Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 April 20

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.

April 20

military "uniforms" in middle ages

How was friend or foe identified at for example battle of Towton? "Friendly fire" incidents commonplace? Or even later, in Thirty Years War?Ragglecat (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ordinary footsoldiers might not have worn any meaningful uniform at all. For one fairly famous incident about the same time, see Battle_of_Barnet#Fighting_in_the_mist... AnonMoos (talk) 08:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Armies were often distinguished by their armaments or relied upon the clothing from where they came from being different. But this did not work well in more civil wars and the antagonist might become blended as spoils were taken and reused. When armies needed to be differentiated some kind of field sign was used, in rich armies some specially made badge, in poorer more impromptu armies something as simple as a scrap of cloth might have been used, at Towton red or white scraps probably. meltBanana 12:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Flower or plant badges are said to have been used as well, but there is some doubt on the matter. See Clan badge, White Rose of York and cockade Rmhermen (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

They used vocal identification instead of identification throu uniforms. For egzample during the 100 years war, the English would shout "for the king!" or something like that while the French would shout "pour le roi!". When the battle was over and it was time to massacre the prisoners thay would order the prisoners to repeat something that a foreigner would be unable to pronounce without making some form of an error or making his foreign accent heard. Mieciu K (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Banners were also quite important. Soldiers gathered around their standard bearer, protecting their banner and trying to capture the enemy's. Solders in the same company knew each other, and could recognize another company as friend or enemy based on their banner. --131.188.3.20 (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

often sashs of different olours were used.--Tresckow (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Two bank company questions

Hello. I have two questions about bank companies:

1. Besides Venture capitalists, where can proposed bank business find startup money to begin operations?
2. What is the difference between a bank president and a bank chief executive officer (CEO)?

Thanks for your help.--Under22Entreprenuer (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Any startup has two main sources of funds - equity and debt. Equity means selling shares (this includes money from the person starting the company, money from venture capitalists, etc.) and debt would generally mean bank loans. New banks aren't any different from any other startup in that respect, I would think. The difference between president and CEO is also the same as for other companies - the CEO is the person that is in day-to-day charge of the company and reports to the board of directors. President can be one of two positions - it can be a name for the chairman of the board of directors, or it can be a high ranking manager that reports to the CEO. "Vice-president" is a very common management rank, I think there is often no president they are vice to - there can be dozens of VPs in a large company, it's just a name. --Tango (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

One difference is that a banking licence allows the bank to accept deposits which are used to fund further loans. So instead of borrowing from another bank, the new bank can accept deposits. It would need to offer high interest rates or have deposit insurance (which it might need to pay for) to encourage people to depost their money with it. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, but a bank needs to have an adequate capital base to support its deposits and loans - see capital requirement and capital adequacy ratio. If you accept deposits and make loans without adequate capital, you don't have a bank - you have a Ponzi scheme. Gandalf61 (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good point. There would have to be some venture capital involved. But I think the purpose of a banking licence is to ensure the bank meets bank regulations before it can accept deposits. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Distribution of non-English Banknotes of the Pound Sterling in the UK

Being from the US, I've been interested in private banknotes in the UK (Banknotes of the pound sterling). Private banknotes went out in my country before my time. I was curious as to HOW the money gets into circulation from banks. For example, if I attempt to use an ATM in Scotland, would I be likely to receive a mix of English, Bank of Scotland, Royal Bank of Scotland, and Clydesdale notes, or do banks generally pass the notes to the originating bank when they are received, meaning that note-issuing banks release only their own notes and English ones? For example, if someone walks into a Bank of Scotland branch and deposits some cash that contains Royal Bank of Scotland notes, do these notes get packaged up and sent to the Royal B of S, or do they go in the till and out with the next withdrawal or cheque cashing? Would it make a difference when we are talking about a non-note issuing bank in Scotland? What do they hand out when you attempt to cash a cheque or make a withdrawal?

