Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:49, 17 December 2010

Humanities desk
< December 11	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 13 >

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 12

Font sizes

I've been struggling with a bit of font design, and I think it might be useful to add the following to Point (typography):

The em size (and hence the point size of a font) does not include any leading (the space between the lines).

It seems to be a great discovery I have just made which will clear up a lot of my confusion. Is it actually true? (Maybe I don't mean leading, since leading seems to include the whole body of the type as well as the space between the lines. Not sure what the word is for space-which-isn't-body.) 81.131.4.151 (talk) 04:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leading is extra space added between lines. For example, a 10-point font might be designed (for example) so that the capitals and ascenders (bdfh...) extend 6.2 points above the baseline, while the descenders (jpqy...) extend 3.2 points below the baseline. Then when the baselines are played 10 points apart, the descenders are always clear of the following line by 0.6 points. This amount was chosen by the designer of the font as the closest spacing that, in his/her judgement, would not crowd the lines together. It is space between the lines, but it is not leading, and it does count in the 10-point size of the font. Sometimes, especially when setting wide lines of text, you might choose to space the baselines farther apart, say 12 points. That is leading, in this case 2 points of leading.

You have to imagine the old days of hot metal typesetting (or cold metal before that), when the letter would actually be formed into a piece of metal 10 points high, but would not quite reach to the top or bottom of that piece of metal. To do leading, an actual strip of lead would be inserted between the lines of letters; in this case, a strip 2 points in size.

--Anonymous, 04:47 UTC, December 12, 2010.

Leading says that it is the distance between the baselines, so the leading in that last example (10 points of sort (typesetting), 2 points extra) is 12 points. It doesn't say what the extra strips are called. Photoshop backs this up, where a block of text with point size 12 and leading set to 12 will be "solid". On the other hand, right there in the Leading article is a contradictory example: CSS seems to use leading to mean "space between ascenders and descenders" - the example with no leading does not have all the lines printed on top of one another (as is the case in Photoshop with leading set to zero). So I don't know. 81.131.4.151 (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Alatriste

Did the fictional character Captain Diego Alatriste ever exist or was he based on an actual person in 17th century Spanish history? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

¡Buenos días! According to the article on Spanish Wikipedia here, he is a fictional character. There is further discussion (in Spanish) here which seems to come to the same conclusion, though I only have un poco de Spanish. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh what a pity. I saw the film the other night and I was hoping he had truly existed. Thanks, Ghmyrtle.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your fantasies can be just as intense with a fictional character. Really, there's no rule against it, and it wouldn't make you any weirder. Have fun! 82.234.207.120 (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion, but my interest stems from purely historical curiosity, nothing else.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a joke. Please don't remove it. Um, I wasn't expecting a response. I was just trolling you. Uh, mission accomplished? 82.234.207.120 (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever removed this "admission" of trolling (made by me from a previous address): it was a JOKE. A real troll would NOT admit it. So, please don't remove my contributions in the future. If Jeanne feels offended by them, I suppose she could remove it, this being her thread... Otherwise don't edit other editors' contributions please... Thanks! 80.14.250.12 (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to our Captain Alatriste article:

"His name comes from Sealtiel Alatriste, Pérez-Reverte's Mexican publisher and friend, and from the legendary Don Juan Tenorio, who is indeed his grand-uncle"

and our Don Juan Tenorio article says:

"Don Juan Tenorio: Drama religioso-fantástico en dos partes, is a play written in 1844 by José Zorrilla. It is the more romantic of the two principal Spanish-language literary interpretations of the myth of Don Juan."

