdom of France operated much closer to how the Holy Roman Empire did; that is the King was a nominal ruler over all of France, but only had effective control over a small area, and the local rulers were essentially sovereign over their own territories even if they were nominally fiefs of the French King. This makes sense because the HRE (essentially the "Kingdom of Germany") and France share a common ancestor, the Frankish state of Francia.

It also helps to remember that the King of France grew out of the title of "Duke of France", i.e. ruler of Île de France (Paris), which was just another Duchy of Francia. The fact that the Dukes of France also became the Mayors of the Palace of the Frankish kings and that they also came to rule the most important Duchy in West Francia had a lot to do with how they became Kings of France. Though the Ducal title evolved into the "King of France", historically the other duchies in West Francia had just as much claim to their own territories as the King had to the Île de France. In other words, though the Duke of France began calling himself the King of France, and thus claimed nominal suzerainity over the other dukes and counts and whatevers around France, those other rulers basically said "What makes THAT guy more special than us?" In fact, during the early years of the Kingdom of France, there were other such territories that just up and called themselves "Kingdoms", including the Kingdom of Burgundy and Kingdom of Provence (later merged as the Kingdom of Arles). The process of the evolution of the Kingdom of France into a strong, central monarchy coincides with the timeline laid out in the Crown lands of France article, essentially that article is much more about the centralization of power into the French King rather than a timeline of the private posessions of the crown.

The Crown Estate article is just about the private lands owned by the British Crown; this has nothing to do with the territory over which the monarch has effective sovereign control. The history of the centralization of power in England is very different from that in France, and its feudal organization was always different than that on the continent (see Bastard feudalism for the pecularly British version of the feudal system) since Continental feudalism grew out of the organization of the Frankish Empire, and England was never, ever part of that empire. --Jayron32 03:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know well what you mean, so please try to understand my question. The Crown's original fief was Wessex and in that, Winchester--just as before, when the centre was Tamworth in Mercia. I wish to know a similar history of fluctuation in territories for England here. I am aware of some maps which show Crown lands in Scotland vis a vis the mormaerdoms and will have to go look them up again, but I'm pretty sure there aren't any maps showing the progressive loss or accumulation of these lands. I have an atlas which show Tudor Crown lands in juxtaposition from Church and private lands, but this is only for the mid-16th century. I also have a map which shows the major holdings of the Lancastrian and Yorkist competitors, but of course, this is only the mid-15th century as well. I suppose we would have to assemble a mix of different maps in order to come to some greater understanding as to what the landscape looks like in the court rolls and the livery badges. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 06:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we don't know what you mean? Do you mean you are looking for the 1) territorial changes of the Kingdom of England or those lands that were the 2) personal property of the English Crown. Those have different meanings. Even #1 would be hard to nail down, as the Plantagenet Kings of England also controlled substantial territory in the Kingdom of France which was not part of the Kingdom of England (see Hundred Years War), but rather land held in fief of the King of France (though, as noted above, rather independent from...). So, for example, Henry II of England was also the Duke of Aquitaine, but the latter title was not part of his English posessions. However, many maps and history books oversimplify this situation, treating all Plantagenet lands as part of "England", even if they weren't.