68.227.202.7 (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what the answer to this question is but in my experience (i lived there for the first 18 years of my life..) if you went to an RBS ATM you would only ever get RBS notes. Its only when you go to a bank that isnt RBS/Bank Of Scotland/ Clydesdale, like HSBC, that you'd get a mixture. I guess this means that the printing banks only distribute their own (as free advertising, kind of...) but what they do with all the thousdands of 'other' notes they get from their customers, I have no idea, sorry..81.140.37.58 (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As noted in Banknotes of the pound sterling, Scottish note-issuing banks situated in England must dispense English notes and cannot dispense their own notes from these branches. I suspect what happens is that anytime a scottish bank-note is received in an English branch it is collated and they are exchanged by the banks for english tender. Similarly I guess in Scotland the scottish banks will have a huge amount of their banks and a small amount of english tender - in order to exchange with the English banks they potentially need to keep-aside the english notes to be able to 'trade' them. It's probably much more complex than this though and not been able to find anything more definitive than the above linked page. ny156uk (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry just realised you'd already referenced that link - thus my comments are probably pretty worthless. ny156uk (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You might also be interested to know that Scottish banknotes are usually accepted in shops in Northern England, especially near the border, but become less acceptable as one travels south. Most English banks accept them as deposits, but process them separately, because they are not (technically) legal tender in England. I'm not sure about the procedures in Scottish banks in Scotland, but I would guess that all notes are treated in the same way because they are all legal tender there. Dbfirs 19:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've never had any problems accepting or paying with Scottish banknotes here in southern england. They are rare down here, but when they do turn up they are just treated as mildly interesting versions of the more usual bank notes. 89.242.152.134 (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There are some places that reject them since they aren't familiar enough with them to know if they are genuine. Most places accept them, though. --Tango (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

They're not legal tender anywhere, actually. --Anonymous, 21:19 UTC, April 20/09.

It's worth noting that the issuing banks are required, by law, to keep enough Bank of England notes on hand to match all the notes they have issued. I remember hearing somewhere that special high denomination notes are used for that purpose, though. --Tango (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

what is middle market lending?

Can anyone help me in explaining what the middle market lendng is? Is it same as Mezzanine market?

Thank you very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom616 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I would assume it refers to lending to a Middle-market company. If that doesn't make sense, can you provide more context? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

how do those Somali pirates find ships to hijack?

They used to hang around near the Somalian coast, where they could nab traffic going in and out of the ports, but now because of increased naval presence, they've moved 100's of miles offshore where the navies can't keep up with them or track them. But if the world's military establishments with all its airborne and satellite based surveillance can't find the pirate ships, how the heck are the pirates finding the merchant ships? Do they just drift around til they get lucky? Do they have spies in the shipping business? Satellites of their own? Or what? 66.127.52.118 (talk) 07:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that they use a larger mother ship to tow skiffs out to the shipping lanes, and then when they see a boat they attack with the fast skiffs. Note that the problem is not that the navies can't detect the pirate boats, but that they look exactly the same as the thousands of legitimate fishing boats out there, and by the time the hijacking commences, it's too late to get a defense force into the area. --Sean 14:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how close do ships keep to idealized "shipping lanes"? If I set a pirate boat down in the center of a shipping lane would every ship to use that lane come within visual/radar range of my boat? Or is there an element of chance involved? APL (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the "lanes" are quite large (100s of nautical miles), and that one of the proposals is to narrow the "lanes" into a more manageable area that could be patrolled more vigorously. However, I'd be very interested to hear from someone with maritime experience about how this actually works. Shadowjams (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Merchant ships are big, and presumably do not observe radio silence; I wouldn't think that they are too hard to find. (Remember that the pirates are looking for pretty much any ship: tankers, cargo vessels, yachts, fishing trawlers. So they are bound to find something sooner or later.) As for the navies finding the so-called mother ships, many of the latter are just hijacked dhows (local fishing boats), whose terrified crews are taken hostage -- see here for one example. I'd like to hear from someone who knows, but it seems unlikely that navies stop and search all local fishing vessels on the grounds that they might have been captured by pirates. So the situation is not even-handed. BrainyBabe (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This page <www.sailwx.info/shiptrack/shipposition.phtml?> will show current ship positions.--81.170.122.82 (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

