Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 January 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humanities desk
< December 31 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 2 >
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 1[edit]

US Court of Appeals 9th Circuit decisions[edit]

In opinions of the Ninth Circuit such as this [1] there are page numbers on the documents that indicate the document is part of a publication, i.e. the page numbers don't refer just to the pages in the particular document. What is this publication these pages are from? Nomad2005 (talk) 05:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain. Lexis has different page numbers assigned. FindLaw shows the page numbers in your link. The official U.S. F3d citation that should be used to cite the opinion is not ready yet. My guess is that FindLaw has its own pagination system. All the caases for a particular court or courts are collected. The fifth page of a United States Supreme Court decision might be page 690 of all the opinions reported. Some jurisdictions have public access reporting on the internet. The page number helps lawyers find a particular place in a decision. I hope this helps.20:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)75Janice (talk)75Janice.

They refer to the pages of the current volume of the Federal Reporter, Third Series, or "F.3d" for short. Look at Federal Reporter for some details. They are published by Thompson West (also the publisher of Westlaw) and are the "official" reporter for the federal appeals courts. The Supreme Court has its own reporter, refered to simply as "U.S.". The citation format is typically "<Case name>, <Volume> F.3d <Page> (<Court> <Year>)."

You can buy the whole set for $7,500[2], or download it for free. Shadowjams (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has info too. Shadowjams (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Janice and Shadowjams, but I don't think these are pages from the Federal Reporter. They are too high. The example I linked too had pages in the 16,000 range, far too high for a volume of the Federal Reporter. I don't think that Findlaw supplied this pagination. It appears in the opinions on the Ninth Circuit's website. Any other thoughts? Nomad2005 (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page reference is not to F.3d, the official reporter for Court of Appeals decisions. As I stated earlier, Lexis, the main commercial reporter, reports the case with different page numbers. The FindLaw opinion looks exactly the same as the document you cite. I never learned the entire process for publication of opinions. FindLaw Pro would be the place I would go to find answers. Maybe FindLaw supplied the page numbers. If you would explain why assignment of pagination is so crucial, it might help provide better answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 06:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lexis isn't the official reporter, and while West and Lexis are neck and neck, I don't think there's any consesnsus that either West or Lexis are the "main" reporters. Obviously together they are, though. I don't see how findlaw would factor into it at all.
Perhaps they're slip opinion page numbers? I'm not familiar with 9th circuit practice so I'm at a bit of a loss, but I'll do a bit more indepth research. You're right, 16k is too high to be a page number within a volume. My guess is that it's some internal 9th circuit reporting; this PDF does come off of their website after all. Shadowjams (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other courts of appeals don't do this format either. I'm as curious as you are at this point. Shadowjams (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest Lexis as the official reporter. Lexis, Westlaw are the main commercial reporting services that lawyers use. Both Lexis and Westlaw report the official F.3d paginatoin when it becomes available. It is permissible to cite to either until the F.3d pagination is available. FindLaw pro reports this case exactly as shown in the example, including type face, spacing, the enitre document. My feeling is that FindLaw may supply its own pagination. If I knew why the assignment of pagination is so important, I believe I could help more. I am pressed for time now. Going to FindLaw and asking them for support may very well yield a definitive answer.17:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)68.81.42.101 (talk)75Janice

My guess is that FindLaw is just republishing the public domain release PDF from the court. The very first link is from the court's website. A good way to tell is find another case from outside of the 9th circuit and see if they have that pagination. The 8th circuit, for instance, does not have that kind of crazy pagination on theirs.
Like the OP, I'm still at a loss. Shadowjams (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The version is the one the Ninth Circuit uses for its public domain cases. Frankly, I graduated law school long before public domain cases were available on the Internet. I do not recall if the public domain case is the slip opinion. The Blue Book or ALWD might supply some information. As long as the citation is consitent, does it truly matter? I skimmed the case. It is fairly interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 23:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bordeaux Diligence revisited[edit]

I have now been able to provide an answer to Lit Scholar's query on 14 December 2009, and have added it in the archive [3]. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Forces of darkness"[edit]

Moved from Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. If this question is not appropriate for the reference desk, it can be removed.

