Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 December 21

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.

December 21

Semi-semitic Greeks

Someone above here wrote "This concept of Divine judgment is also associated with the semi-semitic Greeks." Are semi-semitic Greeks a cultural concept acknowledged outisde this page? --85.119.25.27 (talk) 09:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

(Have no idea what User:Schyler meant.) Greeks in ancient Greece were not usually Semitic at all, but in the Seleucid realms, Greek-speakers and Semitic-language speakers often lived in close proximity. There were a lot of Aramaic-speakers who were somewhat influenced by Greek culture, but without losing their basic non-Greek identity; I would call them "semi-Hellenized Syrians"... AnonMoos (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

specific type of sobriquet

What's the word for the adjective found in titles such as Louis the 14th, Ivan the Terrible, etc? — kwami (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspect there are different terms for the two things. "Terrible" is just a nickname, at least that's the word used to describe it in List of monarchs by nickname. He was Ivan IV. That's his Monarchical ordinal. 81.131.17.87 (talk) 04:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

They're not exactly nicknames. You can't just call him "Terrible", as you could if it were a true nickname. It's part of his title, even if an informal title: "Alexander the Great", "Z the Younger", etc. The reason I want to know is because AFAIK this is the only place in English where "the" occurs after a noun, rather than at the very beginning of the noun phrase. It would be handy to be able to say, "the must occur at the beginning of a noun phrase, with the exception of Xs". Which word could I use for X? — kwami (talk) 08:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What's the difference between "Ivan the Terrible" and "Joe the plumber"? In traditional grammar, this would be an "appositional phrase"... AnonMoos (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I know there's a word for lexicalized appositional titles like that. I just can't recall it. — kwami (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe epitheton necessarium? ---Sluzzelin talk 10:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"Epithet" sticks in my head, though it's too broad. But it wasn't a Latin phrase either. Maybe I'm just misremembering. Maybe it was something broader like "royal epithet" or some such. — kwami (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"Royal epithet" gets a few ghits, but not as many as I expected. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the difference that AnonMoos asks about is one of notoriety: Ivan the Terrible and Richard the Lionheart get capitalized because (a) they're big shots, (b) it helps distinguish them from the other Ivans and Richards, and (c) the descriptor is a kind of informal title. To refer to "Fred the electrician" is to differentiate one ordinary person from others--I'm talking about the electrician, that guy named Fred, not the carpenter whose name is Jack. As Sam Wurzelbacher's 15 minutes of fame unfolded, he became a capital-p tradesman, Joe the Plumber. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The List of monarchs by nickname page, cited above, suggests that our word is cognomen, though that word also has much wider applications. We may still need something more specific. --Antiquary (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Politics

I have heard that some Christians realized that democracy was necessary because human nature was evil. Human nature is evil so checks and controls on government are necessary. Human nature is evil so power must be distributed or else freedom will perish. In the words of James Madison, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither internal or external checks or controls on government would be necessary.". This was America's Christian heritage.

America is not officially or legally a Christian country. It is officially and legally a secular state. It was not founded or established as a Christian nation. It was founded and established as a secular state. Church and state are separated in America. Right?

If so, how come I have heard all that? If so, then how do you explain all that? If so, then how do you explain that statement by James Madison?

What do non-Christians think about that? What do supporters and defenders of separation of church and state in America think about that? What do people who do not believe in America's Christian heriatge think about that? What do people who do not believe that America was founded and established as a Christian nation think about that? What do people who are arguing against the belief and idea that America has a Christian heritage and was founded and established as a Christian nation think about that? What are their answers to all that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.63.234 (talk) 06:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Didn't we already establish that Madison was not necessarily talking about specifically Christian angels? Also, democracy predates Christianity...so I don't know what you're asking. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Vatican is (allegedly) very Christian, but not very democratic. And a lot of democratic countries are anything but Christian. HiLo48 (talk) 07:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Most of your question can be answered with "You heard wrong." and since your premise is wrong your conclusions are too (meaning non-Christians, and others don't need to think about it). Additionally human nature is good, not evil. Ariel. (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Three things. First, the Founding Fathers where the product of a Christian culture, even though they were themselves (mostly) not Christians. Though, admittedly, it's difficult to untangle which elements of that culture were due to Christianity, and which were already or independently present and merely claimed by Christianity. (Like the idea that people wouldn't know they weren't supposed to murder or steal if it weren't spelled out for them in the 10 C's, even though the 10 C's encapsulated existing morality.)

Secondly, there is a concerted effort among some in the US to rewrite history to present the US as a Christian nation, the Founding Fathers as Christians, etc. Just watch Fox News. There's a lot of junk amateur history out there making such claims.