Which suggests (inconclusively): he is a character based on a character based on a myth, if that makes any sense in-universe (I haven't read the book or seen the movie, are they good?). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read any of the books, but the film is excelent. Viggo Mortensen is convincing in the role. The historical personages were portrayed realistically unlike the mess Hollywood made with The Tudors and Braveheart.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Polanski's film version (The Ninth Gate, 1999) of Pérez-Reverte's The Club Dumas (1993) was better than the book. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alatriste didn't exist. Perez-Reverte explains how his friend believes in Alatriste as a real man. From a Patente de Corso text in El Semanal magazine in Spanish:

[...]Mi amigo no es muy de leer libros, pero el capitán le suena bastante. Hasta el punto de que, descubro sorprendido, cree en la existencia del veterano soldado de los tercios. «Qué bueno –termina diciendo– que te inspires en personajes reales, como hiciste con la Reina del Sur.» Me lo quedo mirando, para comprobar si habla en broma. Pero no. Lo dice en serio aunque es mejicano, como digo, y oyó decir más de una vez que Teresa Mendoza es personaje de ficción. Entonces comprendo que el tiempo y el extraño azar de la literatura, incluso para los no lectores –o especialmente entre ellos–, han hecho su trabajo. Y sonrío feliz, de medio lado, enseñando el colmillo como un lobo satisfecho.[...]
— Arturo Perez-Reverte, Las fronteras (difusas) de la ficción [1][2]

Regards. emijrp (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas gifts

What is the most popular type of Christmas gifts? Adult lady to gentleman? Gentleman to lady?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's touching that you asked for the most popular types of Christmas gifts just to avoid being cliche, knowing that by yourself you would probably have picked one of them! Everyone should be as original and creative... 80.14.250.12 (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have lived in four different countries, and I'd have to say the most popular (and cliched) gift from a gentleman to a lady is probably perfume or jewelry; women tend to give their men cologne or shirts/sweaters.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which century were beds used?

In which century did the European (in particular western) nobility switch from sleeping on straw pallets to beds?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're defining as a "bed" here. Do you mean when did mattresses become used, as opposed to raw straw? They are very old indeed, dating back in Europe to at least the Romans. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I knew the Romans, Egyptians and Greeks used them, but I was talking about the four-postered, curtained beds with mattresses that were used in the late medieval period. In fact, one of the French nobles taken as a prisoner by the English after the Battle of Agincourt paid part of his ransom with his bed!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on four poster beds is not very informative in this respect, but it does say that a number of extant beds date from the 16th Century. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They pre-date the 16th century.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Usborne Time Traveller Book of Knights and Castles (seriously) has the lord and lady sleeping in a four poster. This is set in 1240. I seem to remember there is a manuscript illumination of similar events, not sure when that dates to. It must be in Wikimedia somewhere... 81.131.0.97 (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Commons category Beds in art has many examples of medieval depictions of beds. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder to what extent the usage of 4-poster beds increased as the Little Ice Age progressed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded an image of a bed used in 1187 in France.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking at the very same picture. Nice accurate date and location. However there is Commons:File:Saxon_State_Bed.jpg, which links to a history of furniture (available on Gutenberg) which talks about Saxon beds. 81.131.0.97 (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely drawing but no date is given, not even the century.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"A drawing in the Harleian MSS. in the British Museum is shewn on page 25, illustrating a Saxon mansion in the ninth or tenth century." (Blah blah blah, still apparently talking about the same MSS) "Other woodcuts represent Anglo-Saxon bedsteads, which were little better than raised wooden boxes, with sacks of straw placed therein ..." 81.131.0.97 (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gorillas do it. (Why do gorillas build new nests every night?.206.130.174.43 (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why the Christian population isn't growing in India?