The deal is, with a few minor changes around the Scottish Borders, the Kingdom of England maintained a relatively constant territory for most of its history. There were some English fiefs which maintained a special legal relationship to the Kingdom (Lancaster, Durham, and Cornwall comes to mind, see County palatine), but I am not sure these ever reached the level of independence that most of the German or French fiefdoms did. --Jayron32 07:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How were East Anglia, Mercia and Northumbria assimilated into Crown domain? After all, there were still earls and then dukes of Northumberland, earls of March, etc. I understand that these titles have been regranted even if the King held them once or twice. How could Wales be assimilated into the Crown if there is still a Principality and Marches? Just because the Crown has suzerainty and de facto control, doesn't mean it has de jure control or actual possession. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to the Norman Conquest, the ruler of "England" was really the "King of the English" or "King of the Anglo-Saxons", that is the king of the people of England, not of the territory (see Popular Monarchy). There were actually several kingdoms on the island, as you note, and at times, one of the Kings would be declared "Bretwalda" or "High King", that is "King of All of the Anglo-Saxons". However, this office was originally not heritable, and different Kings from different Kingdoms held the title at different times. Alfred the Great made the Bretwaldaship the permanent ownership of the Kings of Wessex, by claiming the title "King of the Anglo Saxons", though it had functionally been so since his predecessor Egbert of Wessex. The title stayed as such, with at least nominal recognition of the seperate existance of the constituent Kingdoms of England until the Norman Conquest (with the notable exception of the Empire of Cnut and his relatives). Once William the Conquerer came into power, he swept away most of the Anglo-Saxon administrative and political organization, and replaced it whole sale with a Norman-French one. It was with William that the title went from "King of the English" to "King of England", and even the nominal seperate existance of the old Anglo-Saxon kingdoms (Mercia, East Anglia, etc) disappeared. [{Wales]] was incorporated into England functionally during the reign of Edward Longshanks and officially with the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542. Scotland, as you know, came into personal union with England during the reign of James I and VI and the two states ended their seperate existance with the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain via the Acts of Union 1707. --Jayron32 18:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we've gotten off topic. The first replies by Ghymrtle and TammyMoet were on track. I shall rephrase for direct context: When did Wessex no longer form the body of the Royal Demesne within England (not France, as English holdings there were the same as Irish (Robert, Duke of Ireland, Earl of Oxford), Scottish (William, King of Scots, Earl of Northumbria/Huntingdon/Northampton) and Manx (William, King of Mann, Earl of Salisbury) holdings in England), or did it ever and what, if so, did take its place and when? Would the Late Saxon switch to London (Danelaw sway over the seat of government) be the time when the Royal Demesne shifted and what body of lands would that be called, or was Westminster simply the working capital of England, whilst Wessex remained the country estate of the Crown? Compare the two centres of government in the Netherlands; Amsterdam and the Hague--one could see Winchester as the Royal capital and Westminster as the Witanagemot/Curia Regis/Parliamentary capital. Norman surnames are most numerous in Wessex and that is where the Lady Matilda had her strongest support (albeit with Robert of Gloucester's help otherwise) versus King Stephen, who was based in London and perhaps, likewise had support in the Danish countryside of England, as in the era previous. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 07:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian recipe

