Humanities desk
< October 22	<< Sep | Oct | Nov >>	October 24 >

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.

October 23

I apologize if my question is in the wrong Reference Desk subheader, but (as an example) if my mother divorces my father and marries another man, what is my family relationship to that man? Thank you in advance. 71.146.0.234 (talk) 04:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He would be your stepfather and you would be his stepson. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As you can see, I am the equivalent of a tomato when in it comes to family relations. 71.146.0.234 (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A cross-pollinated tomato or a grafted tomato? —Tamfang (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And a tomahto or a tomaydo? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Definitely a tomaydo. 71.146.0.234 (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cf. Nix v. Hedden. Nyttend (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... which I've just edited, because it was making wild and unsupported claims about what supposedly the tomato "legally" now is. It needed to be brought back to what the court's ruling was actually about, viz. the customs regulations made under the Tariff of 1883. How people classify the tomaydo in their own minds outside of that context has always been, and remains, their own business. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a cross-pollinated one, but it acts as a grafted one on Sundays. 71.146.0.234 (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for whether he would appear on your family tree, that all depends on what you want out of it. If you only list blood relations, then he doesn't belong. However, if he has children with your mother, those half-siblings of yours are blood relations, so you might want to add him back in, to explain where they came from. :-) StuRat (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 71.146.0.234 (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If people are trading thousands of shares from stock X at price P and then someone pays P + 1 for one single share, will the stock price be now this P + 1? Comploose (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends which type of "stock price" you mean. The last traded price will now be P + 1, so in that sense the answer is yes. On the other hand, if you are tracking an average price for the day (or for a longer period) then a single trade will not change that by much. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reported price in news tickets and such? Comploose (talk) 11:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers usually quote the previous day's closing price. The exact definition of "closing price" can be a little complicated. You can see the London Stock Exchange glossary here, but I didn't particularly understand the definition! --Tango (talk) 11:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, it depends. The Google ticker shown here is displaying the last traded price. However, in a quote driven market you might see the mid price which is the average of the lowest offer and highest bid prices currently quoted in the market - there might not be any actual trades executed at this price. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The US asked Israel for friendly restrain, for not setting the whole area in fire. Since Saddam Hussein's strategy was to drag Israel into the conflict, it was perfectly reasonable to do the opposite. Comploose (talk) 11:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is pretty much the main reason. Futurist110 (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Gulf_War#Iraq_launches_missile_strikes. The US was nominally part of a Coalition of forces, which included many Arab states. It was felt that Israeli retaliation would jeopardise the Coalition. --Dweller (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A good deal of Coalition effort was expended in trying to prevent Iraqi Scud missiles being fired at Israel; thereby hoping to prevent domestic political pressure from forcing Israeli retaliation. Special forces surveillance combined with air strikes in the launch areas were effective, but not entirely so.[1] The success of the Patriot missiles that the US sent to defend Israel is still being debated.[2] Alansplodge (talk) 12:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the missiles were a great success. Admittedly, it was a political success. The operational success is indeed very much up to debate... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greece has tons of national debt at the moment, how much (annually, ideally) is it costing to pay the interest on? What % is that of GDP? And finally, I've seen on a couple of sites that 'experts' say that once you are paying 12% of GDP in interest that is a historical tipping point for default. Are there any good references for that? Many thanks, 46.30.55.66 (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In 2011, interest payments by the government (only) were €15 billion, or 7.1% of GDP. Source: [[3]]. Bear in mind that this does not include principle, short-term lending or debt service by the private sector. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: should be "short term debt repayment, including both principle and interest," not "short term lending.DOR (HK) (talk) 06:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, that's great. (OP on a different IP) 86.166.191.232 (talk) 08:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What games do Boy Scouts of America play that Scouts in England do not? A Scout in my troop here in England needs to teach Cub Scouts an American Scouts game that is not played in England, in order to earn his Global Challenge badge. 82.31.133.165 (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know myself (I was a scout for about a year in my early teens and rose to the high rank of Tenderfoot) but surely there are materials online that would provide better proof than a claim by some random on a Wikipedia forum?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Online I can find some games from England and perhaps some games from America, but from these websites I am uncertain if any of the games are common only in America and not England. 82.31.133.165 (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realise I'm about to completely ignore your question, but please bear with me. A better way to go about this might be to support the Cubs in finding out for themselves about games in US scouting. Learning by doing, and all that. I would suggest speaking to your District or County International Adviser for support in making contact with a group in the US, and then asking them about their weekly programme. If you can't get hold of your International Asviser, try ringing Gilwell's Information Centre on 0845 300 1818 or 0208 433 7100 - they are incredibly helpful and knowledgable. Alternatively, if none of these things are possible, try getting the Cubs to do some research themselves - http://www.scouting.org would be a good place to start. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The best practice on the Ref Desk has always been to link to reliable sources in answering a question. In the USA, there is Boys' Life magazine, which might lists games that Scouts play. Many issues over a period of many years are available for reading online via Google Books, such as this one from 2009. Sadly, the "games" section on page 50 only talks about videogames, not the sort where you run around playing hide and seek or whatever. The handbooks for the Boy Scout and Cub Scout organizations include games, but I no longer have any of those handy for reference in my home. An online source for games played by scouts in the US is "Boy Scout Trail". Edison (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I know that American Scouts play pick-up games of Baseball from time to time... unlikely in the UK. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kickball is even easier to put together than baseball: same basic rules, less equipment necessary. --Jayron32 16:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One game they've at least played in the recent past has to do with a literal application of the old joke about starting a fire "by rubbing two boy scouts together." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious. You should take your act on tour. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there might be child-molesting going on the UK scouts too, but the US situation is what got publicity recently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Scout Association of the United Kingdom has been at the forefront of the development of robust child protection procedures, but no system is entirely infallible. My opinion is that jokes aren't an appropriate response to this issue, moreover, I fail to see how it is connected with the original question. Alansplodge (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dark humor. And the joke about rubbing two scouts together was probably innocent, as I'm fairly certain it was on TV at a time when vulgar stuff wasn't allowed on American TV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 12:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe. But when our voluntary youth worker posted his question above in good faith, he was probably hoping to avoid a load of innuendo about child abuse. That is all I have to say. Alansplodge (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I admit to being highly suspicious of both the Catholic church and the scouts as institutions. As to the OP's question, I would think baseball and/or softball would be obvious answers, as those games are not likely to be commonly played in the UK. Pitching horseshoes also comes to mind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the point; try MacScouter's Great Games Resource which lists 120 "Games for Younger Scouts" (it has a picture of Cub Scouts on the title page). Good hunting. Alansplodge (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious answers: baseball, American football.

