Humanities desk
< December 10	<< Nov | December | Jan >>	December 12 >

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.

See http://blog.texasnoncompetelaw.com/ for one possible explanation. SinglePurpose393 (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would an international company based in New Jersey want people to sign a nondisclosure agreement governed with jurisdiction in the State of Texas? SinglePurpose393 (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the basic principles in U.S. law is that a contract granted in good faith under the laws of one state should be honored in all 50 states, even if local rules differ. This principle is what makes gay marriage so controversial, if even one state legalizes gay marriage, any legally obtained gay marriages in one state must be honored in all 50 states, even if gay marriages are not legal in all 50 states. There may be certain ways that nondisclosure agreements are handled in Texas which would make it a favorable state to make them legally binding in. There is also the possibility that the company may be legally incoproated in Texas for tax reasons, even if they do no business there and have no employees there. Delaware is famous for this. Something like half of all corporations in the country is has their official state of incorporation as Delaware because of favorable tax laws there. (see this reference from the State Government). That's 850,000 corportations in a state with a population of about 850,000. You do that math. Something similar may be going on with a New Jersey company registering NDAs in Texas. So there's two possibilities for the situation you describe. --Jayron32 05:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron hit on some interesting points, but let me try and clarify some of them. Ultimately what you're asking is what feature of Texas law is there that makes non disclosures particularly enforceable there. I don't know the answer to that question. But a lot else is going on here too.

The full faith and credit clause that Jayron32 is referring to isn't the same thing as pre-judgment choice of law questions, and isn't especially applicable here. If state X wanted to make contracts created in state Y unenforceable, I know of no reason why the full faith and credit clause would stop them (Other provisions might of course). It is the legal reason for much of the gay marriage issue, but those don't have much to do with a choice of law provision in a contract.

Venue clauses in a contract will have varying degrees of enforceability, but it's ultimately a choice of law question in whatever jurisdiction someone chooses to bring suit. That is not necessarily the place where the contract arises.

I don't know of any state that registers NDAs either, and the reason for Delaware's corporate prominence has a lot to do with things other than tax law. They have an extremely efficient secretary of state office that's well computerized, a very well known body of case law, and also, some good tax laws. Corporate registration and where you choose your choice of law provision though are hardly the same.

