Humanities desk
< January 6	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 8 >

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 7

Googly eyes?

I was wondering why they call those little arts and crafts eyes [1] googly eyes. When I searched on Wikipedia for it, it just brought me to Strabismus. And is there an alternate, more correct name for the eyes? Evaunit♥666♥ 03:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've ever heard them called as well. And this would probably get a better response on the Language desk. Dismas|^(talk) 04:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just an unsourced speculation: early cartoon strip character Barney Google ("..with the goo-goo-googly eyes / Barney Google / with the wife who's twice his size...") -- Deborahjay (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also [2]. Barney Google had "googley eyes." There is still a comic strip featuring Snuffy Smith which is the successor to "Barney Google and Snuffy Smith." I can't recall the year Google last showed up in the Smith comic strip. Edison (talk) 06:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford English Dictionary has no problem with the word "googly", giving it a main entry without comment. What etymology there is is fuzzy and convoluted, but it seems to go back to "goggle" and the unattested "gog", a word "expressive of oscillating movement", not unlike "jog" or "joggle". So to call those notions "googly eyes" is actually quite correct, employing the core sense of the word. Thanks, by the way; I hadn't known they were called that. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys : ] long live googlism!!! Evaunit♥666♥ 03:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E1 transaction

i have come across E1-transaction (may be i am late know about it) regarding excise duty payment. After browsing the net i found a few references related to E1-transactions of insurance policies of medical treatment for patients. Will any one elucidate me about E1-transactions related to Excise duty and other commercial taxes please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jatilau (talk • contribs) 04:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

whaling

I recently heard of a show called Whale Wars (it's not wars between whales, which would be a totally different show)

hearing about this has me wondering:

Is whaling legal in Japan? For that matter, are laws governing the killing of endangered species mandated in any way OTHER than country by country?

If whaling is legal in Japan--how do these protesters get away with infringing on the japanese right to whale? Protesting is one thing, but it sounds like they're forcibly trying to stop them207.172.70.176 (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the first part of the question, see whaling and in particular whaling#Japan_2, and International Whaling Commission. On the second part, I don't know the specifics of these protests, but governments that don't want to be seen as authoritarian sometimes don't like to prosecute illegal activities that they see as not too serious and that are part of a bona fide protest. (On the other hand, some governments seem to go out of their way to treat protests as illegal.) Curiously, I don't see anything in either the protest, right to protest, or direct action articles that directly addresses that question of reluctance to prosecute. --Anonymous, 06:17 UTC, January 7, 2009.

Whaling has a real PR problem, and arresting protesters just gets more media attention, which might lead to a public outcry for changing the laws to ban whaling. Therefore, they may decide the best way to continue whaling is to ignore the protesters. StuRat (talk) 07:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of legitimate protests that try to forcibly stop a government-sanctioned practice that the protesters think is wrong (e.g., illegally forcing white diners to share a lunch counter with a negro). See civil disobedience. --Sean 12:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a recent article that discusses Japanese response to anti-whaling protestors, which you might find interesting [3]. Note that the Japanese 'harvest' whales under international rules that permit this for research purposes. Apparently the Japanese are still conducting vital research into why the whales die when harpooned, skinned and gutted. 161.181.153.10 (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Koan: Flax or hemp?

Is it possible that the Koan that describes Buddha as "three pounds of flax" was a mistranslation, and that "flax" should have been "hemp?" Hemp seems to have more of a reputation than flax for answering philosophical questions. 38.117.71.235 (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tōzan Shusho's reply was "Masagin!" (ma, flax; sa, three; gin, pound).

The golden crow swoops, the silver hare bounds;
The echo comes back, direct and free.
Who judges Tūzan by his word or phrase
Is a blind tortoise, lost in a lonely vale.

