Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 May 28

Humanities desk
< May 27	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 29 >

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.

May 28

Otto von Kotzebue

When exactly (between 1823 and 1826) did Otto von Kotzebue meet Namahana Piia and when did he set foot on Otdia? As illustrated in the engravings in his two first volumes of A new voyage round the world in the years 1823, 24, 25, and 26 here and here.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Also if anyone knows the artist of the two engravings it, do tell. Was "S. Freeman, sc" the engraver?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

As near as I can make it, he met Namahana Piia on the 14th December 1824, the day of his arrival at Oahu. (The book A new voyage round the world in the years 1823, 24, 25, and 26 is available at Project Gutenberg here ) He arrived at Otdia around the 28th of April 1824 - you can find a description of that in the first volume of the book between pages 295-316. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 06:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

And S. Freeman is the engraver Samuel Freeman. (Have to use a Google cache version of the page as the website seems to be down, but more info here. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 06:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The letters 'sc' on an engraving are an abbreviation for 'sculpsit', meaning 'carved', a reference to the engraving process. In other words it means 'engraved by'. 'Pinxit', or an abbreviation of the same, means 'painted', referring to the original artist. If it's an engraving of a drawing, the original artist will sometimes have 'del', for 'delineavit', after the name. Clearly the portrait has to be based on an existing image, but presumably the artist had no interest in asserting ownership. Paul B (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Do we have an article on required school readings?

Perhaps there's a better English term but I am blanking out. Pl wiki has pl:lektura szkolna, no interwikis. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

There's curriculum, which covers all required course materials. There's also summer reading program but that doesn't mention anything in particular. Are you looking for something specific (what teenagers in London need to read, for example) of a general overview? Hot Stop 04:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering how to translate the Polish term, which is the general term for "readings that the students are required to do in school". Thus they are part of the curriculum, but only a small part of it. At the same time they have a wider meaning, as particularly at the elementary and secondary educational levels teachers in countries such as Poland (and I'd assume most others) are required to have the students read certain books. I may stub it, but I want to make sure I have the correct English term before I start. School readings? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

We say "set books" or "set texts" in the UK, but I wouldn't expect an article on the concept. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we do have such an article, although there's no reason why we shouldn't. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I can see some problems in deciding what the scope of such an article would be. The Polish article, so far as I can understand it, lists some books that are set in Polish schools, mainly or exclusively literary texts. If we were to take all the English-speaking countries and try and compare a similar list, it could be too complicated and open to potential POV violations. But actually, such an article should be about the general concept of a set book, a spin-off from textbook. (Our article textbook is too US-centred, as it happens.) Piotrus, do you have some sources to base such an article on? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I can translate the short Polish article, but I'd like to be able to define the term generally. Now, I think that an article or a series of listing what are required texts all around the word, and how they have changed through time would be encyclopedic and fascinating, through I certainly don't intend to do much other than just start it. PS. And yes, my understanding of this concept is related to literary texts (novels, poetry, diaries, etc.), through the Polish article also mentions that it also can include some famous examples of journalism and even science or advertising (through those are very rare, one would assume). The concept can also include works presented on stage, or television, through again that could be stretching it, and it may in this vary from country to country. A safe, mid-20th century definition could be safely limited to literally texts. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) All right, I'll gladly stub it. What would be the best name, and suggested redirects? I am looking at school readings (ex. use in English: Piotr S. Wandycz (1980). The United States and Poland. Harvard University Press. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-674-92685-1. Retrieved 28 May 2013.), set books and set texts... anything else comes to mind? I am not counting ambiguous phrases like assigned readings or required readings, which can be used more generally outside school (primary and secondary education) context. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