The best way I can point you in is 1) Choice of law, 2) Google: "Texas non disclosure contract law", 3) Personal jurisdiction and minimum contacts. Shadowjams (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to raise my hand, I second Shadowjams's refutation of Jayron32's claim about Delaware and taxes. The taxes are actually high in Delaware; see Delaware General Corporation Law for the actual legal benefits. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine I'm attempting to emulate the technique of ancient greek potters to create red- and black-figure designs on pottery. I know this would work on yellow and red iron-rich clays like that which they used. However would this technique still work if I used kaolinite clay? Or black clay, or green marl like what the ancient Egyptians used? (Not sure whether this should be in Humanities with the art side of it or in Science with the chemistry involved.) Lady BlahDeBlah (talk) 11:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article on Red-figure pottery: "True red figure vase painting, ie. vases where the red areas have been left unpainted, was introduced to Etruria near the end of the 5th century BC." This would mean that your clay colour would need to be a red hue, as you have suggested. I am thinking of the colour of your standard North American clay plant pot. Whether you could also create that colour by dyeing modern clay with something that would hold the correct red colour through the firing processes, my limited exposure (one class) to pottery cannot tell you. It was the black figures that were painted onto the clay, or in a "negative space" sense, painted where the "red figure" wasn't. There are some interesting references at the end of the above-linked article to published texts, and more information in both Pottery of ancient Greece and Black-figure pottery. Bielle (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've scoured those pages, and highly informative they are too. But I want to know if the style can be emulated, not the colour; if it is possible to use the technique, maybe using something like kaolinite will make...what, brown- and white-figure? I know the ancient Greeks used kaolinite slip to make the white designs on black-figure. Lady BlahDeBlah (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you will only find out by experiment, or by asking at a pottery forum. This site has a recipe for red clay using clay from the Cedar Heights Clay Company. You could also look at the potters' magazines like Ceramics Monthlyor Clay Times Magazine for articles on the subject or for knowledgeable people to whom to put your questions. Bielle (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC) I just realized you said that the colour doesn't matter. From what I have read about the techniques, there isn't any limitation on using the design on any clay that has similar properties. Perhaps an expert potter will happen across this question, or the sites I have linked may still be helpful. Bielle (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like someone proficient in plastic soil...one URL doesn't work for me and the other is rather mishmash, but that seems to be the norm! Gaaah. Lady BlahDeBlah (talk) 10:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a wonderful book Athenian Vase Construction: a Potter's Analysis by Toby Schreiber that was published by the J. Paul Getty Museum, Malibu, California in 1999. Its first chapter is titled "Clay: Origin, Composition, Properties, Purification" and the rest of the book gives detailed instructions on how to make several different types of Greek vases. You might be able to find the book in a public or university library--at least through Interlibrary Loan.--Eriastrum (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article point out that he had 80 sons, according to Plutarch. Is there any further references as to exactly how many sons he had when he died.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since assertions can't be double-checked by reference to hospital records, you have to decide on the reliability of your available source. Is the anecdote introduced by Plutarch transferable? That is, would another father do, to put the point across? Perhaps Skilurus is introduced solely for the sake of the anecdote. Would the anecdote by equally valid if Skilurus had twelve sons? What is the reputation to Plutarch's readers of Scythians? For a philosophical Scythian, see Anacharsis. --Wetman (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps more relevant, very little is known about specific named Scythian individuals other than what is contained in ancient Greek records, which were usually written down by authors far removed in time and/or space from the events they narrated. Skilurus died over 150 years before Plutarch was born, so what's in Plutarch is either vague oral hearsay or is based on some earlier written work. If no sources used by Plutarch here have survived, then there's little hope of being able to find out more than he reported... AnonMoos (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you much for your thought out answers fellows. Yes, I see what you mean about Skilurus being introduced possibly for the sake of the anecdote. Now I understand also Skilurus could have been buried in the mausoleum at Scythian Neapolis that was used apparently from ca. 100 BC to ca. 100 AD., however there is no reference for sure on this. Looks like it came from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, which won't do me any good as I don't know Russian. Now if Plutarch or some other historian said this also it could be another source for the article.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since Skilurus died over 150 years before Plutarch was born, perhaps he would have been better saying something like "Scilurus on his death-bed, being about to leave about eighty sons surviving..." since it looks like he doesn't know for sure the exact number, assuming that he didn't have another source to verify this number for sure. We today have lost this source apparently Plutarch is referring to (if he did have a source), to get that number, so we would have to use the word about I suppose since we would be relying strictly on Plutarch; which looks like would not be all that reliable a source since Skilurus died over 150 years before him. --64.138.237.101 (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly useless to berate ancient authors for not having a modern understanding of the use of numbers. Except for individuals in a few professions (such as astronomer, tax-collector, etc.) which required a firm grasp of numbers used for certain purposes, the majority of individuals in ancient times were quite often hopelessly vague in their use of numbers above a few hundred (and sometimes quite vague and imprecise in their use of numbers well below a few hundred). In ancient Greek culture, the myth of the 50 sons of Aegyptus who married the 50 Danaids was well-known, and "80" is probably just another vague round quasi-symbolic number, and Plutarch would have had no firm evidence for its exactness. In ancient times, people did not usually think that tossing around such large numbers in an inexact way was deceptive or dishonest... AnonMoos (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AnonMoos for your input on this. That makes this matter even more clear and I have a better understanding on it.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Skilurus had about 80 sons. He was busier than Tiger Woods.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does trademark law have anything to say about how a company is referred to in a foreign language? As a silly example, is there a legal reason a French news organization cannot refer to Apple Inc. as "Pomme" ? --İnfoCan (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not dealing with the matter of law per se but with the more signifiant matter of marketing, the answer is that its name is not "Pomme" or even "La Pomme", but "Apple". Think "Volkswagen" which did not beome "People's Cars" when the company was referred to in the English language press even before the products became available outside Germany. Trademark law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but if a company wants to maintain its market identity, it needs to maintain its corporate name. The exception might be if its corporate name meaning something awkward (rude, blasphemous, illegal, offensive or silly) in the foreign language. In the hypothetical case of "La Pomme" you present, no one would know what of the newspaper was writing. What French or international trademark law might have to say on the point, though, I know not. Others may. Bielle (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Well, the company's name is not "Pomme", in any language. Company names are not considered to be in a particular language by trademark law; it is irrelevant. You would no more call Apple "Pomme" than you would translate Toyota into something else to refer to it in English. Trademark law would not extend from the word "Apple" to the word "Pomme" unless a separate application was filed explicitly stating that. News organizations don't do that kind of work, anyway. When a company does want to come up with explicit translations of its name (more common, I think, when dealing with Asian markets, where careful translation of characters is necessary—think I recall Coca-Cola having to be careful about how it was translated into Chinese), it registers a trademark for that as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is really picky, but to answer your question literally, there is no law, anyplace I've heard of, that says you can't refer to some company by any name. The news organization can call Apple "Douchebags Incorporated" if they want, right? Sure, they can call them "Pomme" if they are having fun with it or being jocular in their broadcast. But the above responses are correct; any particular translation of a foreign-language name is not automatically protected under the trademark law of any country I've ever heard of. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I might point out that the direct translation "folkvagn" is not uncommon in Sweden for Volkswagen, particularly the original beetle and the VW bus.--Rallette (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How close is the pronunciation to the German? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "Folksvagen" is actually probably closer to the German than the way Americans pronounced "Volkswagen". --98.217.71.237 (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When Nestlé first entered the UK chocolate market, they billed themselves as "Nestles" because they thought that English speakers wouldn't be able to cope with an acute "e". In about 1980, they decided we were European enough to change to "Nestlé", but many people over 40 still call them "Nestles". Also in the 1980s, there was a debate in the UK press about why we couldn't sell cars to Germany. Someone pointed out - tongue firmly in cheek - that the woeful Triumph Acclaim might translate as "Sieg Heil" in German. Alansplodge (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And how about Dannon Danone yoghurt. I understand that during the war the French company kept running under separate management. See the article on Groupe Danone. ([Sesquipedalia])