On a train from Tampere to Helsinki, I saw two elderly couples, allegedly all Protestant Christians, discussing a pamphlet published by Jehovah's Witnesses. One woman called it "the work of the forces of darkness". Now being an atheist, I don't know much about how these religion-related things are supposed to work, but isn't it a bit too much to call another denomination within the same religion as yours "the forces of darkness" just because, although they believe in all the same deities in the exact same mythology, their belief happens to differ in some details? JIP | Talk 21:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil is in the details. -Pollinosisss (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article on Jehovah's Witnesses and compare their beliefs and practices with those of, say, Lutherans, you will see that the religions differ quite radically on some points. If you read the "Criticisms" section of the JW article, you will see that some Christian critics find JW beliefs and practices disturbing. I don't think that most Protestants would consider JWs "another denomination within the same religion". JW's rejection of the Trinity puts them outside of mainstream Protestantism and other mainstream varieties of Christianity. Their belief that Armageddon is imminent and ultimately desirable is disturbing to many other Christians. Finally, the authoritarian structure of the JW community—forcing members to obey the dictates of religious leaders and punishing those who don't with shunning—is a radical departure from the freedom of individual conscience that was at the heart of Protestantism's original split with Catholicism. Marco polo (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An enemy within is much more dangerous than one without. -Pollinosisss (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I don't consider myself Christian, so I don't see JW as an enemy within, or any kind of enemy for that matter, nor, I think, do most Protestants. Marco polo (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has studied Biblical Hebrew, I have a problem just with the name, since the word "Jehovah" itself is based on a mistaken form which never existed in ancient Hebrew... AnonMoos (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Sectarianism and Heresy. On the specific point, JW's don't follow "exactly the same mythology" as mainstream Protestantism, but I'm fairly confident the people in question have similar views on the Roman Catholic church, even though the doctrines are much closer. In any ideologically-charged environment, _corruption_ of the True Way is generally regarded as more objectionable than mere _rejection_ of it - an Arsenal fan will hate a Spurs fan far more than he'd hate a fan of Sporting Lisbon. Tevildo (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In general, mainstream Christians seem to regard the JW's as mostly-harmless eccentrics, and not infrequently an object of ridicule due to their unconventional ideas (starting with their fake/obsolete name, as AnonMoos points out). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness and hated it. A New Testament college course led a clear path away from their teachings. Despite my hatred of the group, they are not "forces of darkness" anymore than any other group. They possess many positive attributes. The Hugenots massacred in France probably saw a dark force and vice vera in England. The Witnesses are disdainful of any power other than their own. Worldly status is rejected. Wikipedia has an article on Christianity that shows a flow chart for what most Christians believe. The Witnesses are divergent. Countless thousands died during the struggle between Roman Catholics and Protestants. The divergent points were minor compared to the areas of agreement. My family suffered much from antiWitness persecution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 23:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Augustus word game[edit]

I'm playing a word game with someone and trying to get the correct words to fill in the puzzle. The bold italicized words are the key ones and I need the same number of letters with the last letter being the same. These are my guesses for those words. Do you have any further suggestions?

Rules of the Game[edit]

The basics to decode it are to use opposites, for example:

  • With the use of the capitalized adjective On, the word it modifies is a coded word.
  • With the use of a comma directly BEFORE the conjunctions "and" or "but" then that segment to the next comma is a true statement, otherwise it is the opposite.
  • Other meanings of the Biblical words have EXACTLY the same number of letters with a key word ending with the same letter and fits correctly to the historical record.

(allegory)
Chapter 107 (Photinus the heresiarch)
Photinus, of Gallograecia, a disciple of Marcellus, and ordained bishop of Sirmium, attempted to introduce the Ebionite heresy, and afterwards having been expelled from the church by the Emperor Valentinianus, wrote many volumes, among which the most distinguished are Against the nations, and To Valentinianus.

Puzzel solution:
Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, better known as Augustus (23 September 63 BC – 19 August AD 14), of misericordia, a leader of movements, and ordained overseer of kingdom, undertook to introduce the opposite conformity, and afterwards having been expelled from the Roman Republic by the founder organizations, produced some history records among which the least humble are for himself and no organizations.