If a Westerner not knowing the meaning of the word had heard Tōzan say "Masagin" he would probably have been impressed by the action and the situation in which it took place: by the vigor of Tōzan's speech, the immediacy of his response, the stress placed on the word, and, most important, the image received of Tōzan himself. And all this might have produced a strong effect. But people who understand the meaning of the word -- three pounds of flax -- when they study this case will get caught by the idea the word conveys to them and be too preoccupied by it to see the action as it is. Their understanding of Tōzan will be destroyed, and they will be like a blind tortoise, bewildered and lost. "A lame turtle and a blind tortoise" is a Zen phrase applied to the mentally blind.

Huikai, & Yuanwu. (1977). Two Zen Classics: Mumonkan and Hekiganroku. pp. 71-2, 180-1. OCLC 2818787.—eric 17:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While not at all being a totally irrelevant question, philosophically--particularly in the context of Zen--it would make no difference, as the verse indicates. Not to presume that's what you're asking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.74.247.249 (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fanfiction writers and copyright

I spent the whole day googling this and I read all the wikipedia articles on it, too, and it still came up short. Does anyone know about copyright and fanfiction? Now I know that the authors of the original work retain copyright on their basic story and fanfiction is a copyright violation. However, the fanfiction writer made a unique organization of words and does copyright for this unique organization of words automatically make the author of the original work to be the copyright owner of the fanfiction work that someone else wrote? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 07:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a lawyer, and Wikipedia doesn't give legal advice, which is just as well because the advice I'm about to give is worthless conjecture. An illegal act cannot claim legal protection; you can't sue a hit man for not killing your spouse like you paid him to. Fanfic is not automatically protected by copyright because it is itself a violation of copyright, and I'm sure the original author would find it easy to take everything such a work might earn, making copyright moot. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio may be of interest. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well legal advice relates to a specific issue, rather than just a general understanding of a basic idea and I was just asking about a basic idea. Well I did more research based on what people said and it appears that as a derivative work, the fanfiction writer holds copyright over their new content, but the author of the original work can restrict the publishing of such content. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible the fanfiction author could argue that their work is a parody and thus not a copyright violation and they would hold copyright over their work. Since fanfiction is usually available for free on the internet and in no way harms (and may in fact help) the original work, I doubt there are many court cases on the subject, so it's mostly guess work as to how the relevant laws would be interpreted in this particular case. --Tango (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some authors do not allow fanfiction for their works (Anne Rice and Nora Roberts being two that I can name off the top of my head). Others are okay with it (J.K. Rowling, for instance). I'm not sure about its legality, but it appears to be a right that an author can allow or disallow fanfiction for their work. bibliomaniac 1 5 19:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually J.K. Rowling is against all the gay slashfic sex Harry Potter fanfics, which sadly is the majority of the Harry Potter fanfics. chillingeffects has some records of DMCAs going back for six years over this. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, yes. In the whole though, she "gave her blessing" to non-commercial, non-obscene fanfiction.[4] bibliomaniac 1 5 19:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It all gets caught up in the rather messy world of derivative work law. Original authors do own copyright on their creations. Hence Rowling's ongoing legal disputes and Lindsey Davis's upset over Simon Scarrow's "tribute plagiarism" (which she defines as "bandit usage of another author's material") when he had her character Falco make a cameo appearance in one of his books. Gwinva (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The case Anderson_v._Stallone is relevant here. GreatManTheory (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like media copyright of music, etc., there are issues between theoretical illegality and "getting away with it". JK Rowling isn't the only author to imply that they won't pursue cease and desists for reasonable fanfics, just as some musicians actively don't pursue file-sharers. Others, Robin Hobb, for example are fiercely defensive of their intellectual property, that is, their characters and fictional world.