We need to hear from some American editors, because I'm not sure that the idea even exists in the USA, i.e. it may be up to the individual school or even the individual teacher to prescribe which works of literature are read. Even in the UK there is a lot of flexibility. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I think a frequently used term is "required reading", although that is generally qualified, for instance "High school required reading". A google search for the term finds a page titled "Required Reading Worldwide" although the website is blocked at my workplace so I'm not sure how valuable a source it would be. I have a feeling such a list would be extremely long though, since AFAIK each state, province, etc. would have their own list of required reading.64.201.173.145 (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no nation wide, uniform curriculum or "required reading" list in the US... some States set a common curriculum for all public schools within the State (which may or may not affect private schools within the state). Other States leave the curriculum up to the individual school districts, or even the individual schools. Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, and definitely encyclopedic. Some countries have national wide lists, other don't. I expect the eventual list may be split into a number of subarticles; anyway my intention is not so much to start a list as to describe the existence of this concept (which is at least clearly defined and referenced in Polish language, and if I can't find an English source with a definition, I'll use the Polish ref). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Still problematic as an article topic to my mind, and I don't know what would be the WP:COMMONNAME in English. Can you see if you can extend textbook instead? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

My point is to create an interwiki link to pl:lektura szkolna. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it helps, but Wisława Szymborska's Lektury nadobowiązkowe has been published in English as Nonrequired Reading. [1] 14:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, notable book to stub (pl:Lektury nadobowiązkowe). But title was not translated correctly, should've been Extra-required reading (through I guess it doesn't sound so good, but nad- translates as -extra, not as -non).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Aaron is not real at the Latin wikipedia

Not a question we can help with
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Apparently Aaron is not an encyclopedicaly a real person over at the Latin wikipedia. I say this because the Sacerdotes (priest ) category was removed over at the Latin wiki and would like to have it back in place. I already opened up a discussion with the administrator concerned and will open one at the Latin wikipedia's taberna(the forum or equivalent of reference desk.)--Jondel (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC) I'm sorry if I am misunderstanding, but this seems more of a statement than a question. Is there something we can help you with? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Thank you for your concern, I appreciate it! I would like that Aaron the brother of Moses, be classified under Sacerdotes (priest). This category was removed because allegedly he is fictional and the Sacerdotes is for 'real persons' only.--Jondel (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Should this not be discussed at the Latin Wikipedia? Or is your question 'is Aaron a real or fictional person?' We (I) would not really like to become involved in a dispute (especially not one on another Wikipedia), but we do want to answer questions for which we can find a source. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Whether Aaron was real or fictional does not really matter, because the OP is ultimately only interested in how to categorise the relevant page on the Latin Wikipedia - the categorisation of pages is an editorial decision for the Latin Wikipedia community to sort out. They can decide whether to categories Aaron in Category:Priests regardless of whether he is fictional or not, and it's not the role of an English wikiepdia ref desk to tell them whether the categorisation is "correct" or not. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Ok. At least allow me to air these things out. I will start a discussion at the Latin wiki if the remover does not respond to my discussion. The remover is an administrator there. It appears here in the English wiki that he is considered real. At least real enough for a 'High priest' category . I don't really want to start a dispute about his reality but I think he deserves the 'priest', category.--Jondel (talk) 10:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Right. In that case, PalaceGuard's advice is sound, and I don't think we can help here, so I'm closing this question. Don't hesitate to drop back here if you have another question we can help with. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Legally coaxing Julian Assange out of the embassy

Couldn't the UK just shut off the water and electricity supply, block the windows from outside, and make noise 24 h/d? I think something similar has happened at another embassy, but I don't remember the details. Would any part of this be legal? It seems more acceptable than paying several millions each years just to see if the guys tries to escape. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it. The US did that to Noriega, at least the part about the music. That being said, this embassy is in urban London and if you tried doing the music bit, I don't think it would go down too well with locals. And Panama was part of a military action … I'm pretty sure there's something in one of the Hague conventions that forbids taking away services from an embassy. And what do you think will happen in Quito?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