Thanks for any help.--Doug Coldwell talk 21:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any other criterion that the words have to meet? Does the final text have to be gramatically correct (which it isn't at the moment)? Does "no organizations" fill two gaps or one? Tevildo (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Part 1 - no.
Part 2 - no.
Part 3 - fills two gaps.
--Doug Coldwell talk 00:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK... I don't see, in that case, how any answer can be "better" than yours, as there's no way of assessing it. Is it just a question of picking (using "kingdom" as an example) a random seven-letter word ending in "m" and hoping it's the right one? Your choices have as much chance of being right as anyone else's. I _was_ going to suggest "Capita Bubula" (the villa in which Augustus was born) as a replacement for "misericordia", but it's two words - I suppose that makes it invalid. Tevildo (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for input. I believe my guesses fit the description of Augustus however.
  • misericordia - mercy, compassion
  • movements - a progressive development of ideas toward a particular conclusion.
  • kingdom - related to the new creation of Roman Empire.
  • opposite - from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire.
  • founder organizations - founder of the Roman Empire.
  • no organizations - in some instances he was not humble.
Is that pretty close to Augustus' description?--Doug Coldwell talk 12:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, to be honest. Augustus wasn't particularly merciful or compassionate (see Caesarion), "kingdom" is a very inappropriate word to describe the Roman Empire (one of the reasons for Julius Caesar's unpopularity was the suspicion that he intended to make himself king, even though his assumption of dictatorial powers was accepted), and Augustus was successor to the Second Triumvirate rather than the republic - by the time of the Battle of Actium, Rome had quite definitely passed from republican to oligarcic government, but it continued to be a de jure republic for some centuries - Diocletian was the first emperor to officially rule as an autocrat, rather than primus inter pares. On a more practical point, I don't think that the "right answer" will have _two_ "organizations" in it - you should change one of them, at least. Tevildo (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions and ideas and history lessons. After thinking over what you had to say, perhaps one of these words would be more appropriate in these positions below?

  • First key definitely is a 12 letter word ending in a. Perhaps one of these apply better: hypochondria, bibliophobia, cerebrotonia, pseudolunula, respondentia, kleptophobia, coenesthesia.
  • Third key definitely is a 7 letter word ending in m. Perhaps one of these apply better: problem, freedom, uniform, program, perform, conform, confirm, stratum, blossom, heroism, egotism
  • Last key definitely is a 13 lettter word ending in s. Perhaps one of these apply better: opportunities, peculiarities, complications, modifications, contributions, ramifications, nationalities, deliberations, contingencies, preliminaries, proclamations, anticipations, civilizations.

Keeping the sentence that way, since that is the way the old historian gave it to me. He is also giving me history lessons in ancient Romans. Which might be better words of the suggestions I provided for those key words or others if you can think of them that use the same number of letters with the last letter being the same. This is the "rules" of the game.--Doug Coldwell talk 15:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzel solution with revised possible replacements of key words:
Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, better known as Augustus (23 September 63 BC – 19 August AD 14), of hypochondria, a leader of movements, and ordained overseer of egotism, undertook to introduce the opposite conformity, and afterwards having been expelled from the Roman Republic by the founder organizations, produced some history records among which the least humble are for himself and no ramifications.

  • If you feel "misericordia" is not an appropriate word, perhaps "hypochondria" fits better.
  • Looks like to me "egotism" fits better than "kingdom."
  • Perhaps "no ramifications" works better since he seemed to have absolute control.
Does that look better and fit his description?--Doug Coldwell talk 22:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter 107 (Augustus, the emperor)
Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, better known as Augustus (23 September 63 BC – 19 August AD 14), unconcerned with hypochondria, a leader of movements, and ordained overseer of uniform, undertook to introduce the opposite conformity, and afterwards having been expelled from the Roman Republic by the founder organizations, produced many history records, separate from the least ordinary are for himself and to peculiarities.

Above is another alternate.--Doug Coldwell talk 14:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Caesar[edit]

(allegory)
Chapter 112 (Cyril the bishop)
Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem often expelled by the church, and at last received, held the episcopate for eight consecutive years, in the reign of Theodosius. Certain Catachetical lectures of his, composed while he was a young man, are extant.

(puzzel solution with same rules as above):
Julius Caesar, (100 BC - 44 BC) Dictator of modernize rarely received by the optimates and at last received, held the lower positions for eight separate times (military tribune 73 BC; quaestor 69 BC; aedile 67 BC; Pontifex Maximus 63 BC; praetor 62 BC; governor Hispania Ulterior 61 BC; consul 59 BC; governor Gaul 58 BC) in the life span of traditions (cursus honorum). All occupational praises of it dispersed while it was an older item and are no longer existing.