I have taken the presumptuous liberty of changing the spelling to what I think is the correct "Sieg Heil", but, if appropriate, change it back and delete this message. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Americans didn't have that problem, thanks to ads like this [1][2] from TV figures such as the cowboy Roy Rogers and a dog named Farfel (this youtube is modern, but he was around in the 1950s). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's an urban legend—which I believed until composing this post—that the Chevrolet Nova didn't sell well in Spanish-speaking countries because "no va" means [it] "doesn't go" or "isn't going". But see Chevy Nova#Urban legend and, more especially, Snopes.com: Don't Go Here.—— Shakescene (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"No va" means "no go" or "does not go" in Spanish, but that is indeed an old joke, probably as part of general ridicule of this car within the U.S. "Nova" is Latin for "new", which in Spanish is "nuevo/nueva". However, the word "nova" is also known in Spanish, as the straight-from-Latin astronomical term for a "new" star, i.e. a supernova. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just wordplay. It's been going on forever. Pope Pius IX is known in Italian as Pio Nono, but he was often referred to jokingly as Pio No! No! because of his reactionary approach to reform. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may be conflating two people, it's been a long time since I studied this part of history. I remember there was a philosopher in Roman times who served as a senator, retired and stayed at home, then was called out of retirement to govern again. The call came while he was in his cabbage patch? Anyway, while he was in this second period of government he was murdered, possibly by Julius Caesar (it was about that time period). Any ideas? --TammyMoet (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diocletian meets some of that. Nanonic (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are thinking of Cincinnatus? He is the classic "called back to rule" example, though the other aspects don't fit him. (He is also famous for the "willing to give up absolute power once the job was done" aspect.) --Mr.98 (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cicero was murdered during that time (the year after Caesar was murdered). He liked to live in his country villa although he never really retired. It does sound like you've conflated Cicero, Diocletian, and Cincinnatus. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julian_the_Apostate was one of the most prominent Roman philosopher-emperors... AnonMoos (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your thoughts. I hadn't heard of Cincinnatus at all, but Cicero and Diocletian ring the bells. After I'd posted it I thought of Seneca the Elder, but maybe I was thinking of Cicero. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cabbages especially go for Diocletian, although as far as I remember, he never left the cabbages. Nyttend (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that perhaps in your memory you might have mixed up different stories. First of all it was probably not a "philosopher" (although many upper class Romans liked to think of themselves as such in their private time, they were soldiers and statesmen when participating in public life). The core of the story you mention is the classic story of Cincinnatus who from his farm heeded the call to lead the state and then returned to "his plow". The "cabbage" might probably come from the story of Sulla, whom it is told that after having been a dictator he spend his old years tending his cabbage patch. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that you are probably mixing up two (or more) stories. See also Marcus Aurelius (referred to by Gibbon as 'the Emperor Marco').--Major Bonkers (talk) 05:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've a question, before the Lawrence v. Texas, was gay sex illegal in the United States? I mean if you were caught in a motel with a same sex partner, would have you been arrested? --SouthAmerican (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The law varied from one state to another. This was not something subject to Federal jurisdiction. In some states, gay sex was illegal. However, even in states where gay sex was illegal, the law was only occasionally enforced. Most motel owners were more interested in making money than in alienating customers and reporting violations to the police. Marco polo (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT rights in the United States and Stonewall riots are relevant articles. Marco polo is correct; the law, and the amount of enforcement of the law, varied from state to state and from city to city. The significance of Lawrence v. Texas was indeed that it struck down all such anti-"sodomy" laws in all the states. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, much better is Sodomy laws in the United States which lists the penalties for "sodomy" in each state immediately before they were all invalidated by Lawrence. The worst was the state of Michigan, where "sodomy" was a felony punishable by 15 years in prison on the first offense, and by life imprisonment on the 2nd offense. I'd be interested to see enforcement statistics added to that article to see whether this was a legislative remnant, unenforced, or whether it was actively and enthusiastically wielded. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