But, do people indeed live there, or is it just all offices? You could just do it at night. I also wonder if he wouldn't be more comfy at a Swedish prison, which seem to be among the softest in the world. Until now, he has already spend almost 1 year in this semi-prison. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

What does blocking the windows only at night and turning off the power, ditto accomplish? They'd bring in a generator and the British wind up looking foolish.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I meant loud music but only at night, when the offices around are mostly empty. Blocking the windows day and night could be maddening, even if you have a generator. You just need to see natural light. The British already look foolish, spending more than 5 million just trying to catch one guy. And if they don't succeed it will be even worse. OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

At what point does his residency there begin to approach being de facto imprisoned? Or is it already that way? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Under many practical aspects, he's imprisoned since day 1. He can only choose to move to a different prison, but cannot leave the embassy. Under others, like receiving visitors, he's not a prisoner. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, he can leave the embassy, but that would put him in the position of having to face his accusers, and he's not interested in doing that. So he's a prisoner by his own choice... Assuming he's actually still there. Does anyone know for sure? Is it possible they figured out a way to get him out of the country while pretending he's still in the embassy? Or more to the point: When is the last time he was seen by anyone, e.g. looking out the window or whatever? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

That would violate the spirit, although not the letter, of diplomatic immunity. The British can declare the embassy personnel persona non grata, but putting them in intolerable conditions is hardly granting them protection. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

In the same small street as the Ecuadorian Embassy, [2] you can buy a two bedroomed apartment for GBP 3,500,000 (= USD 5,262,250) [3] so maybe someone living thereabouts would be able to afford a lawyer to prevent any noise nuisance. The Embassy is at Flat 3B, so I think the people who live in Flat 3A might have something to say about it too. In the UK, a "flat" is generally a residential apartment rather than an office. It seems in this case, as though the ambassador's residence doubles-up as the embassy too. Alansplodge (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that the UK will besiege the embassy as formally any such attempt is an assault on Ecuador. The embassy can smuggle Assange in diplomatic baggage, which is probably the only safe way out. Brandmeister^talk 19:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

If they were to smuggle him in several bags, that would be a bad sign. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

"Couldn't the UK just shut off the water and electricity supply..." seems more like a request for discussion and speculation than a request for references. If driving him out with music is on the table, trying the Child Catcher first might be less disruptive. Although Sir Helpmann is dead. μηδείς (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

A knight is either Sir Givenname Surname, or just Sir Givenname, but never Sir Surname. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Someone using "Sir Surname" is a sure sign they don't know a damn thing about the system. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I am American. So sue me. (After Britain repays its war debts.) In any case, catching Assange with a honeypot like Sir Robert seems like a good idea. Although, given his current status isn't costing the countries tha8t want to bring him to justice any money, there is a certain poetic justice. Perhaps Britain could bill Ecuador for the protection it is providing? μηδείς (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

(* cough *). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

"After Britain repays its war debts." Would that be these debts, that we finished repaying 9 years ago, or did you have some others in mind? Apologies for inconsiderately holding up the Nazi Hegemony for several years and leaving you with the EU rather than the Third Reich to deal with today :-) . {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The obvious context was WWI (I am glad to see the WWII debts were paid, they didn't make anything of this in the news) a large amount of which was effectively forgiven yet still defaulted on. μηδείς (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, the WWI debts have not been forgiven and are still outstanding, although nobody seems to be sure how much is owed.[4] However, the US entered WWI heavily in debt and emerged as the world's leading economic power[5] (a position that they have maintained ever since), while the rest of the developed world was plunged into penury, so perhaps they didn't get such a bad deal after all. Alansplodge (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I don't remember all the details, and the comment above was meant as a joke. But the fact that these debts had not been repaid was an issue in my second-year US History class in high school, during the Reagan Administration. μηδείς (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Assange may be "more comfy at a Swedish prison" but I don't think that is his primary concern. The Julian Assange article mentions a bigger problem at the end of the third paragraph... should he submit to justice in Sweden, "he fears ...his subsequent extradition to the United States". Extradition to the US could lead to him facing charges under the Espionage Act [18 U.S.C. 793(e)], which can carry punishments such as the death penalty. Astronaut (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That's just my opinion. I could be wrong. Addressing the OP's question directly, Yes, they could do that, but it could cause the Brits all sorts of political problems. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