Then does this look O.K. using the same rules as above?--Doug Coldwell talk 15:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Tevildo said, it's very difficult to judge whether anything is correct if the resulting paragraph doesn't have to make grammatical sense. You could stick anything in there, really. (Why doesn't it have to make grammatical sense, anyway?) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, using grammatical sense and keeping the just of the ideas and the key words, how might "Julius Caesar puzzle" look to ya'alls?--Doug Coldwell talk 16:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Humor me! This is the way I was given the sentence, so I would like to follow through. The key words seem to fit, as far as I know of this ancient history.
  • First key word must be 8 letters and end in e.
  • From my understanding of the material in the Julius Caesar article at first he was not received by the optimates, then later he was when he became dictator.
  • The next key word of traditions seems to fit as the traditional method of progress for the ranks then was by cursus honorum. To my understanding this procedure went though the Roman Republic and Roman Empire, a very long time. After this time then, the procedure was no longer followed.
  • The next key word of occupational seems to me to be appropriate as it was their occupation and eventually the occupational procedure was not followed.

Its just a game with certain "rules" he is playing with me for a teaching tool to learn ancient Roman history. It seems to work, as I have had to study up on these articles to see what he was talking about to fill in the key words. To me only certain words will work, not just any words. They must fit the ancient history or ancient character properly and have a certain number of letters with the last letter being a certain letter. Any further help would be appreciated.--Doug Coldwell talk 18:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have his original statement of the "rules", or an example of a "correct answer"? I think we're missing an essential compoment of the excercise. Tevildo (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, do not have his original statement of the "rules" as a written set was not given to me. What is it you are lacking to complete the Julius Caesar puzzel? The words I put in the key words seem to make sense to me, however I am the student, not an expert on ancient history as you are. Just looking for the correct key word. The other parts are immaterial as to correct grammatical sense. Are you saying it makes no sense at all? What is not correct as to the basic historical parts?

Domitian[edit]

(allegory)
Chapter 134 (Sophronius)
Sophronius, a man of superlative learning, wrote while yet a lad, In praise of Bethlehem and recently a notable volume, On the overthrow of Serapis, and also to Eustachius, On virginity, and a Life of Hilarion the monk. He rendered short works of mine into Greek in a very finished style, the Psalter also, and the Prophets, which I translated from Hebrew into Latin.

Below is another example with the key words I filled in.
(puzzle solution):
Titus Flavius Domitianus (51 AD – 96 AD), a man of ruthless teaching, did not write a history record while yet young, in lack of attention of criticism and long before a vague history record on the support of friends and also to principles, on having some previous experience and a time of children, the one by himself with no mother or siblings. They removed long history records of his from black out of a ruthless style (Damnatio memoriae), another chapter also and the numerous which he rendered from shadow to taken.

From the article on him it seems to make sense to me of the key words I put in. What part, in the way of the key words does not make sense to you?--Doug Coldwell talk 20:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaius Julius Alpinus Classicianus[edit]

(allegory)
Chapter 133 (Amphilochius the bishop)
Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium, recently read to me a book On the Holy Spirit, arguing that He is God, that He is to be worshipped, and that He is omnipotent.

Here is another I have recently worked on that I filled in the key words of the last letter being the same and fits the ancient history.
(puzzel solution):
Gaius Julius Alpinus Classicianus (d. 69 AD), procurator of problem of the rule of the United Kingdom long time ago wrote from him a history episode on the very object (unusual punitive policies), agreeing that it is bad, that it is to be despised and that it is unrestricted.

This one to me seems obvious and simple. Do you see this incorrect in any part as to the history?--Doug Coldwell talk 21:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one, if nothing else, illustrates the difficulty we're having - this sentence just doesn't make sense, no matter what possible "keywords" are chosen. It looks very much as if it's been machine translated. We're really going to have to see an example that the person who set the problem thinks is right, and even then I doubt if there's much we can do to help. I'm sorry. Tevildo (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, right. We now have some rules and some other examples - we're getting somewhere. Where did you get them from? If we're going to get any further, we'll need the _full_ set of rules (including the basic statement of the problem - what is the end result supposed to be?) and a _complete_ question and _complete_ answer. I think the problem is still that we don't really know what's happening. Tevildo (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Claudius Marcellus Aeserninus[edit]

(allegory)
Chapter 108 (Phoebadius the bishop)
Phoebadius, bishop of Agen, in Gaul, published a book Against the Arians. There are said to be other works by him, which I have not yet read. He is still living, infirm with age.

(puzzel solution):
Marcus Claudius Marcellus Aeserninus, (f. 48 BC) overseer of town (Cordoba, Spain) in coal, published a history episode for the troops. There is said to be the same history by them, which they have likewise produced. It is still surviving strengthened with time.