New Mexico is currently projected to go solid Democrat, while Arizona is solid Republican. What accounts for the difference? Arizona is several times larger in population than New Mexico and its economy is also several times larger; New Mexico seems more dependent on government funding (lots of military bases, two national labs) than Arizona. Arizona gets in the news for its harsh immigration policies; New Mexico, one would suspect, would have similar issues. New Mexico seems unique among states along the southern border of the US in its political affiliations (California excluded but California is its own weird thing). Why is New Mexico a bastion of Democratic support? --Mr.98 (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you hit the nail on the head with your observation that in New Mexico, the military is a major employer. The military tends to disproportionately employ the young and minorities, both of which tend to vote more Democratic. Also, minor in comparison, the city of Taos, New Mexico is a bit of an artist colony (see Taos,_New_Mexico#Taos_art_colony), and you know how those crazy beatniks vote ! StuRat (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• New Mexico is 43% Hispanic, Arizona only 25%. That's the biggest difference. Looie496 (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that the larger percentages of Latinos/Hispanics and Native Americans in New Mexico are the main things that make it more Democratic than Arizona. Futurist110 (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fivethirtyeight.com did a pair of articles on the two a while ago: Arizona; New Mexico. NW (Talk) 19:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was always so, at least post-1848. Arizona has always had more of an Anglo population than NM. That is, basically why they did not enter as one state, as Teddy Roosevelt wanted.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, New Mexico is over 9% American Indian, while Arizona is about half that. Angr (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Mr.98 -- In northern New Mexico there's a large grouping of Hispanics who are all U.S. citizens, and who are very conscious that they are not recent immigrants, but in fact were there before the "Anglos" were... AnonMoos (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering all states (except the two weird ones :-) ), is there a reason why states adopted a winner-take-all system when casting its electoral votes for a presidential candidate? I can understand the disadvantages of the system, the wiki article on that is quite good. But nowhere (including wikipedia and google) can I find the reason almost all of the states would adopt such a system? At least what would be the (political science) theory behind adopting such a system? Does it give one party an advantage over another? Also I can't find its history anywhere either. Has this been in place since the constitution or was it adopted slowly over the last two centuries? Did states gradually implement it or did they all do it at once? States are given almost complete power over their local election process so we have this huge variety of different rules. Winner-take-all is the only rule which seems almost universal but it isn't federally mandated like voting age being 18. I can't imagine all of the states unanimously agreeing on something out of their own free will. Just curious what led to it. It also seems to be the reason why we have had two party system for more than a century no to mention gives the media too much power and influence.70.58.0.141 (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We did this a few weeks ago. It's to the advantage of a state, in a certain sense, because it makes it more likely that the person who is elected will be the plurality choice of the voters in that state. This is especially true for large states — in an election that's close in all states, an individual in a large state actually has more chance of flipping the election as a whole than a voter in a small state (whereas without winner-take-all it would be the reverse).