From a strictly legal perspective, under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, an embassy is a grant by the host country. The UK government, as host country, could move to evict the diplomats, with appropriate notice (I believe a week is usually deemed sufficient), allowing the diplomats to remove their belongings (by diplomatic bag) and depart in an orderly fashion - after which they may enter the (now former) embassy "legally". Where this would leave Assange himself is a widely speculated question - could he himself be put in a diplomatic bag? In practice, this won't happen without a major breakdown in diplomatic relations. It would set a bad precedent. In the case of Manuel Noriega, the Americans were invaders (I believe), and thus likely lacked the sovereign authority to expel the diplomats. 61.88.210.42 (talk) 08:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Apparently terrorist organizations are exempt from that rule.

As regards Assange, is it possible that the current situation basically works for everyone? The British have him surrounded, he's safe in the embassy, and he's not actually in the country that granted him asylum. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think Bugs is right - the UK gets to say they're doing their bit for the US by maintaining the police siege around the embassy; Ecuadaor gets to say they are championing free speech/standing up to the US by giving him a "safe" place to say; the US gets the satisfaction that he isn't where he would want to be and he is not free to operate his annoying website; Sweden gets to say they have not given up their stupid case, and does not have to reveal to the world how stupid their case is by not actually trying him; Australia can placate Australians by offering him consular assistance in the form of regular visits to the embassy; and finally Assange gets to pretend like he is the victim / martyr figure that he thinks he is. So every party is kinda happy with the current situation. Things might change one day if one of these governments want something from another and will use Assange as a bargaining chip, but for now the status quo is just about palatable for everbody - definitely palatable enough that the UK is not going to risk a diplomatic incident by coercing the Ecuadorians. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The only loser is the poor bloody British taxpayer, who is funding the whole farrago to the tune of GBP 50,000 a day. [6] I'm sure that our police could find something better to do. But I suspect that Bugs is right - the alternatives don't seem viable. Alansplodge (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Then there's the fact that Assange is, or is shortly going to become, a candidate for the Senate in the forthcoming Australian federal election, scheduled for 14 September. Just how he's supposed to prosecute his campaign while he is where is is a bit of a mystery. If (in the unlikely chance that) he's elected, his term will commence on 1 July 2014. They'd better resolve the issue by then, otherwise the Senate will have something to say about one its members being prevented from participating in its business. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

This is purely speculation, but note that early on - i.e. in July, a month before Assange supposedly committed the rape - Wikileaks distributed an "insurance" file with unknown encrypted contents. (See Wikileaks). The result is a situation in which both sides have been, so far, avoiding the final confrontation. Yes, apparently there is a plot and a hundred ways in which supposedly Assange can be put on show trial under the law of universal jurisdiction for peace crimes, thought crimes, and crimes against insanity - but there is a price, namely that he has nothing to lose then, and whatever is in that file presumably comes out. Wnt (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Bladders

What was the date of the so-called Battle of Bladders during Korean peace talks in the Joint Security Area? I searched the web, but didn't find even the year. Brandmeister^talk 13:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

So far, I've found this article which states "The two sides once held a meeting in Panmunjom that went on for eleven hours. Because there was no formal agreement about when to take a bathroom break, neither side budged. The meeting became known as the 'Battle of the Bladders.'" Then, searching for "Panmunjom" and "Eleven hours" I get this which says "President Kim Dae-jung and Chairman Kim Jong-il had frank, heart-to-heart talks for more than eleven hours. President Kim Dae-jung cordially invited Chairman Kim Jong-il to visit Seoul, and Chairman Kim agreed to visit South Korea in the near future," about inter-Korean summit meetings held June 13-15, 2000, but it says those meetings were held in Pyongyang, and I infer that the more than eleven hours werebroken over several meetings.