Finally, Christianity (and other religions) constantly evolve to reflect the culture around them. For example, charity hospitals were a secular idea. Churches actually tried to legally stop the establishment of free hospitals on moral grounds: if God has determined that you are to die, it is immoral to save your life, as that would thwart the will of God. (The same logic led many churches to refuse to install lightning rods.) Once the hospitals were established, however, the churches started looking like Scrooges, and they followed suit so as not to tarnish their image. Then the theology adapted: trying to save someone's life became godly work (God's going to have the final say anyway), and now hospitals are such a huge part of church charities that most people assume that they were a religious idea to start with. (Thus the intended irony in the question, "How many hospitals were founded by atheists?") It's possible that a similar change in thinking took place re. democracy: Christianity was, originally at least, adamantly opposed to democracy, as how could the sheep herd the flock? Also, it tends to be the smaller denominations which have most fully embraced democracy and the separation of church and state, as they would have the most to lose in a theocracy. — kwami (talk) 08:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Saying the Founders were "mostly not Christians" requires specifying what you mean by Christian. Certainly several of them were hard to pin down as to their exact spiritual beliefs, but they tended to be more "Christian" than any other named position, unless you count "Deist", which is pretty non-specific.

The four names you'd probably come up with first would be Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin, right? Washington was officially an Anglican. Jefferson made his own bible, with nothing but the sayings of Jesus in it. Adams retorted to his critics, Ye will say, I am no Christian: I say Ye are no Christians: and there the Account is ballanced. Yet I believe all the honest men among you, are Christians in my Sense of the Word. Franklin, well, it's just hard to tell. Next would be Thomas Paine, who seems to be the first case where you'd clearly say non-Christian, and then Alexander Hamilton, who probably was Christian. --Trovatore (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"Christian" is a pretty broad category, but what Kwami probably meant is more like, "most of the Founders would not be recognizably Christian according to the modern religious Right's definition of the term." On the whole they were largely Deists, as noted, and their philosophies were more firmly rooted in the Enlightenment than they were the Bible. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Or according to the definition of the term used by most churches of the period, as well. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Washington attended church as a civic duty, but refused to take communion. When told he needed to take communion if he was to attend church, he stopped attending church. He was very private about religion, however, and it's hard to know what he believed. Jefferson cut out everything he thought was "dung" from the Bible, leaving little but many of Jesus' sayings, which he obviously admired. But he considered Jesus a man, not God. He thought we'd all be Unitarian by now, because a free, educated people couldn't possibly believe in Christianity. Etc. Paine wasn't just not a Christian, he was an atheist, and was imprisoned for it. — kwami (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I just looked through the Thomas Paine article, and unless it's severely mistaken, he was no atheist. Or I suppose he could have been at some times and not at others. --Trovatore (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

-- Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated under George Washington, passed unanimously by U.S. senate, signed by John Adams... AnonMoos (talk) 09:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What do I make of it as an atheist? That the Abrahamic God is as much a myth as the Roman gods are. The ethical message of religion is good and valuable though. Why not pick over any other lengthy book instead of the Bible - the Harry Potter books for example - if you want to kill some time. 92.24.188.27 (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Is that a fact ?

I was watching the second episode of Warehouse 13, the other day, and it was about those who robbed banks using sound - kind of an X files for the 2000's - and one of the characters noted these robberies occured on Fridays. This jogged something in my memory about whether or not most bank robberies occur on Fridays, and if so, why ?

Also, I was looking up Dazed and Confused and the Shawshank Redemption and checking out the ananchronisms. Why is it film makers tend to be lax with such mistakes, as well as those of continuity ? I realise that scenes are filmed over many different days and edited a lot later, but I thought they would have people to make sure no mistakes are made. It is also interesting that there are people who seem to have nothing better to do than carefully watch movies to look for mistakes - but at least it is informative. Finally, why is it Chicago is referred to as Shine Town, and Boston as Bean Town ?The Russian Christopher Lilly 06:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Fridays are often pay days. So it would make sense that the bank would get a delivery of cash on Thursday afternoons or Friday mornings.