Back on topic, though. Because a work of fanfic is technically illegal, regardless of the rights-holder's tacit approval, it seems unlikely that there would be a legal path for defending your fanfic from being distributed by others. However, the world of the internet has its own paths of retribution. Someone who has been caught distributing works they've stolen from others as their own will often be flamed, hacked or otherwise given DoS treatment. These less ethical means have a similar effect. Steewi (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fanfiction writers have the copyright to their works in the same way that Nina Paley has the copyright to her film Sita Sings the Blues. She can't legally publish it because of licensing issues but no-one else can legally publish it either.[5] Haukur (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fanfiction tends to intrude on what U.S. copyright law calls the right to derivative works. From this viewpoint, Rowling, who created the characters in the Potter books, owns the rights to other works derived from them. So a fan's book about Harry Potter's life as a merchant banker or an insurance agent depends to a large extent on what people know from Rowling's books -- the banker or insurance agent could be seen as a derivative work. The extent to which (a) Rowling would seek to preserve her rights, or (b) a court would uphold this view is open to question. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, parodies are generally allowed, and The Wind Done Gone was published... AnonMoos (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you still have the copyright to your derivative fanfiction - you just can't make much use of it for now. But here's a four point plan: 1) Write Harry Potter fanfiction, 2) Arrange for J.K. Rowling to be struck by lightning, 3) Wait 70 years, 4) Publish your work! Haukur (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because copyright applies to sections of works as well as to entire works (e.g. a new introduction/afterword to an out-of-copyright text is protected), you would probably be able to claim copyright on part of your fanfic if that portion is based around original characters and situations. For instance if an original character spends a while doing something else before going to Hogwarts. However, you would not get rich from the damages. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everyone including the original poster seems to have assumed that a work of fan fiction is automatically a derivative work. Actually that's far from clear. A story about people named "Harry Potter" and "Draco Malfoy", but having nothing else in common with J K Rowling's work, would not infringe her copyright (names and short phrases are not copyrightable). A story that copied whole descriptive passages or lines of dialogue from her books would be infringing. In between those extremes there's a substantial gray area. You also have to keep trademark law in mind—it's very different from copyright and people often forget about it or conflate it with copyright. The Chilling Effects fanfic FAQ is worth reading, and the Nichols v. Universal decision is also a good read. -- BenRG (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Married into Hungarian nobility

Hi, on the Harriet Howard article it is mentioned that her son married into Hungarian nobility. I am very interested in tracing the descendants of Miss Howard, and I was wondering where it was possible to look to find out whom Martyn Constantine Haryett married? I do know that in 1904, following his first wife's death, he married Germaine Baillon in London. -- role^player 13:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Her name was Marianne-Joséphine-Caroline Csuzy. [6] --Cam (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's extremely helpful. -- role^player 01:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is israel an occupying power?