Apostle Thomas went to India and preached the gospel there. 19th century missionaries went to India and established Indian churches. After many centuries of evangelism, why the Indian Christian population still remain small? Indian Christians make up 2.3% of India population. I know that many Northeast Indians have accepted Christianity, but not the Indo-Aryan Indians who are the majority. Is it difficult to convert brown people? 17:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.73.51 (talk)

"...is it difficult to convert brown people"? Yes, if you use ridiculous stereotypes. And in answer to the general question, why do you think the people of India would wish to convert to Christianity? They have well-established religions of their own. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a better question is why Christianity was more successful in Europe, the Americas and sub-Saharan Africa than it was in Asia. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, because they didn't use violence to convert people in India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.191.230 (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Goa Inquisition. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an answer to "Why would they want to convert": I've known some Christian Indians, and the reason they converted was because of the lack of a caste system in Christianity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that rather depends. In some Christian churches, most notably the Catholic Church, women are virtually second-class citizens. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You get Catholic guilt instead. Bargain! 81.131.0.97 (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just telling you what they told me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err, you might want to have a look at Caste system among Indian Christians... --BishkekRocks (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And anyway, the Indians had themselves come up with a casteless religion - Buddhism. But as it turns out, in the long run an atheistic philosophy of peace and forebearance is no match in the popular imagination for old fashioned fire-and-brimstones with lots of colourful gods. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this File:Distribution of Christians in Indian states.svg map, most Chistian Indians are in the south and the east. (Check Christianity in India article.) Also, aren't Indo-Aryan Indians lighter in color?206.130.174.43 (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdate of Isabelle of Hainault

There are two different dates of birth (and places of birth) for Isabelle of Hainaut, Queen consort of Philip II of France and mother of Louis VIII. Some give her birthdate and birthplace as 5 April 1170 and Valenciennes, while others say she was born in Lille on 23 April 1170. Would anyone happen to know the correct DOB and corresponding birthplace? Thank you in advance.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this likely to be a Julian/Gregorian calendar thing? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not with an 18 day discrepancy in the 1100s, more likely these are dates conjectured from her father's movements or the usual time for confinement of the mother in that era. In other words pretty close to being entirely made up, I would be dubious of any accurate date from that era especially women, but then even the DOB of the previous king Louis VII of France is not stated with any accuracy. meltBanana 21:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, so perhaps the discrepancy arises from the chronicles that are the sources for this stuff? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and other sources. For example, while I don't know specifically about the French kings, there are some published itineraries of English kings, like Henry II. (In fact you can read Eyton's The court, itinerary, and household of Henry II on Google Books.) By examining chronicles, charters, and whatever other dated documents are available, it is sometimes possible to determine exactly where the king was on any given day (or approximately, if there is a gap in the dates). If his wife is known to be pregnant on a certain date, and a child is mentioned on some other date, then all that can usually be said with certainty is that the kid was born between those two dates. If a specific birth date is recorded in a chronicle, the chronicler himself may have been there to witness it. Otherwise, where would he get such information? There was no birth registry, and a medieval person, even a royal one, may not have even known his/her own birth date. They could have been born in "spring", and if the day was a feast day or some other important day, it may have been remembered later, but probably not. Death dates were more important, and they are more often recorded (just like Easter is a more important holiday than Christmas). Adam Bishop (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Pipe Rolls records royal - and a few noble - children's DOBs, so did many chroniclers. Also when an heir came of age his or her DOB would need to have been known. Elizabeth I's birth has been recorded almost down to the exact hour.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's true, but Elizabeth is almost as far away from Isabella as we are from Elizabeth. Things were a lot more organized then. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest sunset

Is there any name for the day of the earliest sunset? Such as there is for beltane for example. According to www.timeanddate.com the earliest sunset in the northern hemisphere is tonight, or perhaps tommorrow, at 15.51 in London. Being an aethiest, and being a late riser, today is the turning point of the year for me. Thanks 92.28.249.229 (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Midsummer would be the (neo)pagan term for the Summer solstice, when the day is longest in the Northern Hemisphere (whereas Beltane "is considered a cross-quarter day, marking the midpoint in the Sun's progress between the spring equinox and summer solstice.").