So that being said, how do they ever get away? If they're pirating for plunder, their ship is big, slow, and presumably easily tracked by navies. If for ransom, how do they expect to get away with it? It would seem that as soon as the money is delivered, and the hostages handed over, they would just be killed by the navies who now knew where they were.142.132.4.26 (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Until the past few months, and especially the Maersk Alabama hijacking (which was biled as the first capture of American citizens by pirates since the Barabry corsairs), navy patrol has not been thorough. A few years ago, when ships travelled closer to the coast, they were within territorial waters and other navies were reluctant to enter. Now they are on the high seas, but the area is huge. Until recently, ships have not travelled in convoy, let alone guarded convoys such as during WWII. Also, of course, there is the little question of which navy or navies should do the work, bear the cost, run the risk. Some of the merchant vessels operate under a flag of convenience, and the great maritime nations such as Lichtenstein have been unfortunately unable to protect the shipping under their flags. The military action you suggest is tantamount to murder; if someone is fleeing with ill-gotten gains but offers no threat to you, you are still not allowed to kill them. For the larger issues, see Piracy in Somalia. (Hey, I forgot to sign all those days ago. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Next we will see "The war on Piracy" and we won't be referring to the RIAA.65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"Hey guys, there's one!" --Ghostexorcist (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Law: Example of Habeas Corpus

I can't seem to find an example of a Habeas Corpus petition. I'd like to know how to write one some day if the need ever arises. 41.244.228.246 (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You can often find things like this with an Internet search engine. This Google search for "Habeas Corpus petition example" gives examples in various jurisdictions. --Sean 14:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you find me one example please. Maybe Google likes you better. 41.244.228.246 (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few: [1], [2], [3]. Here's a generic form for writing one (in California) without the help of a lawyer: [4]. --Sean 17:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This may be useful. But you may want to tell us which jurisdiction you live in. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Habeas petition is a bit of a misnomer. Habeas corpus is, as it was with most common legal actions, a writ, incidentally the only writ mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Writ pleading hasn't been used in the U.S. for about a century (See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure), however writs are still issued by courts for various reasons (mandamus, certiorari, habeas). So I think it is more accurate to call it a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which is the writ a court would issue to the executive in order to free the prisoner. Look at writ for more in depth info, but a writ at its most basic level is a command from the court to the executive. Shadowjams (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and for googling purposes, "sample writ of habeas corpus" would likely bring you more authoritative results. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Google wasn't returning in examples for me and blank forms re not what I'm looking for either. I have a feeling that US searches of google may get better results, but in theory all visitors to google.com should get the same results as US searches. I didn't find any perfect sample of petition for write of habeas corpus, but at leaset I can get a good idea. Cheers Rfwoolf (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Who spoke what language in medieval/Early modern England?

In the novel 'Mistress of the art of death' the author clearly indicates that Henry II and other obviously Norman elites are speaking (Middle) English. But isn't it true that Normans considered the "native" Anglo-Saxons and the English language itself to be well beneath contempt? I've seen it stated that no English monarch before Henry V even pretended to study English. And further, about H5, why does Shakespeare have him struggling with French when it was in fact his native language? It seems that English authors (though one must concede they can write a little bit) are generally not aware of the former low status of the language in the long shadow of French.Ragglecat (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The history books that I have read indicate that the nobility (in what is now modern England) would have conducted most official business in Norman French during Henry II timeframe. I do not know if they (the nobility) were not fluent in English, or if French was just the preferred language. I can not speak for Henry V. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Henry II certainly spoke French. English began to be used again officially under Edward III; was Henry V's native language really French? He is later than Edward III and he seems to have been thoroughly English, although of course he probably knew French as well, which was well on its way to becoming the diplomatic language of Europe by then. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Henry V was certainly not the first king to speak English as his father Henry IV famously adressed the first parliament after he usurped the throne in English. For him to address parliament in English shows that the lords who sat would have understood. Henry V was from a very young age schooled in fighting, as this was the time before the renaisance i imagine that little time was spent learning the humanities, and that the french he learnt he would have picked up in court or on campaign. Also for Henry II it would have been archaic middle english rather than the form you would see in Chaucer. Quidom (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Henry II's court were speaking Norman French. Chaucer moved in court circles in the time of Edward III and gives a clear idea of what that era's courtly speech sounded like. --Wetman (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