This one to me also seems obvious and very simple. Apparently the town of Cordoba is known for coal mining. Do you see this incorrect in any part as to the history?--Doug Coldwell talk 21:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure anyone can make sense of the history, when the grammar doesn't make sense. Has your professor made any corrections that you can show us? That would help us figure out what he wants you to do. Perhaps it is supposed to be like a cryptic crossword where the answers are anagrams or something unexpected like that. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe you are correct. It is some sort of a cryptic crossword puzzel, maybe in the line of an allegory.--Doug Coldwell talk 21:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basically he wants me to find the key word that plugs into the sentence. No, he has not given me any corrections. The history seems to be in the articles, so should be easy to decipher. The history does not change, even if the grammer is not perfectly correct. So, is the history correct, ignoring the grammer? Seems correct to me, however I'm biased.--Doug Coldwell talk 21:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tevildo, now that we have the basic rules, we also have some more information from a discussion on Doug's talk page. As far as I understand it, it seems that Doug (or the person who made this puzzle, or both of them) have the idea that Jerome's De Viris Illustribus is an allegorical reworking of Plutarch's Lives. It seems also that Doug believes that De Viris Illustribus was not written in the 4th century, but the 14th, and in English, or that the 19th century English translator made it all up? It's entirely likely that Plutarch was an inspiration for Jerome, although this is not what I would consider "allegory". As for the rest, hopefully Doug can explain that better, because the way I've explained it is obviously impossible and I assume I've misunderstood something. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh - so this is a Bible code sort of thing? Or - er - that chap who, about 30 years ago, interpreted Nostradamus by forming anagrams of the text (and leaving any inconvenient letters out)? (Who was he, and do we have an article on him?). Let's see how it develops. Tevildo (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's see how this develops. The "Rules of the Game" I figured out on my own. Yes, the allegory came from Jerome's De Viris Illustribus which is on WikiSource. Yes, these examples we have been working on and all 135 "characters" follow these same Rules. Yes, some of this is from Plutarch, however most is from Livy's Histories and Polybius Histories. When all are decoded, it happens to follow a chronological timeline starting in the 4th century BC and going to the 1st century AD. Hopefully ya'alls think I have this kind of knowledge to plug it in this way somehow. Yes, I believe this was written originally in the 14th century in English. That's the reason why the English flow looks rough to us, since it came from Midaeval Middle English. No, I do not believe this was written originally in Latin in the 4th or 5th century. Reason being, then why in the English version we have today does it follow this allegory pattern for all the "characters"? All you have to do is follow this set of Rules of the Game on these above examples we are working on and it works, as it does for all other chapters. Ask me some specific questions on the Rules of each of these examples we are working on and I will give you detailed logical answers. The questions must be specific and logical. Without asking me questions, then you are not seeing how this develops out. Then you have your eyes closed to a new idea. Below are some more examples I am fine tuning. I have already done them all.

Who's Who of ancient Roman commanders[edit]

--Doug Coldwell talk 12:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on Who's Who[edit]

Chapter 101 talks of secret of possible murder of Mithridates V by his wife queen Laodice and of the incest marriage of Mithridates VI to his sister, also named Laodice.

Chapter 103 talks of mausoleum at Scythian Neapolis; it was used from ca. 100 BC to ca. 100 AD. It also speaks of Skilus having 80 sons.

Chapter 108 points out that the town of (Cordoba, Spain) mines coal.

Chapter 110 talks of Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa as the workman and overseer of temples. Click article to see several example pictures of temples he worked on.

Chapter 117 there are 17 coded words, all of which when the decoded word is put in - fit perfectly. It talks about the event Crassus did giving away 3 months supply of grain to 10,000 families for public entertainment. It also talks about the 6,000 slaves he captured and about the First Triumvirate. It also talks of the ancient Roman army technique for motivation called decimation.

Chapter 131 is Titus Statilius Taurus the 1st. Then next Chapter 132 is Titus Statilius Taurus the 2nd . It also talks about him being a monetail or moneyer as the only history record he left.

--Doug Coldwell talk 20:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Odes (Horace)[edit]

In addition to Plutarch, Livy, and Polybius, there is references to Horace Odes. Chapter 109 in particular. Note here the Roman Odes. It is a set of 6 Odes that are often referenced to as one, therefore there are 83 Odes when first published as requested by Augustus. Note the reference to 83 in Chapter 109. The decoded part fits exactly to that of Horace Odes.

