Humanities desk
< October 5	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 7 >

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.

October 6

NYT & Blair

Did the New York Times retract each and every Jayson Blair story and contribution or just offer a blanket mia culpa? Marketdiamond (talk) 06:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't retract the articles, but identified errors and added corrections and editors' notes to all of his articles. The originals can still be viewed (along with the appendages) For example: "Making Sniper Suspect Talk Puts Detective in Spotlight" from March 2003. See also the NYT's "Witnesses and Documents Unveil Deceptions in a Reporter's Work", "Corrections to Articles by Jayson Blair", and "Articles by Jayson Blair Since June 1998". They did apologize too ("Editors' Note"). ---Sluzzelin talk 16:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sluzzelin. Marketdiamond (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linking Jayson Blair for convenience. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes OsmanRF34, maybe subconsciously I didn't want to give him any more credibility. lol. Marketdiamond (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AM

Is there an online list of members of the Order of Australia? Kittybrewster ☎ 09:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on whether you mean Members in a particular sense or members in a generic sense, we have Category:Companions of the Order of Australia, Category:Officers of the Order of Australia, Category:Members of the Order of Australia, and Category:Recipients of the Medal of the Order of Australia. None of these are complete lists. There are also Category:Knights of the Order of Australia and Category:Dames of the Order of Australia, which are complete but these categories have been abolished.

There's also List of Companions of the Order of Australia, which I believe is complete, but no corresponding lists for the other categories of membership. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. That's a list of all 29,469 Knights, Dames, Companions, Officers and Members of the Order, along with recipients of the Medal of the Order of Australia, including honorary recipients, up to and including Australia Day 2012. You can refine the results here. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have meant this list, Mr Mike. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're probably right, Mr Ofoz, but it seems both your link and mine give a blank page. There doesn't seem to be a way to link to a partially completed search filter. Basically I was trying to say 'go to the It's an Honour site and search for the awards and/or people you're interested in. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Study for a Caricature by Leonardo da Vinci

Anyone know anything about the "Caricature features an old servant woman who has cabbage leaf ears, is toothless and grimacing" drawing by Leonardo da Vinci and now being discussed at Study for a Caricature (Leonardo, Milan) AfD. The only thing I could find that might even be remotely close is this. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black Forest ham and PDO

I'm in the US, and I recently purchased some Black Forest ham from a discount grocery (yeah, yeah). It's a German product from Edewecht, which I was a little dismayed to learn, since that's pretty far from the Black Forest. From my understanding of PDO and the information in our article on the ham, that's not right. I see three possibilities:

No wrongdoing or foul play; the ham was properly made in the Black Forest and just marketed or exported by an Edewecht-based company
The company skirted PDO law by marketing it as "Black Forest prosciutto" (for what it's worth, this particular product doesn't have the PDO seal)
The company ignored PDO law and no one cares because it was exported outside the EU

If it's the latter, is this an illegal practice? I'm not going to take legal action, so this isn't a request for legal advice. I'm just curious. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the Wikipedia Black Forest ham article (2nd paragraph); "Since 1997 the term "Black Forest ham" is a Protected Designation of Origin in the European Union, which means that anything sold in the EU as "Black Forest ham" must come from the Black Forest region in Germany. However, this appellation is not recognized in non-EU countries, particularly in United States and Canada, where various commercially produced hams of varying degrees of quality are marketed and sold as "Black Forest ham"." So there you have it. Alansplodge (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. Don't get me started on Subway's "Black Forest" ham. But does that also mean EU countries can ignore the law? Or more precisely, does the law apply only to products sold in the EU or to all products made there? --BDD (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible the label wasn't added until after it was exported, in which case, the manufacturer would bear no responsibility for mislabeling done elsewhere, by another company. StuRat (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edewecht is the seat of at least two large meat-processing companies. I'm fairly sure they sell proper Schwarzwälder Schinken in Germany, so you may have got the real deal. However, even for real Black Forrest ham, there is a large quality range. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's good to know. As I ended up devouring the entire package in close to one sitting, I'd say the taste was pretty authentic! --BDD (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This booklet, European Policy For Quality Agricultural Products (p.6) says (my emboldening); "Products carrying the PGI logo have a specific characteristic or reputation associating them with a given area, and at least one stage in the production process must be carried out in that area, while the raw materials used in production may come from another region." So your ham may well have been sliced and packed at a plant some distance from where it was cured. The booklet also goes into some detail about how these regulations are enforced within the EU, but a footnote mentions that sales outside of the EU are protected by the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS Agreement). Alansplodge (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but according to us, Black Forest ham is a PDO, not a PGI. The former is stricter; I believe the entire production process is supposed to take place in the area. --BDD (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So they wouldn't be able to send cured ham an hour down the road to be wrapped in plastic? Would that make it inauthentic? Alansplodge (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I checked my fridge down here (in Saarland) and my black forest ham package has a PGI logo and no other indication of origin (aside from made for Kaufland in Neckarsulm). Considering the fact that a zillion pigs are raised in Lower Saxony and presumably none in Black Forest, the pork is most likely to come from Lower Saxony. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First royal to visit US