And films do hire people to keep track of continuity. It's not an easy thing though since scenes are often shot out of order. If several scenes take place in the same location, all those scenes will be shot one after the other. This saves them from having to rent the same location more than once. Dismas|^(talk) 07:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You must have added the Chicago/Boston questions after I replied... I've never heard Chicago referred to as "Shine" town. And I'm rather familiar with the city, having spent many years there. What I think you're hearing is "Chi-town". The "Chi", rhymes with "shy", is short for Chicago. Where the nickname came from, I don't know. Dismas|^(talk) 09:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't just rhyme with shy; it's pronounced shy. I'm not sure why. --Trovatore (talk) 10:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess it would technically be a homophone. My bad. Dismas|^(talk) 10:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a play on "Shite Town". No offence. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems unlikely, given that the word is almost unknown this side of the Pond. --Trovatore (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I've also hard "Chi" pronounced with the harder "ch" of "change", or even "Chicago". As far as Boston, this reference is linked from the infobox where "Beantown" is given as a nickname. It has to do with baked beans and molasses. --LarryMac | Talk 16:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused by the question, which anachronisms are you claiming occur in those films? Corvus cornix_talk 21:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that the expression "Chi Town" derives from the use of "CHI" as the railroad code for Chicago's main train station Union Station. Back in the days before air travel, these codes would have been familiar to travelers. To me, the expression "Chi Town" sounds like something that originated in the Jazz Age, but this is speculative. Marco polo (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't hear it without thinking

By the time we reached that Shy Town, them bears was a gettin' smart

They'd called up reinforcements

From the Illinoize National Guard

Just your daily Uhrwurm, no need to thank me. --Trovatore (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Chicago White Sox have long been known as the "ChiSox" by headline writers, pronounced "chy-sox" and possibly also "shy-sox". "Chi-town" is pronounced "shy-town", as noted, and for some time, and not likely to be anything other than a G-rated reference. Note also that C.W. McCall said "Illinoize" instead of the proper pronunciation "Illinoy". Lots of slang in that song. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

Google [chi town] and lots of varied references come up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to provide a minimum age for "Chi", consider this song parody by Ring Lardner done in 1919/1920 in reference to the Black Sox scandal:

I’m forever blowing ball games,

Pretty ball games in the air.

I come from Chi.,

I hardly try,

Just go bat and fade away and die.

Fortune’s coming my way,

That’s why I don’t care.

I’m forever blowing ball games,

For the gamblers treat me fair.

So, it's at least 90 years old. Matt Deres (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank You all for your responses - as for the question about the anachronisms in Shawshank and Dazed, these can be seen in the section on goofs and fun things on their respective IMDB pages - I even recall seeing an ancient Samurai movie set in 1600's, in which power lines could clearly be seen in the background. It seems a shame that those at least making historical films do not have control over what goes in - surely they should be more careful. I would suggest it would be easier if one was setting it longer ago, like medieval, because then you know what to avoid, but setting a movie say thirty years back, that is still in modern times, and people may not be sure what was around then. Even All the President's Men, which may or may not have anachronisms in it, was made only three or so years after the events - at least in terms of filming - but even then, they could make the mistake of putting a 1975 model car in a movie set in 72, but there you go. The Russian Christopher Lilly 05:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw a Western one time with jet con trails in the sky. Corvus cornix_talk 23:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Any personal information about bordyguards of the russian Tzar Nikolay II, at least in the period of 1890-1905?

195.144.198.155 (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Any personal information about bordyguards of the russian Tzar Nikolay II, at least in the period of 1890-1905?195.144.198.155 (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There's this discussion at ancestry.com. Make of it what you will (seems like half of the responders claim to be related to someone who was one). The first answer says there were six of them, which seems a bit inadequate to me, considering the unrest. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Irish mythology - boy with long fingers

In the Peter Carey novel True History of the Kelly Gang, there is a scene in which a young Ned Kelly rides across the country at night with another boy, a messenger sent by his master. The boy is an uncannily adept rider and when they eventually reach their destination and are sitting around drinking the boy keeps reaching up and touching the rafters of the house, though Kelly later decides he must have been tired and unfocused, because the roof was metres above their heads. Later he hears a story about a foreboding "CHILD" born back in Ireland, which was pale and had very long fingers and spent most of his time knitting, and who eventually flees into the night after a priest confirms his suspicions that he may not be entirely human and will thus go to Hell. Is this based on a particular Irish legend? Google and Wikipedia aren't turning anything up. 58.161.196.194 (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite possible. People with mental conditions were often treated with great fear and superstition in the past. Long fingers (Arachnodactyly) and a tall, thin appearance is very noticeable in people with the condition called homocystinuria. So now days, recounting such a tale (if it does indeed discribe such a person) would be less well tolerated and perhaps references to it- hard to find.--Aspro (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you may find Pooka and Changeling interesting. 128.148.38.146 (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Good find 128.148.38.146. Homocystinuria is even mentioned in Changeling#Neurological_differences. Also, although I have never seen anyone with this condition ride a horse, I can well imagine that it would strike an experienced horseman as notable, that their extra flexibility made their riding more graceful. Ned's description immediately suggested the overall similarity but I draw a line at being dogmatic based on what I read on this reference desk. Yet, I repeat it does seem very possible based on what I have seen myself. --Aspro (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Allegations against Julian Assange