--Doug Coldwell talk 21:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q & A section[edit]

Sorry to be a pain, but if this is homework, why are we helping you with it? Scrub that, I've just answered it. But am I the only one getting a bit weary of this line? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not homework as I am 65 years old as of tomorrow. Have not been to school for some 45 years. Just something I stumbled into.--Doug Coldwell talk 13:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question from above:
...the _full_ set of rules (including the basic statement of the problem - what is the end result supposed to be?)...
Answer to this question:
Since it came from the Middle Ages I believe it to be one of many of Allegory in the Middle Ages as apparently this was popular then. The end result I believe to be that it teaches one about ancient Roman history - a teaching tool. I sure have learned a lot of ancient Roman history over the last couple of years. Now I have answered the questions with specific logical answers, please ask your questions for each of these examples we are working on (in that character's level position) as specific logical questions and I will give you specific logical answers. Just throwing around generalities doesn't do any good. You want some new ideas? Well here they are, IF you can take them. Notice the big IF.--Doug Coldwell talk 13:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you frequently defend the ungrammatical sentences with the defence that the game is very old, implying that these are written in an older version of English. I see here you say it came from the Middle Ages, suggesting that you think the game is written in Middle English or Early Modern English at best. In that case, the spellings of the words are completely up for grabs: knowing the number of letters and final letter will be quite insufficient. 86.177.121.171 (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To make sure I am understanding your point I will point out a couple of things. The spelling on the decoded key word can be any way, as long as it has the same number of letters as the Biblical word and matches correctly to the historical record and, of course, ends in the same letter as the Biblical word. The other "Rules of the Game" still apply, for example if there is an "and" directly after the comma THEN that segment to the next comma is true, otherwise it is the opposite. A little rewording to our American English of today (for better grammer, better flow, or better understanding) can be done as long as you follow those basic ideas.--Doug Coldwell talk 16:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But if, as you say, it was written in the 14th century, what possible relevance is the number of letters in the standard modern spelling of a word? --ColinFine (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OUR American English? Some of us are British. I've read all you've written here and on your talk page, but I'm not sure I understand: do you think the person who wrote this and set up the 'clues' for you to decipher was writing in Early Modern English, such as the King James Bible was written in? Or Middle English, as would have been used in the 14th century? Or 19th century American English? Because older forms of English spell many words quite differently, without 'standardisation' in the way you would expect today. This means that if you think this was written in an earlier form of English, I could make all sorts of words 'fit' the word lengths and final letters, just by adding extra letters. 86.177.121.171 (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, let me say "sorry" to the British - as I feel I misspoke here. The mss involved where I feel it came from originally was from England and from Oxford University and from the 14th century. I feel the person that wrote this was a professor from Oxford University and wrote it in the middle part of the 14th century - whatever English that is. It so happens that all the key words used in the deciphering was in use at that time. I have done all 135 chapters and it works out that the key decoded word that replaces the Biblical word always has EXACTLY the same number of letters with the last letter being the same. I do not believe that you can ...make all sorts of words 'fit' the word lengths and final letters, just by adding extra letters... as you say AND have it fit the ancient history involved for the character decoded and / or his related history. Of the ones I have shown of chapters 110 - 134 please give me some examples. Better yet, show me where my key decoded word does not apply. Keep in mind with this exercise that the key decoded word MUST fit the recorded history. Are you saying my decoded key words do NOT fit the recorded history? Examples please!!! Since you have here a couple of dozen decoded characters of ancient Roman commanders, this will be a good chance to prove your point and disprove my point. No generalities, but specifics will be needed here. On average there is about 5 decoded key words per these couple of dozen decoded ancient characters. Multiply 5 times 24 and you get over 100 chances to DISPROVE my point. What an excellent question and point. Lets see how this pans out and develops. This is such a good point it will most certainly PROVE my theory that this is DEFINITELY an allegory. Now show me "proof in the pudding" of what you say. Let me say in advance, thanks for your help in proving my point.--Doug Coldwell talk 18:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copies before 14th century[edit]