The downside is that if the election isn't close, the state gets ignored. Wait, did I say downside? --Trovatore (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

States that lack the winner-take-all rule are virtually ignored by the candidates, since there are very few electoral votes in play. If the candidate worked like hell there, maybe he could flip the vote from 45% in his favor to 55%, but that would only amount to a 10% difference in the number of state electors he got (which might not be any actual electors, if the state has less than 10). Compare this to a winner-take-all state where a much smaller effort, say one that flips his support from 49% to 51%, would gain him 100% of that state's electors (and deny them to his opponent). StuRat (talk) 03:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, winner-take-all makes candidates pay much more attention to large swing states. However, large states that are fairly safe for one party, like California or Texas, would probably get more attention if they dropped winner-take-all. Right now everyone knows Obama will get all of California's votes. If California went proportional, Obama would still get the majority of them, but the candidates would have to address California-specific interests in an attempt to increase or reduce Obama's margin.

However, the party in power in such states has to balance that against the fact that dropping winner-take-all would improve the other party's chance of winning the presidency. --Trovatore (talk) 04:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Republican strength still lies in Orange County, various areas in the California Central Valley, and in some regions in the eastern part of the state. So, yes, if California ever went proportional, it would be more than likely than some electoral votes would instead go to the Republican candidate. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The red states already have a disproportionate advantage in the electoral college, and turning a state like California into "proportional" electoral voting would ensure that a Republican gets elected President every time. I'm sure Republicans would like that. But you can't do that. The people don't elect the President, the states do. If they want a true proportional vote, then the electoral college needs to be abolished in favor of a direct popular-vote election. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lord, please let this not become a political debate. At least, not here.

Bugs, this isn't the place to be advocating any kind of political changes, and you know that. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not advocating any change. I'm explaining the consequences of such a change. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you are. I believe you. Just, remind me: What was that you were saying below about facts vs. spin? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the math a little closer, I see that my blanket statement was incorrect, but much depends on how the electoral votes are allocated. I took just the 2008 results and figured out the electoral vote proportioned in two different ways. The original electoral vote was 365 to 173. If you split each state's electoral votes to two decimal places, it comes out 283.14 to 246.45, with 8.41 for the miscellaneous candidates. That matches the popular vote proportion exactly. So Obama still wins, and it appears to nullify the red state vs. blue state effect. If you round within each state, you get Obama with 280, McCain with 243, and 16 missing due to the rounding. And that raises the question of what's going on with Nebraska, the one state that split its electoral vote in 2008. 5 electoral votes, 4 given to McCain and 1 to Obama. But based on popular vote proportions in the state, it should have been 3 and 2. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that they create "districts" within the states, and it's clear that a state could gerrymander around the theoretical need to apportion its popular vote. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