Does anyone know the Australian name of the recipe that consists of picking a selection of tins whose labels have all been eaten by ants or termites, and then trying to make a meal out of them? — PhilHibbs | talk 14:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the most bizarre damn thing I've ever heard of. Are you sure this is an Australian ... er, practice (I hesitate to call it a "recipe")? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 14:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What if one of the cans turns out to be dog food? Or worse, SPAM? Googlemeister (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for "bizarre damn thing" too. Something to do with 'Hobos' comes to mind, Ah! "Mulligan Stew"? But that is an American term. I was actually going to suggest ~~"Pot Luck"~~ "Potluck"! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That scenario sounds vaguely familiar - a joke from a movie, or a sit-com, or something like that. And not to do with Australia. But "pot luck" would be a good term for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Hash Magandi" (or "Magandy") comes to mind. I think it means anything that comes to hand thrown in a pot. I beleive this is a military term, but whether this is specifically Australian or not I don't know. Google couldn't shed much light on it. Another similar idea is "airborne stew" (many references on Google but no definitions - ignore the ones that mean mixed air-pollution). It's the sort of thing that old ex-army Scout leaders used to reminisce about. Alansplodge (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of the story of a British family during the Second World War receiving an unlabelled tin from their Canadian relatives. Upon opening, it contained a grey powder, which they assumed was a dried soup of some sort, and duly boiled it up with some water. The soup was a bit thin and gritty, but any variety in the diet was welcomed in times of rationing. A couple of days later a letter arrived from Canada, telling them that their elderly relative had died, and his last wish was for his ashes to be scattered in the Mother Country, and the family had sent them under seperate cover in an unlabelled tin. DuncanHill (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with Bugs here, I'm certain I've seen this somewhere before. The Simpsons and Look Who's Talking spring immediately to mind, but it's entirely possible they simply had similar scenes to the one I'm picturing in my mind, without mentioning unlabelled tinned food. This is going to drive me mad...! Vimescarrot (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a hunch, I googled [cans without labels seinfeld], and it's not cans, but it's the same idea: The Label Maker episode. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hey! when i was kid living in UK in the early 1970s, the BBC would play test patterns and short films before regular programming started after school. One of the short films was called "CATTLEMEN" and it was about a couple of Aussie drivers running a road train (truck hauling multiple trailers) full of cattle across the outback. When they stopped for dinner, they would start a campfire, take out a giant cast iron frying pan, and then open the larder and pull out unlabeled cans to add to the pan. One of the guys would ask "how many cans" to judge how hungry they were! must have watched this short at least a hundred times as it was on almost every day. ever since, when our family makes a hash, usually out of leftovers, not cans, we call it Hash Magandy! enjoy. 24.188.166.127 (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not heard of "hash magandi", but it's presumably a blend of salmagundi. --ColinFine (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I loves mah Hash Magandi. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Potluck article suggest a few synonyms, for itself ; potluck dinner, Jacob's join, Jacob's supper, faith supper, covered dish supper, pitch-in, carry-in, bring-a-plate, fuddle. But this is more of an informal dinner gathering with all contributing a dish. This link may interest, Origin of potluck Quote "Meal leftovers would be put into a pot and kept warm". 220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Burgoo? American again. I vote "bloody unlikely" :-), the OPs original idea it was from Oz. (Though could be a 'traditional' word that has fallen out of use) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My question is, what if you have plenty of tinned food but all the labels are intact? Or, you have tins with missing labels, but the reason they lost their labels had nothing to do with ants and termites? Are you supposed to place a pile of assorted tins of food in some place where ants and termites can get to them, and then wait for a few months? What if you're starving right now? And since you know what they contain when you expose them to the ants and termites, how do you forget that you ever knew what was in them when you eventually retrieve them and open them? This is a real philosophical conundrum, this one. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You guys need to get some more clarity from the OP on where he heard about this. Otherwise you're just chasing your tails. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should such a request for clarity go to his talk page, or be kept here? Either way, the guy edits only occasionally.[3] 2 edits in the last week, and only about a dozen in the last 3 months. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cons have it

Could anyone please tell me the name of the New Zealander who ran a Ponzi style investment scheme in the US, and about whom there was a movie made ? This film portrayed him playing a ruse on leading businessmen in Australia by ringing up a radio station and claiming he was a big time investor. He also tried to have something to do with rebuilding the World Trade Center. Also, if anyone knows the name of the other guy who conned millions out of investors in a salted gold mine he cooked up in Asia, then allegedly faked his death by jumping from a helicopter after getting his money out. Also, the American who tried to fake his death on the Cook Strait ferry in the 1980's, as well as the guy killed in a car crash in the Mount Victoria tunnel in Wellington, who was found to have a briefcase full of money, making the whole thing look very cloak and dagger. I have tried typing them in, but nothing. Thanks . The Russian Christopher Lilly 14:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pyramid and Ponzi schemes may help, if you're prepared to trawl through them all. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The gold mine fraud in Indonesia is the Bre-X scandal; it was not the principal but the chief geologist, Michael de Guzman, who allegedly jumped out of a plane (there are rumours that his death was faked, of course). It was a huge affair in Canada in the mid-1990s. Don't know about any of the others.--Xuxl (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. I saw it on a documentary, like Discovery Channel or American Greed, although I recall he was not American. Clever but wicked idea. Like the ones about Breaking Vegas, or the forgers, like the guy who counterfeited Canadian currency, and the other who faked One Armed Bandut tokens, and the other who worked out how to get those machines to pay up on command. Like something out of a movie. Even real life can be as intriguing as the films. If anyone can recall the others, please say so. Thanks. The Russian Christopher Lilly 11:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar epoch at Easter?

In Spain, I encountered a date that the notice for tourists translated into a date 32 years or so apart. Is it possible that this date was counted from, say, the resurrection of Jesus? David.Monniaux (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you could be more specific. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I have a one-page list of "eras", and no such era appears in it–not that that means it doesn't exist. If the difference were in the other direction, the Era of Augustus is dated from the Battle of Actium in 31 BC. - Nunh-huh 20:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]