Doug, forget about the "key words" for a moment; there are manuscripts of De Viris Illustribus from the seventh century, and dozens of other ones all dating from before the fourteenth century. Other medieval authors from before the fourteenth century had access to these, and used them, and quoted them, and knew they were written by Jerome, all in Latin. How would this be possible if De Viris Illustribus was not written until the fourteenth century, and in English? This is all in Herding's edition of Jerome, and Richardson's translation, which I described above (I can post it again here if you missed it). Adam Bishop (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, got it. I'll respond here, then you can help 86.177.121.171 as he is going to need a lot of help from ya'alls. I like your question and point made here. A good point IF you could prove it. I believe you are saying something to the effect that Richardson and Herding said this. Thought about that question for the last year, so did a heavy duty investigation. It turns out no matter who I talk to worldwide, nobody today has a copy before the fourteenth century. The oldest copy I could find is held by the British Museum and it is from the 15th century. Others have pointed out to me a copy held by the General Theological Seminary in New York supposedly from the 12th century. It turns out they no longer have it AND don't know where it is AND rethought about it and concluded its from the 15th century. I contacted them and here is what they said

.

So, what you say is hearsay. If Judge Judy will not accept it, then I don't either. Unless you can come up with proof, then it is just hearsay. In this case, not good enough since you haven't gone through as much investigation on this point as I have. Can you now give 86.177.121.171 a helping hand, as he is having a little trouble backing up what he said - proving my point! --Doug Coldwell talk 20:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's one manuscript, out of over a hundred that Richardson knew about, and that was a hundred years ago. I think the oldest manuscript listed by Richardson was in the Vatican, dated to the seventh century. One problem that we are having here is that we are only using the books we can find online. A quick search through my university library catalogue shows that there are more recent Latin editions and English translations, and the editors and translators of those will likely have better information. In any case, what language are those fifteenth century manuscript in? Latin, surely? There should be plenty of people who quote Jerome in Latin prior to the fourteenth century, too. I could try to find some, I suppose. But there are other problems. You don't know the difference between Middle English and nonsensical Modern English, and you don't know Latin or Greek to read Jerome, Plutarch, Livy, Polybius, etc., you don't know what allegory means, you have no academic training. And if this goes the way it always goes, nothing we say will convince you. Why should anyone spend any time helping you? Adam Bishop (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like I say hearsay. Don't need any further help as I have decoded all 135 chapters already. Looks to me like 86.177.121.171 needs a helping hand, as he is having a little trouble backing up what he said - proving my point! Do know that there is definitely a set of "Rules" to this historian's system as can be observed through logic. I have given't it to you already above AND so far ya'alls haven't even come close to disproving it with specific details. Remember generalities don't count, but specifics do. Logic and common sense is all that is required. Beside, ya'alls haven't even asked who this 14th century historian is that wrote this - and I have given ya'alls many clues already. Look through what I said and try to figure it out. Its so obvious, IF you had paid attention. Here, I'll give you a couple more clues:
  1. How many books in the Christian Bible? The one most people know of.
  2. Now look in Chapter 10 of Acts of the Apostles and tell me who is spoke of.
I'm betting you are afraid to answer these simple questions. I'll be surprised if you do.--Doug Coldwell talk 21:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cornelius the centurion? And there are 73 books in the Bible? I don't know what that means to you. I suppose a 14th-century person you would know of is either Chaucer or Wyclif, I think you've mentioned them already.
Anyway, some more thoughts; what did Gennadius of Marseille expand, if not Jerome's De Viris Illustribus? Why did Ildefonse of Toledo say that Jerome wrote that work, and why did it inspire him to write his own work in the seventh century? (The English translation is on Google Books, here.) You can also see where the Venerable Bede has quoted from DVI, here. And this is just from a few minutes of Googling. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note (if I haven't done so already) that the only code you could possibly have found is between the English translations of these works. None of this would work in the original languages. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original language I say is English. It works just fine. Yes, you are correct that it doesn't work in these other languages as they are copied for the original 14th century English version. Surprised you answered the above questions. I believe you got one right and one "debatable." Cornelius the centurion is correct. The debatable one is, as far as my understanding is, that most people think it is 66. This could go on debating this issue forever, so I leave it at "debatable." According to the article on the Bible it says the Protestant Old Testament of today has a 39-book canon and that Both Catholics and Protestants have the same 27-book New Testament Canon. I find it interesting that "Cornelius" is Chapter 66. Chapter 67 happens to be Hannibal when decoded. Two more questions, IF you care to answer:
  1. How many books to Acts of the Apostles?
  2. How many Famous Women did Boccaccio write of?
Note that I have given you chapters up to 134. Add the two up above. Coincidence? You will say so. The last chapter is sort of a "signature" saying what he did (so is not one of the characters), however completely different when decoded. Yes, I believe Wycliff wrote up Jerome's De Viris Illustrius that we are taking about.
So, do you have any specific points to debunk the "Rules of the Game"? So far I haven't seen any. No, its not just one manuscript we are talking about that "might" be before the 14th century. There are none before the 14th century. Give me proof other than hearsay.
I believe 86.177.121.171 has a really good point IF he could prove it. So far, haven't heard from him. Perhaps you could help out as this pertains to specific details that could disprove what I am saying - otherwise he has proven my point!--Doug Coldwell talk 21:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But you're not using 14th century English, you're using 19th century translations into modern English. What does that have to do with the 14th century?
What do you mean "books to Acts of the Apostles"? How many books come before it?
Boccaccio wrote about 106 famous women.
The rules of the game don't make any more sense than the stuff you've decoded. I guess that's convenient; they can't be debunked.
86.177 only said what everyone else has said, that your English makes no sense. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should have made it clearer. How many books of Acts of Apostles? Note in Jerome's "Chronicle of Universal History" in chapter 135 as to how many homilies.
Boccaccio answer is correct. Seems like an odd number, wouldn't you have to agree.
Scipio Africanus is also called "Cornelius Scipio", the arch enemy of Hannibal.
(Note: "Cornelius" is Chapter 66 of Jerome's "characters" AND in Chapter 10 of Acts of the Apostles. 66 books to the Bible. Just more coincidences I suppose.)
So, no specifics I see. Only generalities. Proves my point.
However every decoded key word used that replaces the Biblical word in the decoding process was used in the 14th century.
Another interesting note you should be aware of is that when the completed process is done of Chapter 1 - 134 it is in chronological order going from the 4th century BC to the 1st century AD. Ya'alls think I could pull this off somehow? Please say, yes. You can see the chronological order in the "characters" I have already given ya'alls.
So take note there are 134 "characters". That is 106 plus 28. Coincidence. Perhaps.--Doug Coldwell talk 22:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's only one book of Acts, although it has 28 chapters, if that's what you mean. And nothing here proves your point, why do you keep saying that? It only proves that no one has any clue what you're talking about. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there are still the basic problems I mentioned above. Gennadius, Ildefonsus, and Bede knew about DVI in the 7th/8th centuries, and the English you have come up with is not 14th century English, just nonsensical modern English. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to disprove. Everything you are finding, you have put there yourself, because your 'rules' are so flexible they let you do so. You are playing with a Bible code, but a rather freer one than most. --ColinFine (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Food for thought. Don't you find it interesting, or at least noteworthy, that I mentioned that Jerome's "Chronicle of universal history" has 28 homilies AND Acts as you say has 28 chapters. Yes, I can see now I am way over ya'alls. Somebody sometime I imagine will ask me about "Cornelius". And what's this of Scipio. How does Scipio enter in the picture? Maybe someday somebody will be curious enough to ask me. But then that is another chapter - and I'm not sure if Wikipedia has enough memory in their servers to follow all that. So, for now I'll drop this and wait until others have read this over and ask me later of some specific questions. All I can say for now is that the cat is out of the bag.--Doug Coldwell talk 23:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine you think it's a big secret that Scipio was from the gens Cornelia. By the way, don't you also find it curious that over the past few weeks, whenever you asked if the key words you were plugging in made any historical sense, and everyone agreed that they did not, you didn't care and insisted they did anyway? Why did you even bother to ask? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scipio being from the gens Cornelia I don't believe is any big secret. But, the point I hinted at, apparently is as it went right over your head. Guess again. By the way did I mention that 106 and 28 add up to 134 which just happens to equal the number of "characters" of Jerome's Illustrious Men. Curious, wouldn't you think?--Doug Coldwell talk 00:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. Anyway, since we know that as early as the 7th century, the work was available in Latin, and you haven't come up with anything in middle English, all else is just a bunch of random numbers. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. Well, let's drop this for now and let Wikipedia's servers take a breather. I think we used up all their memory.--Doug Coldwell talk 00:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Gardner article in Esquire Magasine[edit]

I am trying to find out if "Ava: Life in the Afternoon" by Rex Reed was published in the may 1967 issue of Esquire magazine. The Ministry (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems so [4].--Cam (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ThanksThe Ministry (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2010_January_1&oldid=1136444860"