What are the arguments for and against the idea that Israel is an occupying power? I don't mean to start a debate -- I'd just like the facts and arguments lying on either side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.185.231 (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Occupying power where? Its whole territory? Gaza strip? West Bank, Jerusalem? The arguments are different in regard to each. For the Gaza strip, you could start with Six-day war. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well where, relative to the other places, is the argument strongest for Israel being an occupying power? For this place, what are the arguments and facts for and against it being an occupying power? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.185.231 (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israel's argument is that it's voluntarily undertaking to follow most of the legal restrictions that would apply if it were legally an occupying power, but that technically Israel is not legally an occupying power, since the Gaza strip and the West bank were not under any internationally-recognized sovereignty in May 1967 (Egypt conspicuously refrained from annexing Gaza, and Gazans did not have Egyptian citizenship, while depending on what you read, either no other countries recognized Jordan's annexation of the West bank, or exactly one other country did: Pakistan). AnonMoos (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the Gaza Strip, see Gaza_strip#Dispute_over_occupation_status. It's one of the few places which nobody seems to want. Both Egypt and Israel have had the opportunity to annex it, but neither wants to assume responsibility for the miltants therein. There are smaller nations, so it could become a self-governing country, but Hamas is more interested in provoking war than working for peace, as prolonged peace would inevitably lead to a non-terrorist (that is, non-Hamas) controlled government. StuRat (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Events of the past few years in Gaza aside, there has been no real legal dispute that Israel has been an occupying power since 1967, although there has been enough written to obscure this fact. Israel's main argument is not that it is not an occupying power, but that by its reading of the second article of the Fourth Geneva Convention since late 1967, the body of the convention does not apply to its occupation, which Israel has always admitted was an occupation. Israel, under e.g. Military Order 3 for the West Bank even maintained the applicability of the Convention for the first five months of the occupation. The UK definitely did recognize Jordan's annexation, it is very unlikely that Pakistan did, but the overwhelming consensus of experts and authorities is that such recognition issues are quite irrelevant to "occupation", that Israel's argument is very weak. The basic argument "for" is very simple. There was a war, Israel "won" and put territory under its control (and did not annex it). That is the definition of "occupation."John Z (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article section is oversimplified, since the Israeli government's position has been that it wasn't an occupying power in a formal legal sense in Gaza even during 1967-2005... AnonMoos (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per what I wrote above, that is incorrect. In spite of many misleading statements and much propaganda outside of formal legal contexts, the Israeli supreme court, and the government of Israel's statements to it and other bodies in formal legal contexts called it an occupation since 1967.John Z (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do you mean 'have called it' (ie continue to do so?) anyway a SINGLE reference from the israeli supreme court calling it an occupation would satisfy me. are there any online in English that I could find? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.185.231 (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[7] seems to suggest that there is little question both the West Bank and Gaza were occupied terrority. E.g. 'The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on its Web site, notes that in 1967 the Israel Defense Forces completed the "occupation of West Bank and Gaza Strip."' Our article Israeli-occupied territories also states "In a related case the Israeli Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, stated that Israel has been holding the areas of Judea and Samaria in belligerent occupation, since 1967" sourced to [8] and "However, in recent decades the government of Israel has argued before the Supreme Court of Israel that its authority in the territories is based on the international law of "belligerent occupation", in particular the Hague Conventions. The court has confirmed this interpretation many times, for example in its 2004 and 2005 rulings on the separation fence. [13][14] According to the BBC, "Israel argues that the international conventions relating to occupied land do not apply to the Palestinian territories because they were not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state in the first place." sourced to various places ((Judea and Samaria are parts of the West Bank). All in all it seems JohnZ is mostly correct to me Nil Einne (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert in international law, but to be an occupying power, wouldn't you have to be occupying something that belonged to someone else? And wasn't the West Bank kind of a diplomatic no man's land, not recognized by most countries as part of any country? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many Arabic news sources, whenever reporting from Jerusalem, say "Occupied Jerusalem", not just "Jerusalem". There is a strong feeling in the ME that Palestine is an occupied territory. Wrad (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some refuse to use the word "Jerusalem" at all, probably leaving some people scratching their heads as to what an "al-Quds" may be... AnonMoos (talk) 09:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

