June 28

what are the laws concerning walking in creeks and streams in ohio and kentuckyCuriouspatty (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the question. And considering that nobody else has responded, I don't feel alone. What sort of right of way would you think that there would be a need for in a creek or stream for someone who is walking? No commercial transport or large private craft would be navigating something as small as a creek or stream, so what point would there be in establishing right of way laws for them specifically? Dismas|^(talk) 02:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if it is trespassing to enter a creek from your property and continue to walk in the creek past your own property.Curiouspatty (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say for sure, but my guess is for those states, probably. On the other hand, in Montana what you suggest is actually legal but that's because Montana is special. This is sort of heresay, but about a year ago I was passing through Montana and a local told me that the state declared all waterways plus 10' of bank on either side to be public land. Therefore, if you have a fishing license, you can wander around any stretch of creek or river in the state provided you didn't have to traverse privately owned land to get there. It's my understanding that this practice is not common in the US, although it's not necessarily unique either. Obviously I'm not intimately familiar with MO, OH or KY state law, so don't take my word for it. --Shaggorama (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say for sure either but a call to the Fish & Wildlife department of each state should be able to tell you. In Wisconsin, I know that you can't (or couldn't as of ~15 years ago) own water. If your land completely surrounded a lake or pond, you had to allow access by the public since the water was public property. The public had to be allowed to get to the water. I worked for a Scout camp where the camp surrounded a lake. We regularly had local fishermen going up there. They knew it was a Scout camp and stayed out of our way when leading hikes and such and we stayed out of their way while they fished. Dismas|^(talk) 10:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know for sure, as I am in Ireland, but I would venture to think that this could go one of two ways. If, as was already stated, water in those states is public property, then, it is public property and thus you are allowed to walk there. If, as in some municipalities, it is not, I would venture to think that you would be fine as long as you did not trespass onto someone else's property. Of course, when property is not posted, it can be difficult to determine where public and private properties begin and end.

I also think that contacting your local fish and game authority might give you the answer. If not them, the local Bureau of Land Management office might know.

RSFRuairí (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added information (Usually always erased) on the Amerindian ancestry of Argentines. (regarding 56% having some/mostly Amerindian ancestry). A source has been provided, yet deletion continues and the threat of requesting lock-down from editing this article has been implied. The source is a study done by the "Servicio de Huellas Digitales Genéticas y Cátedra de Genética y Biología Molecular de la Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica de la Universidad de Buenos Aires" In Spanish: http://coleccion.educ.ar/coleccion/CD9/contenidos/sobre/pon3/index.html... and yet the information has been deleted non-stop. Help requested! Thank You. Cali567 (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently on Talk:Demographics of Argentina, the study was controversial. I can only suggest continuing the discussion there with the people removing the information. Spencer^T♦C 23:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What scale is 大戲, or Cantonese opera, in?68.148.164.166 (talk) 07:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#sorry_Coudlnt.27_get_an_anwsoer_on_entertainment, above. Spencer^T♦C 23:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, the British Royal Family costs the public money, but it was my understanding that they actually paid the UK government more money through their property holdings (or whatever) than they received? Is this article therefore misleading or am I mistaken? ----Seans Potato Business 10:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the questions were raised several years ago by MP

Civil List article, suggests that the List costs about £37m per year but the treasury receives about £185m in tax from the Crown Estate. I'm not sure the BBC's article is misleading though - the tax receipts from the Crown Estate would still be received even if the Civil List were to be abolished. Also, under a pound a year is good value for the economic boost received from the million tourists who visit the UK and expect to see some royal pomp while spending their money here. Astronaut (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Is there any translation of Tolstoy's "War and Peace" that is considered definitive or the best version ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.206.57 (talk) 12:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My wife swears by the

Volokhonsky translations of Tolstoy, if that helps. They're apparently quite good. --74.223.170.157 (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I second that. Pevear and Volokhonsky are the best Russian to English novel translators I know. In this case, among other things, theirs is the first translation to leave all the French untranslated (except in footnotes). The different uses of French and Russian by the characters is rather important in the novel. Algebraist 14:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes me wonder: I have War and Peace, translated by Constance Garnett, sitting on my shelf at home, but haven't gotten around to reading it yet. Is this translation any good, or should I purchase the above version because mine is rubbish? Thanks for the answer. GreatManTheory (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Garnett version was for decades considered the standard translation. That it's generally held in not quite so high esteem these days doesn't necessarily mean that it's rubbish. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a librarian, I can vouch for the popularity/readability of the Pevear/Volokhonsky translations. When my book group read Anna Karenina last year, those who read P/V's translation loved the book, while the others complained about what a slog it was. Catrionak (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Cavalry:

Has anything been written specifically about this event? User:Krator (t c) 12:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found an article devoted to it. There's a short description of the event - calling it "the final horse cavalry charge in British history" - in Encyclopedia of World War II: A Political, Social, and Military History (London, 2004, ed. Spencer Tucker and Priscilla Mary Roberts) on page 309. Xn4 23:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding claims that the last by British forces was 1944 by the

eric 19:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Our article at Battle of Toungoo doesn't make it clear if it's talking about horseback cavalry or motorized cavalry. Corvus cornix_talk 21:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notion of a sabre wielding motorized cavalry charge is amusing. 161.222.160.8 (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could happen.  :) It's just that there is a specific mention of a motorized cavalry at one point in the article, so it isn't clear when in the battle we stop talking about horsemen and start talking about mechanized soldiers. Corvus cornix_talk 23:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted my query about this text, which I find ambiguous as written, on the article's talk page. Would appreciate an answer here or there, please, ideally with an accompanying edit (unless the confusion is mine alone...). -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Answer provided there by Parsecboy) -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to expand the article on blockades (as well as writing a Dutch version of it), but I have some problems trying to find out when paper blockades were abolished. Some sources mention it happened at the Congress of Paris (1856), but the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica mentions it happened "by international agreement in 1812". However I can't find which this international agreement this would be. It doesn't seem to be the Treaty of Ghent since the US only asked England to stop their paper blockade. - Dammit (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 1911 article means that the

Continental Blockade of the Napoleanic wars was ended in 1812. There's a list of 1812 treaties at Category:1812 in law. Check out the next page to the Blockade article on wikisource. It agrees with the Congress of Paris (1856) mention. I hope this helps. Spencer^T♦C 20:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The 1856 Paris Declaration established that a blockade "must be sufficient to prevent access and egress to the ports of the enemy" in order to be legal. The U.S. did not sign the declaration, and it became an issue in 1861 when the Union navy was yet too small to cover all the southern ports.—

eric 18:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

when did the first hurling match in croke park played and what was the score? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.219.177 (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Croke Park states that "Since 1884 the site has been used primarily by the GAA to host Gaelic games, most notably the annual finals of the All-Ireland Senior Football Championship and Senior Hurling Championship." Neither this article nor the official webpage does explicitly state the year of the first match, the teams or any score and two other links are dead. There is a contact, The G.A.A. Museum St. Joseph's Avenue , Croke Park , Dublin 3 , Ireland , Email:   [email protected], which may be useful to you. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

when was the last person to be flogged in the british army? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.204.188 (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I can find on Wikipedia is the death of Private Frederick John White in 1847 1846, which apparently led to calls for reform. Algebraist 22:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some random website claims that abolition was completed in 1881. Algebraist 22:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abolition of flogging was begun in February 1860 by the Duke of Cambridge. As Commander-in-Chief of the British Army, he issued an order under which all men were to be classified into two classes. In the first, they would not be liable to corporal punishment except in cases of "aggravated mutinous conduct in time of war". Men were to begin their service in the first class, but for certain offences they were to be moved into the second class, in which they would be liable to be flogged. One year's uninterrupted good conduct would put a man back into the first class. As Algebraist has said, flogging was abolished completely in the British Army in 1881, and at the same time a new way of dealing with minor offences was introduced called Field Punishment Number One. This provided for offenders to be chained to a fixed point for up to two hours a day and could be ordered as a daily punishment lasting for up to three months. Xn4 00:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unable to find a date for the last flogging, but it seems to have remained fairly common even with the reforms, so it's a pretty safe bet that it was in 1881 (or perhaps 1880, if abolition was at the start of the year). Algebraist 00:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

87.116.154.181 (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Gangkhar Puensum and other claimants to the title of highest unclimbed mountain are obvious examples. So is most of the sea floor, if you count that. Algebraist 22:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of undinted snowpack in Antarctica, needless to say. --!Wetman (talk) 05:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also see the answers to similar archived question. Gwinva (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]