Why does Sweden's judicial system assume that the accused is guilty until proved innocent beyond a reasonable doubt? --75.28.52.27 (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't. --Soman (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Then why are they able to order his arrest without a prima facie case? --75.28.52.27 (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

In the US, anyway, you can be arrested on suspicion of something. Presumably they think they have enough evidence to get an indictment. That doesn't mean they'll get a conviction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read Arrest, which covers the situation in England, where he was arrested. This situation is complicated in that he has been arrested under an European arrest warrant for questioning over allegations of offences in Sweden. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Aha, another benefit of the existence of the EU, although Assange probably doesn't see it that way. He should have fled to Switzerland or some other non-EU country. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

How is it an advantage to prohibit the extraditing state from evaluating the evidence against the defendant to determine whether the charges are politically motivated? It also prevents the British courts from ensuring that Assange will receive due process and won't be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. --75.28.52.27 (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought Sweden was supposedly ultra-liberal and soft on criminals? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

They've apparently agreed to drop their charges against Assange and extradite him to the US if charges are filed against him in the US. --75.28.52.27 (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? If so, it ought to go in the Julian Assange article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

All EU signatories (as I understand it) have subscribed to the same general principles of human rights, which minimizes concerns about inappropriate treatment in a different state - it's pretty much the same reason why it's generally fairly easy to extradite a prisoner from one US state to another. I think Assange's concern is not about extradition to Sweden in itself, but rather that Sweden's laws may make extradition to the US easier than Britain's laws, and he doesn't want to go to the US where he might face indefinite imprisonment without trial or harsh interrogation methods under terrorism laws. --Ludwigs2 00:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As a general rule, protections for criminal defendants are better in the US (and other common-law countries such as the UK) than they are in civil-law countries (which I assume includes Sweden). The indefinite-detention thing applies to people who are not recognized as criminal defendants, those the military claims are "unlawful combatants". I want to be clear that I don't agree with this last policy, but it's not likely to apply to Assange. --Trovatore (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The "FOX News" perspective on Assange is that he has conducted acts of espionage against the US in a time of war, without any legitimate connection to foreign government or military organization. That puts him firmly in the 'unlawful combatant' category, at least by their standards. Now I doubt even the US government would be brazen enough to try to hide someone of Assange's notoriety away in Guantanamo, but I have no doubts he'd get incommunicado confinement akin to that suffered by the small number of terrorism suspects currently held on US soil.

If he's willing to do the crime, he has to be willing to do the time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

And since he has yet to be charged with any crime, much less convicted, there may well be no 'time' involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I can see BB turning himself in at the Iranian embassy to be tried for blasphemy, or sodomy, or wearing an inappropriately coloured hat in March (or whatever pointless laws they have). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there may be no time involved. The justice system will decide that. Meanwhile, I'm not seeing anything in google about Sweden dropping charges, but one funny story that's all over the place is that Assange is griping about leaks about himself.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

What's weird about this? Individuals have a right to privacy. If states have it or should have it is a very different question. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Double standard. Hoist by his own petard. No sympathy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a correct double standard. Individuals should have more right to privacy than states. --Trovatore (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The courts will decide. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If they decide otherwise, they are wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

-- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

See (Jefferson, 1776), (Madison et al, 1789), and (Schulz, 2010), just uptext. People are born with inalienable rights. States only enjoy a very limited number of right by the consent of their citizenry. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