With the loss of Normandy (acknowledged by treaty in 1259), the court and nobles presumably felt less attachment to the mainland, and this would be reflected in their choice of language. —Tamfang (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Diplomatic immunity

I was reading the article on CNN about the leader of Iran (won't even try to spell his name) speaking at a conference of some sort in Switzerland. Apparently several delegates walked out on him. My question is, assuming ambassadors have diplomatic immunity, and that a head of state would probably have it, would any crime be committed if there was a fist fight between say the leader of Iran, and the leader of say Thailand or something? I personally would find it quite comedic, and I presume that the bodyguards of the respective heads of state would prevent such an occurrence. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It would still be a crime, they just couldn't be prosecuted for it. --Tango (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

See Immunity from prosecution (international law), and related, state immunity and sovereign immunity. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

religion and philosophy

Is there any broadly accepted definition that explains what the difference between a philosophy and a religion is? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not try a widely-accepted dictionary? You can compare several at dictionary.com. Webster's says: "philosophy denotes the general laws or principles under which all the subordinate phenomena or facts relating to that subject are comprehended. Thus philosophy, when applied to God and the divine government, is called theology..." and "religion, as distinguished from theology, is subjective, designating the feelings and acts of men which relate to God; while theology is objective, and denotes those ideas which man entertains respecting the God whom he worships, especially his systematized views of God...." But you should read the whole thing. See [5] and [6]. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy is the talk on a cereal box; religion is the smile on a dog. —Tamfang (talk) 05:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do Finns, Poles, Hungarians and Romanians look like white people with a bit of the Mongoloid race added?

Just wondering.--Whimsical biblical (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)--Whimsical biblical (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This photo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Meyers_1890_ethnographic_detail.jpg) may be of interest. Not sure for definite but Finland, Poland are very close to the Yellow-section on the map. ny156uk (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Probably because you have just decided that they do. --ColinFine (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the articles you linked? Have you looked at sections dealing with ethicity and genetic origins, e.g. Finns#Genetics? BrainyBabe (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's weird like that. I'm Irish / English and I look like a Greek God. (Not Pluto)Myles325a (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hephaistos? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you ever read in history about invaders from the east who almost overran Europe centuries ago? They left behind some genetic souvenirs, which show up in some ethnic Germans Poles and others as Epicanthic fold. See Mongol invasion of Europe. Edison (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

myles back. Hephaistos, Adam? What are you banging on about? Funny OP et al didn't mention that Native Americans are directly related to Mongolians, as you can plainly see from their physique and colour. Mongolians migrated across the Bering Straight and all the native Americans from the Inuit down to the ones in South America are their descendants. Mormons wrongly believe that Native Americans are related to Semitic tribes. That Bering Straight must be an interesting place. Just about everything from EuroAsia crossed over to the New World via this small stretch of water at one time or another. Myles325a (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You said you looked like a Greek god, so I wondered if you meant the ugly one. Ba-dum-ching! Adam Bishop (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The reference to what "Mormons wrongly believe" seems oddly out of place here. The discussion was about Finns, Poles, Hungarians, and Romanians resembling Mongoloids. I'm not trying to be over-sensitive, but it strikes me as a bit odd to bring it up here. Nevertheless, to address the comment:

Admittedly, the introduction to the Book of Mormon states that the Lamanites are "the principal ancestors of the American Indians," but from what I understand, the growing consensus is that the small company that Lehi led out of Jerusalem (at least 18 people, probably not more than 22 or 24) was just a small part of the continent's inhabitants at the time, and they likely met and interacted with (wink, wink) many different groups of people. The Book of Mormon covers a history of more than 1000 years. Genetic markers could have been (and likely were) significantly altered within that time.

Also, since we have no idea what Lehi's DNA looked like, it's impossible to confirm or deny for certain that Native Americans are descendents of Lehi. Maybe Lehi had DNA that possessed certain Asian characteristics. Improbable? Sure. Impossible? No. We just don't know.