political discussion spinoff

There is no conclusive evidence that 'Hamas is more interested in provoking war then peace'. Hamas's primary reason for allowing shelling of Israel to continue was because of Israel's continue blockade of the Gaza Strip and this is supported by a number of sources such as the NYT (check out our article on the war). Note that the shelling did die down a lot (but not stop completely during the ceasefire) however Israel never relaxed the border controls much. Many international commentators and agencies not supportive of Hamas have pointed out that the blockade was not only grossly unfair but empowering Hamas and making smuggling tunnels the only option to bring in any goods (which of course meant they could also be used for smuggling in weapons). How exactly the Gaza Strip was supposed to function as a state when they had no connection whatsoever to the outside world is unclear (as far as I'm aware none of the states smaller then the Gaza Strip, heck none of those bigger function with no connection to the outside world. You could just as well say that Israel appears to be more interested in provoking war then peace because a lot of the political leaders in charge got and remain there mostly because of their perceived strength in defending Israel and if that suddenly is no longer an important factor then they may find themselves out in the cold. Surely an overtly simplistic analysis but so is the claim 'Hamas is more interested in provoking war then peace' which was supportef by no sources. Nil Einne (talk) 09:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for an unsourced response to the above, but if this is the place for a "political discussion," I'll note the common understanding on the Israeli street that Hamas is an Islamist-nationalist militant organization that actively seeks the destruction of Israel and has been firing rockets and occasionally mortar shells—from its positions deeply embedded in densely populated (civilian) locations— into Israeli civilian territory (e.g. the city of Sderot) for the past eight years, stepped up after Israel's unilateral withdrawal from the Gush Katif region in mid-2005. Operation Cast Lead is a long-restrained IDF response to those attacks. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the common understanding on Palestinians streets is rather different. None of this proves the unsourced claim from Sturat that 'Hamas is more interested in provoking war then peace' which was the sole topic of my response. I for one thing their goal is a lot more complex then that, as is Israel's and viewing it so simplisticly helps no one. P.S. I did not spin off this into a seperate section, that was done by AnonMoos I guess to avoid it distracting from the topic which was probably a good thing Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your post was the first in the thread to contain nothing but political disputations unconnected with answering the original question (as opposed to the brief asides in previous comments), so I thought it best to segregate it into its own subsection. AnonMoos (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nil, do you have any sources (such as statements by Hamas) that show that Hamas does have a long term goal of living side-by-side, in peace, with Israel ? If so, I'd be extremely interested in seeing them. If not, then I'll stand by my opinion of them. Also note that I'm only talking about Hamas here, not Fatah and certainly not the Palestinians in general. (I do, however, have an equally low opinion of Hezbollah.) StuRat (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can read Hamas' own statment of its goals here. Pay special attention to the bigoted "Hadith of the Gharqad Tree", and the declaration of eternal jihad against the Lion's Club and Rotary! AnonMoos (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Respondents may note that the OP specifically asked for "arguments for and against the idea that Israel is an occupying power", he or she did not ask for anyone's personal opinions of Hamas. Here are some talking points promoting the legitimacy of Israel. You might also consider reading The Case for Israel by Alan Dershowitz (ISBN 0471679526) and it's counterpoint, The Case Against Israel by Michael Neumann (ISBN 1904859461), Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History by Norman Finkelstein (ISBN 0-520-24598-9) and From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters (ISBN 0963624202) Rockpocket 18:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many US presidents have been alive at the same time?

One future, one current and three former US presidents are meeting for lunch at the moment. But what's the largest gathering of former presidents that could ever have been arranged? What about British Prime Ministers? --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the data for English Prime Ministers in a table but need to do some work to get it move definitive. In 2005 there will have been 5 (James Callaghan, Edward Heath, Margaret Thatcher, John Major and Tony Blair - at that point Gordon Brown hadn't been Prime Minister). There may be a bigger version throughout history - will update once had chance to compare. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Presidents by date of death may help. After Bill Clinton's departure from office in 2001, there were 5 alive Ford, Carter, Reagan, George HW Bush, and Clinton. In 1993 there were Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and GHWB. In 1989 Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan. Interestingly, after Jan 22, 1973 when LBJ died, there were NO former presidents alive until Nixon's resignation. I suspect the situation in 1993/2001 is the record breaker. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Oldest living United States president: "The most number of living presidents is six. There were three periods where there this has happened." --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damn it, I just worked that out. The other occasion for a meeting of 5 former presidents was after March 4, 1861 when incumbent Abraham Lincoln could have entertained his 5 predecessors Martin Van Buren (1837-41; d.1862), John Tyler (1845-45; d.1862), Millard Filmore (1850-53; d.1874), Franklin Pierce (1853-57; d.1869), and James Buchanan (1857-61; d.1868) --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for British Prime ministers, there's been 5 former prime ministers quite often since 1900:

23 May 1923: New: Stanley Baldwin (d. 1947), Former: Andrew Bonar Law (d. Oct 1923), David Lloyd George (d. Mar 1945), Herbert Asquith (d.1928), Arthur Balfour (d.1930), The Earl of Rosebery (d. 1929)
22 January 1924: New: Ramsay MacDonald (d. Nov 1937), Former: Baldwin (d. 1947), Lloyd George (d. Mar 1945), Asquith (d.1928), Balfour (d.1930), Rosebery (d. 1929)
4 November 1924: New: Baldwin (d. 1947), Former: MacDonald (d. Nov 1937), Lloyd George (d. Mar 1945), Asquith (d.1928), Balfour (d.1930), Rosebery (d. 1929)
16 October 1964: New: Harold Wilson (d. 1995), Former: Douglas-Home (d. 1995), Macmillan (d. 1986), Eden (d. 1977), Churchill (d. 1965), Attlee (d. 1967)
5 April 1976: New: James Callaghan (d. 2005), Former: Wilson (d. 1995), Heath (d. 2005), Home (d. 1995), Macmillan (d. 1986), Eden (d. 1977)
4 May 1979: New: Margaret Thatcher, Former: Callaghan (d. 2005), Wilson (d. 1995), Heath (d. 2005), Home (d. 1995), Macmillan (d. 1986)
28 November 1990: New: John Major, Former: Thatcher, Callaghan (d. 2005), Wilson (d. 1995), Heath (d. 2005), Home (d. 1995)

Terms tended to be longer before 1900, so I'd be surprised if it occurred before then, but I don't know for sure. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone! --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is only marginally related to the question, but I thought you'd all like to know that, since the swearing-in of the incumbent (and first female) last September, Australia currently has 6 living former governors-general, more than at any time in the past. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting of Indonesian names

How are Indonesian names normally sorted in Indonesia? Are Indonesian phonebooks sorted by first given name? I tried asking this over on the Indonesian Wikipedia a year ago but I didn't get a definite answer.[9] Does anyone here know? Haukur (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of Indonesians have only one name, and even in the case of many who have more than one word in their name, none of the words may very closely correspond to western concepts of a hereditary surname, so western phonebook ordering rules might not be too useful... Do you know whether "white pages" type phonebooks are even very prominent in Indonesian cultures? AnonMoos (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a hereditary surname either and I'm used to people being sorted by first given name. No idea how common phonebooks are in Indonesia but I'd be interested in how any such list of names is sorted. What they do on the Indonesian Wikipedia seems to be to sort by the last name, whether that is a given name or a patronymic or whatever.[10] I don't understand the logic behind that so I'm wondering whether it's a widespread Indonesian way of sorting names or whether it's some sort of borrowing of typical enwiki sorting. Haukur (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I can't answer the question hopefully this will help. In Malaysia at least, IIRC (it's been a while since I looked at one) in phone books are mostly sorted as they appear/are written. For a chinese name, E.g. Lim Kit Siang will be sorted by Lim (surname/family name). [This is the only case I'm sure of.) For a Malay name, e.g. Mahathir bin Mohamad as Mahathir (given name). The same for Abdullah bin Haji Ahmad Badawi even though Badawi is actually a surname not simply a patronym. For Indians I believe it's the same even for those with surnames. E.g. Karpal Singh will be sorted as Karpal not Singh. This is the same as the way they are referred to in a formal context e.g. see [11] where he is referred to as Karpal not Singh. For Western European names (or names with a Western European influence e.g. Kristang people or Tony Fernandes I'm not sure. He would usually be referred to as Fernandes but I'm not sure if that's how it's sorted in a phone book. Of course Indonesian names are often quite different from Malaysian names but my gut feeling is the same general idea will apply. If you refer to the person as Megawati then you will likely sort as Megawati. Since this is usually the first part of the name, then it's a rather simple system too. Again the tricky question may be what about those cases where it's not? Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and I should mention that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Malaysia-related articles)#Names_and_sorting recommends sorting by first given name. Haukur (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]