States that want to go proportional can do it any way they want to. They have almost plenary power to appoint their own electors. --Trovatore (talk) 07:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do, currently. If there is eventually a clamor for a direct election, obviously that would require a constitutional amendment and would nullify the red-states' advantage - which is why such an amendment will never pass. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This supposed "red-state advantage" is actually not clear at all. In 2000, a change of a small number of votes in Florida and Ohio, combined with a slightly better Bush performance in a few blue states, could have easily resulted in Bush winning the popular vote but Gore winning the election. In recent weeks CNN has been showing the popular vote between Obama and Romney as all tied up within the margin of error, but still has been giving a clear electoral advantage to the president, so an entirely plausible outcome of this election is that Romney will win the popular vote but Obama will be re-elected. --Trovatore (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a move going on, slowly, that may eventually render the electoral college obsolete. There is a growing number of states who are making agreements with other states to commit their electors to whoever wins the national popular vote. This agreement won't take effect until at least 270 electoral votes worth of states enter the agreement, and they are only about halfway there yet. Unless a constitutional challenge is mounted succesfully, this approach might not only render the electoral college moot, it could revolutionize the approach to creating amendments. You could call it a pseudo-amendment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it could "revolutionize the approach to creating amendments" in general. The scheme relies on the idea that states can appoint their electors any way they want, and can therefore decide to give them to the winner of the national popular vote, if they want. That is probably true, but it seems very specific to this one issue. Most things that you'd want to accomplish by an amendment can't be implemented by just a certain number of states deciding to do it. --Trovatore (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one thing I could see would be in the area of abortion rights. Since the GOP will never get the 2/3 majority needed in the US House and Senate, and might or might not be able to get a right-wing activist court to overturn Roe v. Wade, they might take their strategy to the states and create a pseudo-amendment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how they could do that. The electoral vote scheme doesn't override anything in the constitution -- it's just a way of collaborating on how to vote. Specifically what could a group of anti-abortion states agree to do that would have the effect of allowing them to ban abortion? Duoduoduo (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact... AnonMoos (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Part of the benefit of the electoral college system is that it requires candidates to focus on winning a broader area instead of just a higher vote. The nine most populous states List of U.S. states and territories by population outweigh the population of the other 41. But those 41 have an advantage of 64 electoral votes (82-18=64) over the top nine in the electoral college system. Hamilton was an elitist, and his argument that electors were more qualified than the general populce no doubt appealed to him. But I doubt his rationale was the real reason why the small states were happy with the compromise. μηδείς (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A different question, why do states implement early voting? And it also looks to me like as if various states can be quite aggressive in promoting it too as if they prefer/want me to vote early. I want to wait until I make my decision so why would I vote early? Is it just so that the lines are shorter on the general election day? It doesn't sound like a good enough reason when you see how much emphasis is put on voting early. Do all states wait until the general election day to count the early votes or do some states start releasing info before November? Because if counting is done and announced before November 6 then it has the potential to drastically change the other voters' minds and swing the election.70.58.0.141 (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Early voting, Absentee ballot, and Postal voting? As far as I can tell, such votes are never counted until polls are closed on voting day, precisely to avoid influencing the election. I've heard rumors that absentee ballots are often not counted until days or weeks later, which means (in the case of a U.S. presidential election) they don't get counted until the state has already been called for one or the other candidate. Presumably these rumors only apply to states without no-excuse early voting, as it wouldn't make sense to allow and even encourage your voters to vote early if you're not going to count the votes until it's too late for them to make a difference anyway. Angr (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "too late for them to make a difference". If the election has "already been called" in that state, it means that it wasn't close enough for the absentee ballots to change the result, and therefore they would never have made a difference, no matter when counted. If it's close enough for them to matter, you're usually in recount territory, and then they will definitely go into the mix. --Trovatore (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I expressed myself badly. I knew what I meant. Angr (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be many things but the first thing that comes to my mind is the number of volunteers that the town/district expects to be able to recruit for election day. If there are enough voters who come in and vote early, that means that the town potentially has to find fewer volunteers. In a small town like mine, it's nothing for a few people to come in every day during election day and cast their vote. It likely doesn't add that much work to the town hall staff's day. And then there's the added benefit of the small parking lot at my polling place (our volunteer fire department) not filling up with cars and lines going out the door.

Also, I can take my ballot home, look at the names, research each one of the less important races, and make a more informed decision. Dismas|^(talk) 00:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a very strong suspicion as to the reason California, specifically, promotes it so hard. Not in every case, but as a statistical average, Republicans are more likely to vote than Democrats. However, Democrats control the legislature, and while Republicans don't do very well here electorally, the Democrats would like them to do even worse. If they can increase turnout, they will increase Democratic percentages, because the marginally-committed voters they pick up are disproportionately Democratic-leaning. --Trovatore (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the various national efforts by Republicans to disenfranchise voters who might lean Democratic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the other spin, yes. --Trovatore (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "spin". The facts speak for themselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is spin. Everyone has a chance to vote; no one is excluded if he wants to vote badly enough. The question is, how hard do we want to try to get people to vote who don't want to that badly? --Trovatore (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like BB is taking about things like voter ID cards etc. That being the case, whether you want to say 'how hard do we want to try to get people to vote who don't want to that badly' or 'how much do we want discourage people from voting who don't want to that badly' are both ultimately POV. Nil Einne (talk) 04:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is a right, not a privilege. The Republicans' efforts have been to make this right as tedious and difficult as possible for certain classes of people, and many of those attempts are being tossed by the courts who see them for what they are: attempts to discourage Democrats from voting. That's not spin, it's fact. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show us a link? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After Trovatore does. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How 'bout this one? --Trovatore (talk) 07:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Meanwhile, you may find Voter ID Laws in the United States somewhat enlightening. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody know when the events written down by M. Aylic Marin in Promenades en Océanie: les Tubuaï et l'archipel de Cook occurred? It was published in 1885, but that would be impossible since the figures mentioned in it died in the 1870s. I need the year he went to those islands and even exact dates if possible. I translated some of it here. Also is M an abbreviation of his first name or Monsieur? And who was he?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you didn't try googling for "Aylic Marin". The first link it takes you to is http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89douard_Petit_%28%C3%A9crivain%29, which answers most of your questions. Looie496 (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So that narrow the visit between 1880 and 1885. Can somebody find a more specific year?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody know what year Edouard Petit visited the Austral Islands?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was the people of Rurutu and Rimatara converted into the Calvinism denomination or the Wesleyan denomination? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Rimatara was converted by two native missionaries dropped off by Samuel Pinder Henry, who was the son of William Henry, who was an Anglican missionary of the low church sort. So most likely Anglican, but possibly slanting in the Calvinist direction. Looie496 (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]