Winter solstice, the shortest day in the Northern hemisphere, occurs on December 21 this year. You may also be interested in our article on Day length. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what you seem to be talking about is timeanddate.com, which does show the earliest sunset ("3:51 PM") to be occurring around now (+/- a few days). But notice that length of day does reach a minimum at 7h 49m 43s around Dec. 21/22, which is the winter solstice. Solar noon is shown to vary there, too. Interesting question. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like the OP, I have celebrated this day of earliest sunset for the last fifty years, and also the day of latest sunrise in early January. The effect seems to be seldom recognised by others, and it is just a consequence of the drifting of noon from its clock time. See Equation of time for details. The dates change slowly over the centuries, so they will probably never become an established festival. Dbfirs 22:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The pagan name for the Winter Solstice is Yule. Corvus cornix_talk 22:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the question is about celebrating the earliest sunset. I'm already well aware of the shortest day etc which is not the same thing. 92.15.5.93 (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that (depending on how you measure it) that "time" will depend on your longitude, time zone, and your time measurement criteria. It's a lot more straightforward to state which is the shortest day.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that - I would imagine that the earliest sunset is on the same day for everyone in the northern hemisphere. 92.29.117.8 (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There appearer to be a confusion of terms here. Even though water clocks were surprisingly accurate, the time difference we're talking about would hardly register on them and would not register at all on the minds of the pagans. What they would have noticed: is the 'least' westward point that the sun set, before heading west again. Although henges seem to be a phenomenon of the British Isles it is quite possible that early man used stakes as sight line to the horizon to act as date markers right into Christen time (just as some chapels were built to point to the rising of the sun on their saints day). What's more, this method could still drive a calendar which is more accurate that the one we use today. So the answer is no; as the earliest sunset is just an artefact made more discernible by our regular clocks set to display mean solar time. Even if you were born before the development of clocks, it would still be a turning point for you as this is more to do with the characteristics of your own particular body clock. Your clocks are probably synchronised more strongly by the onset of darkness. If festivals were based on individual body clocks it would be very confusing for all concerned--Aspro (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I'm simply asking if the day of the earliest sunset has a name. Nothing to do with water clocks or 'circadian rythmns' etc. 92.28.245.105 (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem. Your "simple" question is based on a misunderstanding: there is no "earliest sunset" every year. Sunset depends on many factors. For instance, sunset at my current location is much earlier than 100 miles away from me, simply because I live in a very mountainous region, while 100 miles away is relatively flat. The sun sets earlier here because the mountains form a higher horizon than in the flatter regions.

Your longitude also has a major impact on sunset. I've lived in Anchorage, Alaska, where the sun sometimes is only up for a few hours each day, making the sunset as early as 3 pm local time. Much further north, the sun never even rises for a portion of the winter.

If what you're looking for is a specific day of the year that the sun sets earliest in general, that would be the same as the day with the shortest available sunlight in general (ie. Winter solstice). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean "your latitude also has a major impact on sunset" (latitude being the North-South measurement). The truth is, both latitude and longitude determine the time of local sunrise and sunset. With respect to latitude, due to the tilt of the earth along its axis, time of sunrise and sunset varies as you go north and south. With respect to longitude, time of sunset and sunrise depends upon how far east or west you are in a particular time zone. --Quartermaster (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing is not the absolute local time, but the comparative time ie the date of the earliest sunset out of all the sunsets of the year at any particular location. So time zone is irrelevant. (And its unlikely you'd get any quirk caused by changing daylight saving times). Only an unsual local mountainous topography would make any difference - eg where you have a deep valley that the sun sets through on one particular day. I was considering places where there is a sunset every day. Anyway, we seem to have established that there is no name or festival of any sort for the earliest sunset, so end of question. 92.28.245.105 (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an answer but I just wanted to say that I understand your question. I don't know why everyone else seems to be making it more complicated that it is 82.44.55.25 (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking Time and Date shows that the date of the earliest sunset changes based on your location. In Minneapolis, for example, the earliest sunset is somewhere between December 8 and December 11. In Miami, it's somewhere between November 26 and December 3.