So, we can now say with certainty what a court will decide, can we? This rather relegates courts to rubber stamps, doesn't it? But what if they *shock, horror* make a different decision? We can apparently specify exactly what they should have decided. But what good is that if we haven't got the power to make them change their decision? Can we appeal to a higher court? Or are we the higher court, if we can dictate to them what to decide in the first place? It's a load of old cobblers, and all this armchair lawyering seems way too close to breaching our policy of no legal advice. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You confuse the concrete question of whether Assange can be prosecuted and convicted (for the leaks) with the philosophical question if people have different rights than states. And, of course, the moral question if he should be prosecuted and convicted. All three are independent - people have been persecuted, convicted, and killed, in ways that violate local laws, human rights, and basic morality. In perfect state, that would not happen. In a decent state, it happens rarely. But to come back to the discussion at hand: There is no more hypocrisy in leaking government secrets, but protecting people's privacy, than there is in paying taxes, but objecting to being robbed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I originally wrote a much, much longer and more detailed reply (on wikileaks not Assange who's largely irrelevant here) but decided not to post it here (will post on anyone's talk page per request preferably on my talk page) because this discussion is extremely OT. But I would point out that wikileaks hasn't just leaked what most would call government secrets. Note I'm not saying Assange is hypocritical nor that he isn't entitled to privacy (my opinion is of course irrelevant anyway), simply that putting this as government secrecy vs individual privacy matter is a little simplistic. For starters where do companies and private groups fit in to that? And when does a details on an invidual become 'fair game' because they are related to the government? Nil Einne (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, it seems pretty clear that if Mr. Assange had agreed to get an AIDS / sexual disease test (as he was requested to do on several occasions), the matter would have never escalated into the sphere of criminal law at all... AnonMoos (talk) 06:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If AnonMoos made this thing up (AIDS tests), he should be censored, but has he?--Radh (talk) 10:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

What does that mean? Have you actually read any news stories on the course of events? If you have, then you might have noticed that the women were actually more interested in excluding the possibility of STDs than in pursuing rape allegations when they first contacted the police... AnonMoos (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Little about this saga is 'pretty clear'. It has been claimed by those supporting Assange that a wish for a STD test on him was an issue. That isn't the same thing as saying actually it was though. We just don't have enough information (as opposed to speculation) to draw conclusions - and that isn't our job anyway. We'll just have to wait for facts, from reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

?? AFAIK the info about the HIV test (and condom usage) isn't coming from those that support Assange. [2] In fact the more extreme of Assange supporters seem to suggest it's just Sweden (or perhaps sometimes just the women) working on behalf of the CIA and refuse to accept he could have done anything wrong. Assange himself doesn't seem to be happy with the alleged leaked details on the case so far (and has claimed it's the work of the Swedish prosecutors) [3]. I've never liked commenting on these sort of things because of BLP reasons (I'll be fine if this whole thing is removed) but I've also never liked potentially misleading claims. (If the info contained in the allegedly leaked allegations so far is correct AnonMoos may be correct although I would go further and say that from the allegations in the alleged leak the HIV test itself may not have arisen if a condom was used as allegedly requested by both women.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a great deal of doubt as to who actually leaked (!) the information referred to in the Guardian article you linked, Nil Einne. In any case, we are speculating here, and that isn't Wikipedia's purpose. I think we should stop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

To quote Mr.98: "Bad questions can still provoke good answers, but there is no excuse for posting bad answers to any kind of question. Ref Desker, regulate thyself.". Please do not post opinion with no reference. Royor (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Icebox of Canada

I read the article about International Falls, Minnesota being the Icebox of U.S. I was wondering if Canada has its own Icebox of the Nation. Do you know which one? Also, I want to know which place of U.S. is the hottest city in the nation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.110 (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a job for User:CambridgeBayWeather; I'll drop a note on his talk page. Deor (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I've heard tell that an old settler named Ole, whose house was near the US-Canada border had a survey done to find out for sure which side of the border he was on. When Ole learned that his house was in the US, he said, "Vell, dat's a relief, 'cause it gets mighty cold in Canada, ja, sure, you betcha!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the place that came immediately to my mind was Snag, Yukon. It seems to me that at one time long ago it was commonly mentioned on some weather report I used to watch, but I don't have anything more specific. However, Wikipedia says it holds the record for North America's lowest recorded temperature. --Anonymous, 00:15 UTC, December 22, 2010.

Death Valley traditionally becomes the hottest place in the USA in the peak of summer, though I doubt there's much of a city there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

According to this site,[4] the winner is Phoenix, Arizona, which once hit 122 degrees Fahrenheit. The Phoenix article states that Phoenix is the hottest populated area in the US. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I doubt that's true. It's probably the hottest major city. But I think Lake Havasu City typically has hotter summers than Phoenix. For that matter, "populated area" could be stretched to include Furnace Creek. --Trovatore (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Snag is usually cited as the coldest recorded temperature in North America but that's only if you don't count Greenland. Shepherd Bay an old DEW Line site is supposed to hold the record for the coldest wind chill at -73.9. Somewhere like Alert, Nunavut has a yearly mean of −18 °C (0 °F) and only two months of the year where the mean is above 0 °C (32 °F) and of course there 41/2 months without sun. However, for real cold in winter you want the Yukon. Temperatures in the −40 °C (−40 °F) to −50 °C (−58 °F) range that might stay for an extended period. But of course the simmer temperatures are better there than in Alert. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 01:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)