Further searching yields this which says "It could be argued that the most excruciating negotiations in the world have been the twice-monthly sessions of the Korean armistice commission in Panmunjom. Over the years the stalemated talks have turned into something of an endurance contest, with national honor at stake....On one particularly truculent day in April 1969, everyone sat tight for 11 hours and 38 minutes."

--some jerk on the Internet (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Who would be the most senior Democratic elected official in Oklahoma today?

There was recent speculation that the state of Oklahoma might have little influence after the recent horrible tornado with a Democratic administration in Washington, D.C., because both of her U.S. Senators (Tom Coburn & Jim Inhofe), all five Representatives in Congress, and all eleven statewide elected officials (including Governor Mary Fallin), are now Republicans as are a majority of the members in both chambers of her state legislature. See Political party strength in Oklahoma.
I happen to live in Rhode Island, which is as Democratic as Oklahoma is Republican, with all four Congressional representatives, all five statewide elected officials and crushing majorities of both chambers of our state Legislature being shut out of Republican control, the only qualification being that the governor, Lincoln Chafee is a political independent rather than a Democrat. See Political party strength in Rhode Island. But I can tell you who are currently our state's most senior elected Republican officials, the long-serving and popular mayors of two of our four largest cities: Scott Avedisian of Warwick (where Lincoln Chafee was once a Republican mayor) and Allan Fung of Cranston. I checked and found that Oklahhoma's two largest cities, Oklahoma City and Tulsa both have Republican mayors, while the three next-largest cities (Broken Arrow, Norman and Lawton) operate on a Council-Manager system and Wikipedia doesn't say what parties (if any) their mayors belong to. (Because of their very different history and geography, Oklahoma also has working counties and districts that just don't exist in Rhode Island.) So, in default of some dark horse or white knight, who is or are considered to be the leading Oklahoma Democrats? Before 2010, it would have been Governor Brad Henry and the last remaining Democrat on the Congressional delegation, Dan Boren; would they still be considered the leaders by default? —— Shakescene (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

A lot depends on your definition of "seniority"... A State Senator, for example, holds a "State level" office, while a City Mayor holds only a "local level" office)... According to protocol system, the State Senator would "outrank" the Mayor. Yet the Mayor of a large city may actually have been elected by more people than the State Senator, and thus have more political clout in the internal power structure of party politics. Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• The Minority Leader of the Oklahoma House is Scott Inman and the Minority Leader of the Oklahoma Senate is Sean Burrage. Those two would be the highest ranking Oklahoma Democrats currently, I believe.--Jayron32 19:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• According to Oklahoma_Democratic_Party#Officers_and_staff, the current Chair is Wallace Collins. RNealK (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• • That's all useful to know, and I never disdain the work that others have done, but there's very limited clout to being a minority leader in such lopsided legislatures as Oklahoma's (only 1/3 Democratic) or Rhode Island's (1/7 to 1/12 Republican) or the chairman of a marginal party. (Which doesn't mean that I don't think that Howard Dean's and Michael Steele's fifty-state strategies for their respective parties, treating no state as unimportant or hopeless, weren't absolutely right and essential.) A mayor or attorney-general, even a district attorney, can do things that a party chairman or minority leader usually can't; so when a beleaguered minority party like Rhode Island's GOP looks for candidates for higher office (or when a state seeks to sway out-of-state officials from the opposition party), they would look at whoever has succeeded in winning elections in their forbidding environment. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Likely not a mayor, as there are only two significantly large cities in Oklahoma, per List of cities in Oklahoma, being both Tulsa and Oklahoma City, and they both have Republican mayors. Only two other cities have populations greater than 100,000 people, Norman, Oklahoma has a non-partisan mayor (by statute, all elections in Norman are non-partisan) and Broken Arrow has a nominal mayor, which is just rotated through the city council; it is also a suburb of Tulsa, and so itself is probably not that politically significant. No other city politician would likely have much clout on a state-wide level outside of Tulsa or OKC, so the three people already named (the Legislative party leaders and the state Party boss) are it in terms of actual political power among Democrats in Oklahoma. --Jayron32 01:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