Regardless of what science might discover, it seems a bit arrogant to dogmatically assert that (a) all Mormons believe a certain thing, and (b) they "wrongly" believe it. Kingsfold (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Long-term treasury bonds

Why is it that the 30 year bond yield is lower then the 20 year yield? Are they expecting interest rates to be lower between 2029 and 2039 than between 2009 and 2029? Thanks! MMMMM742 (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

See Yield_curve#Inverted_yield_curve. --Tango (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The pure expectation theory seldom holds that far out on the yield curve. I'm not sure what the answer is to this specific question, but a very common reason for long-term rates being lower than middle-to-long term rates is a lack of high-quality bonds in the long-term part of the yield curve (i.e. low supply) and a high demand for those high-quality bonds by insurance companies and pension funds who need to match their long term liabilities. See the market segmentation theory section in Tango's link for more. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

benefit concert for commuter airplane crash memorial

I just saw on my local news Chuck Mangione is bound to play at a music concert. The purpose of the concert is to raise funds for building a memorial to the victims of Continental Airlines Flight 3407. Is this true? If yes, is there a memorial fund where can I send a donation?69.203.157.50 (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Clarence Chamber of Commerce is one of many accepting donations towards a memorial here. Nanonic (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

certainty

for everything that has ever lived and ever will live, are the only two things that we can guarantee for it, life and death? I.e. is there anything else we can be 100% sure about Thanks, Hadseys 22:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia will never be finished. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Taxes. (Obviously?) BrainyBabe (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's face it, Hadseys: this is a silly question:

1. It will have lived.
2. It will weigh more than zero ounces.
3. It will be composed of more than zero atoms.
4. It will be within the universe.
5. It will be either yellow or not yellow.
6. It will be be the topic of a Wikipedia reference desk question, or not.
7. It will have been born or hatched or spawned or cloned or something.
8. It will suffer the heat death of the universe.

And so on. --Sean 02:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sean, your points 5 and 6 are a bit dubious as we can know an infinite number of things using this tactic, such as “It will be an aardvark or not one” and so on ad infinitum and number 1 “It will have lived" is simply a restatement of the initial statement. I don’t think saying “An apple is an apple” is telling us anything.

I would offer “While it is alive, it will have some determinate structure and not be an entirely random collection of particles.” And: “There will be a stage in the life cycle of such a being when it actually performs actions of some kind, as opposed as merely being recipients of them.” Myles325a (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The tautology was kind of my point: there are infinite things along those lines you can guarantee about any object, living or otherwise. To ask if there are only two is a silly question. --Sean 12:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I always thought the two things you can 100% guarentee are death and taxes. Livewireo (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Like wot I sed....BrainyBabe (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

myles back here. Toto, in your argument I then know an infinite number of things about you, on the lines of you are either a goldfish or not. Read Karl Popper. These are statements of logic, not experience and though they provide ABSOLUTE certainty, in doing so, they provide no useful information at all, since the same kind of principle (that of identity) could equally be said of any entity in the universe. When we ask what we know about SOMETHING, implicitl we are asking what kind of empirical information do we possess concerning it. Thus, you would be surprised on looking up Joan of Arc in WP to find the statement "Joan of Arc was in fact Joan of Arc" and "We know that she was either a grapefruit or not a grapefruit". Yes, the statements are indubitably true, but no they don't say anything useful about the subject. To aver that we "know" millions of things about something we have never experienced, along these lines, is just to be pedantic and to misunderstand the nature of pedagogy and epistemology. Myles325a (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The OP mentions "life" as one of the things you can be certain of for things defined to be living, that's just a tautologous and meaningless as the examples you mention. --Tango (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The statement "Joan of Arc was in fact Joan of Arc" is not (entirely) vacuous. It tacitly asserts the existence of Joan of Arc. For some reason the standard sentence illustrating this idea is "The present King of France is bald". Algebraist 01:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that would mean you couldn't say "Harry Potter is Harry Potter"? Look, you keep avoiding the main point that anyone asking questions like this does not want some empty logical quibble. I don't know why you keep on with this. You didn't even bother to say anything about my suggestions, which at least get to the idea of what we mean by life. Myles325a (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

We know for certain the entity has some kind of parentage. Nothing comes from nothing. 128.239.177.28 (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Cordell