Who was the first royal person to visit the US? I know that Queen Emma of Hawaii was the first queen to set foot in the White House (not sure if it was the first in the entire country) in 1866 and King Kalākaua was the first reigning monarch to visit the country in 1874, but who was the first royal below the rank of queen or king to visit the US? I know Queen Emma's husband Kamehameha IV and his brother visited the US in 1850 when they were still Princes, were there any royals who set foot in the US before the year 1850? Please don't count Native American chiefs who were called Queens of Kings by Americans. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Philippe I visited the U.S. ca. 1796... AnonMoos (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Louis Philippe I was likely one of the first, if not the first. He visited the US "as far south as Nashville and as far north as Maine" as early as 1797. A prince at the time, he went on to become king in 1830. --BDD (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My money would be on Prince William Henry, later William IV of the United Kingdom, who was in British-occupied New York around 1780 and 1781 as a teenage naval officer. Washington approved a plan to kidnap him which did not come off.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your final sentence; I just almost pointed you to people such as King Philip. Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend, your indentation suggests you're replying to Wehwalt, and "your final sentence" refers to "Washington approved a plan ...". After some brain gymnastics, I think I've worked out that you're actually replying to the OP, and the final sentence in question is "Please don't count Native American chiefs ...". No? If so, one colon rather than three would have been better. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Prince William Henry visited New York in 1780-81 -- but would that technically count as "visiting the United States", since the US Constitution had not yet been drafted or signed (much less ratified) at the time, and under the Articles of Confederation in effect at that time, each state was in effect a separate nation in all but name? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even before the Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781, there was a well-defined alliance of states that used the name "United States of America". —Tamfang (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. A DECLARATION By the REPRESENTATIVES of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, In GENERAL CONGRESS assembled. There has been a lot of historical dickering as to how strong the "national" nature of the U.S. was under the Second Continental Congress, but the statement is right there, in unambiguous terms. --Jayron32 19:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn claims he was "the first prince to enter the United States after independence, in 1794". That statement isn't referenced, but [1] confirms he entered the country. Hut 8.5 21:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on how one defined "independence", i.e. by the Declaration of Independence (1776) or by the Treaty of Paris (1783). As noted above, the future William IV had him beat by more than a decade. --Jayron32 01:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say on what precise date the United States became independent. Was it:

the declaration of independence (4 July 1776)?
the signing of the Treaty of Paris (3 September 1783)?
the American ratification thereof (14 January 1784)?
the British ratification (9 April 1784)?
the exchange of ratifications in Paris (12 May 1784)?

Luckily, we don't need to go into this question here. We're talking about the United States as a well-defined entity, as Tamfang says, not necessarily as an independent republic. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, William IV seems to be it. --Jayron32 02:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well... we also have to ask about the word "visit"... would we really say that Prince Harry "visited" Afghanistan when he fought there in 2007 and 2011? If not, then I don't think we can say that Prince William Henry "visited" New York in 1780 in similar circumstances. Also, does anyone know the circumstances of the Duke of Kent's entry in 1794? (the article does not say). Blueboar (talk) 02:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You caused me to get out my William references. It was entirely in 1781, by the way, he was not there in 1780. New York was loyalist, he was given a large crowd on welcome, and was pushed on a frozen pond on some sort of sled. He did a lot of walking on his own near the outskirts of town (which is what gave the rebels the idea of kidnapping him), was given the benefit of what society there was, and did a lot of hoping for a West Indies cruise instead, New York not being much in those days. I doubt Prince Harry will be wandering around local villages on his own. I suspect the present rebels may be thinking along similar lines though. William saw the place in a way Harry will not. See Ziegler, William IV, pp. 38 and 39; Fulford Royal Dukes, pages 86 to 88. Fulford mentions the Duke of Kent's brief visit to the U.S. at page 160, the Duke had been Commander in Chief of British forces in Canada and was ordered mid-winter to join British forces in the West Indies. He sought to take with him a most princely train of equipment, which was lost through the ice on Lake Champlain. According to Fulford, the apparent frugality with which a British prince went to the wars without equipment so impressed Bostonians that they treated him with great respect. He then took ship from Boston to Guadeloupe --Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And a followup question from me: Who was the first British Monarch to visit the United States after its independence? Someguy1221 (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George VI was the first reigning monarch to visit, in June 1939. Others probably visited before they ascended the throne. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Monarch? Yes... it was George VI in 1939. Edward VII and Edward VIII both had visited as Prince of Wales... but not as Monarch. The current Queen has visited multiple times (she often comes over "unofficially" to buy horses or to visit American friends.) Blueboar (talk) 02:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, George VI of the UK's historic visit to the US was immediately preceded by the first visit to Canada by a reigning King of Canada, who was also a George VI. What an amazing coincidence. :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what of Queen Alliquippa? She never left! ;-) Marketdiamond (talk) 08:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]