The reason why is explained here: (http://www.sciquill.com/analemma/page2.html). It relates to both the tilt of the earth's axis and the earth's ellipical orbit. 128.111.130.159 (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot imagine longitude having an effect, only latitude. It appears from 128s comments that the day of the earliest suunset is earlier in the year the further south you go. Yet the shortest days is apparantly exactly the same day all over the northern hemisphere. 2.97.210.25 (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There might be minor variations in sunset because of local irregularities (hills), but the effect in general has no connection with latitude or longitude, it is caused by irregularities in the orbit of the earth round the sun. The last person (Dolphin) to ask a question about earliest sunset summarised as follows:

"Regardless of the hemisphere, the earliest events (earliest sunrise and earliest sunset) occur earlier than the solstice. (Earliest sunrise occurs earlier than the summer solstice; and earliest sunset occurs earlier than the winter solstice.)

"Regardless of the hemisphere, the latest events occur later than the solstice. (Latest sunrise occurs later than the winter solstice; and latest sunset occurs later than the summer solstice.)".

It has been this way round for nearly eight hundred years, but it is gradually changing over the centuries so there is no fixed date, and, as mentioned above, it was noticed only when we abandoned local time for railway timetables (1847 in England and 1883 in the USA & Canada). Until then, the effect did not exist, so the earliest sunset would be recorded on the date of the solstice. Dbfirs 17:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valdemar III of Denmark

Does Danish history recognize this man as King Valdemar III? I've seen many other sites call Valdemar the Young, the son and co-king of Valdemar II of Denmark, Valdemar III instead.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Danish Wikipedia article on him calls him Valdemar 3.. Corvus cornix_talk 22:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but how reliable can Wikipedia be.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This photo has him listed as "Waldemarus Tertis". Corvus cornix_talk 23:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of results from Google Books[3]. Alansplodge (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The photo provided by Corvus cornix lists Valdemar II of Denmark's son as Valdemar III. The text above it is about the person Wikipedia calls Valdemar III of Denmark but the image is related to another person, the son of Valdemar II who lived a century earlier. Surtsicna (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then the Danish Wikipedia article is wrong, since it uses that image. Corvus cornix_talk 17:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Danish Wikipedia article does not use that image. It sources its information about the birth and death dates of the person in that article from the text above, not the image itself. It is the site gravsted.dk that has made an error and paired a the image with a wrong text. The Danish first edition of the Biographical Dictionary from the late 1800s just calls him Valdemar . The Royal Lineage list on the official homepage of the Danish Monarchy does not mention him, I guess they prefer a slightly glossy version of history. The list on the homepage of the Joint Council of Danish History (an association of Danish local history associations, museums and what not) calls him Valdemar 3.. The Danish history page kept by Aarhus University calls him Valdemar 3. Eriksen. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somali dance niiko

What is this dance in somalia called Niiko? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.111 (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have an article on it (yet), but it can be seen on youtube here[4][5] and apparently more authentically from East Africa here[6]. Thanks for asking; someone may be along soon with more information! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 84: / Line 84: @@
 :::::Err, you might want to have a look at [[Caste system among Indian Christians]]... --[[User:BishkekRocks|BishkekRocks]] ([[User talk:BishkekRocks|talk]]) 20:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 :::: And anyway, the Indians had themselves come up with a casteless religion - [[Buddhism]]. But as it turns out, in the long run an atheistic philosophy of peace and forebearance is no match in the popular imagination for old fashioned fire-and-brimstones with lots of colourful gods. --[[User:PalaceGuard008|PalaceGuard008]] ([[User_Talk:PalaceGuard008|Talk]]) 13:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
+:::::According to this [[:File:Distribution of Christians in Indian states.svg]] map, most Chistian Indians are in the south and the east. (Check [[Christianity in India]] article.) Also, aren't [[Indo-Aryan peoples|Indo-Aryan]] Indians lighter in color?[[Special:Contributions/206.130.174.43|206.130.174.43]] ([[User talk:206.130.174.43|talk]]) 19:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 ==Birthdate of Isabelle of Hainault==