George I of Greece

Why did Prince Vilhelm of Denmark chose to be called George I of Greece?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps because St. George is a Patron Saint of Greece, per Saint George and Patron saints of places. I'll look for a more definitive reason. --Jayron32 18:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

While the English Wikipedia does not list it, George was one of his birth names, per Greek Wikipedia, after feeding it through Google Translate, there's also some information. It does not state why, but he was George I according to the official proclamation thereof. Still looking in a few more places. --Jayron32 18:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

This Wikipedia does list it: Christian Wilhelm Ferdinand Adolf Georg. He was known by his second name until his accession and by his last name thereafter. George is a actually a name of Greek origin, unlike his other given names. Surtsicna (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

This isn't central to the original query about Georg(e) vs Vilhelm, but I'd be extraordinarily surprised to learn that Christian (Christ, Chrism, etc.) is somehow not of Greek origin. In fact the one tiny part of the vernacular (local language) Mass or Communion Service that is in Greek, the Kyrie, is read or sung "Kyrie Eleison, ChristosChriste Eleison, ..." ("Lord have mercy upon us; Christ have mercy upon us; ...") On the other hand, extreme surprise is not the same as absolute denial; one is always learning from things that once seemed utterly incredible, and I'm no linguist or philologist. Move to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language if, as and when it might seem appropriate. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The word Christian derives from Greek christos, "the anointed one".[7] "Christian" as a given name, and variations thereof, is pretty common. Technically of Greek origin, but less obviously so than "George". That name actually means "farmer", so the various George Farmers are kind of redundant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

As Baseball Bugs said, the word Christ is of Greek origin, but the name Christian is derived from the Latin word Christianus, meaning "follower of Christ". It eventually goes back to Greek, but not directly. Surtsicna (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Χριστιανος occurs in the Greek New Testament at 1 Peter 4:16, and in inflected form at Acts 11:26 and 26:28... AnonMoos (talk) 01:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

To be necessarily pedantic here, that's the vocative Christe eleison, not the nominative Christos. μηδείς (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? That's Christianos and its inflections, not Christos at all. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Medeis's comment would have made sense had she been responding to Shakescene above, but it's not apparent that she was. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Not knowing Greek conjugations, I feared I might not be recalling correctly but lazily guessing at the exact wording of the Kyrie (since I wasn't writing a Wikipedia page that would be seen forever, and instead making a tangential aside, I didn't push myself towards deeper research and confirmation). But Medeis is (of course) right: see for example, this page from The Catholic Encyclopedia. I made the appropriate adjustment above.—— Shakescene (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Cats in Oceania

Did the domestic cat even existed in Oceania prior to European settlement? I heard of early settlers bringing pigs, dogs and rats to the islands of the Pacific but never cats. When was the domestic cat introduced to Southeast Asia where most of the people of the Pacific originally came from?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Most likely no due to distance, but check Siamese (cat)#History. According to this, "cats established themselves in the wild across Australia by the 1890s" and this says that on Macquarie Island there were feral cats since 1820. Brandmeister^talk 20:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

So when did domestic cat reach Southeast Asia and Eastern Asia initially.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

By about 5th century AD concerning Southeast Asia (Journal of the Institute of Asian Studies, 1999, vol. 17, p. 71) and after 186 BC regarding the Far East ([8]), according to my search. In China, per this, the domestic cat was introduced not earlier than the 6th century AD. Brandmeister^talk 22:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)