considering what I have heard about prison life, wouldn't that essentially make it a life sentance in all cases? --Jayron32 21:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been various invading-privacy laws like these applied to opposite-sex as well as same-sex consensual activities. They were typically enforced only when someone felt like it, which was part of their unjustness. Most of them, I think, have been struck down, and the remaining sex crimes on the books are associated with non-consensual acts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast Asia specifically mentions that Papua New Guinea is in Southeast Asia, but the accompanying map, File:Location Southeast Asia.svg, excludes Papua New Guinea. Is the map wrong? Geographically, PNG is part of SE A, but politically, is it excluded? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Politics are not organised continentally, so not even China, Japan or India are "Asian", politically speaking. "Asia" is purely a cultural or geographical concept. So, it makes no sense to end S-E Asia at the political border between PNG and whatever the western part of New Guinea is called these days. Geographically, even Australia is sometimes held to be part of S-E Asia, although it is also said to form part of its own continent, which may or may not include New Guinea, depending on which experts one believes. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, political divisions are sort-of arbitrary in these cases; consider that the Australian National team currently plays in the Asian Football Confederation. This is largely because their prior confederation, the Oceania Football Confederation was not guaranteed even one birth in the World Cup (the Oceania champion generally has to play a low-ranked team from another confederation in a playoff to earn a World Cup spot). By moving to the AFC, Australia can now compete for an automatic berth. Other oddities include Turkey as a charter member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, though Turkey isn't anywhere near the Atlantic Ocean. These things are ALL very political. --Jayron32 21:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, for geopolitical reasons (e.g. many Arab and Muslim nations refuse to play direct athletic contests against Israel), Israel is often classed as a European nation in international sport and politics. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. While fantastic things do happen in Australia, not even we have automatic births. Our parents still have to perform their tedious nuptial duty.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you are however born with innate linguistic pedantry, from berth. --Jayron32 22:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it'd be pretty hard to be born with something but not have it from birth. Wait ...  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The island is part of Australasia, geologically (see Plate tectonics) historically, ethnographically (see Lapita culture) and ecologiocally (see Wallace Line). --Wetman (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Papua New Guinea is in Melanesia.
Sleigh (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OR caveat: I surveyed a few dozen people living in East Asia several years back, asking “What are the geographical boundaries of ‘East Asia’?” The consensus seems to be that Asians are people where the men don’t shave as much. So, Japan, China, Mongolia, Korea, Taiwan, and the 10 ASEAN countries was the limit. The physical differences between people from PNG or Australia was too much for them to be considered ‘Asian.’ DOR (HK) (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses, but I think what I was really asking was, should the text at Southeast Asia be changed so as not to include PNG, or should the map which illustrates that article be changed to include it? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a matter for discussion at that talk page. But what ever the outcome is, the island of New Guinea should be either completely included or completely excluded, because the idea that New Guinea consists of an Asian half and a non-Asian half is not supported anywhere. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, certain things show a sun with a face, and waving rays going out from in in all directions. What is the significance of such a symbol, does it have a name?--Heybin (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Like the logo for Hope not Hate or the CD Larks Tongues in Aspic.--Heybin (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In British heraldry it's referred to as a "Sun in splendour". According to A. C. Fox-Davies' A complete guide to heraldry: "The sun in splendour is never represented without the surrounding rays, but the human face is not essential though usual to its heraldic use. The rays are alternately straight and wavy, indicative of the light and heat we derive therefrom, a typical piece of genuine symbolism". Other famous examples include its use on the flags of Argentina and Uruguay - in these and similar South American contexts it's called the Sun of May and is representative of an Incan sun deity. Grutness...wha? 23:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC) (another Crimso fan :)[reply]

Another example is the second flag listed here (1877 version). --152.3.129.245 (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, would it be appropriate to redirect Sun in splenour/Sun in splendor and sun with face as well as sun with a face to Sun of May?--Heybin (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No; the term Sun of May only relates to the modern South American context, the May referring to the month of political revolutions. The image itself is of a solar deity (although that particular article for some reason does not show similar images), and is essentially an ancient symbol. The South American deity was Inti, but a solar deity existed in many (most?) cultures globally. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple of sentences at Sun of May about the similarity. There should really be an article on sun in splendour - which would also list the similarity. But it is a similarity only - the use in South America has specific origins. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now started an article on sun in splendour. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now merged it into Sun (heraldry). —Tamfang (talk) 05:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually like King crimson, it's just my flatmate that has this CD which he keeps playing. I prefer Kanye West.--Heybin (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, maybe you'll learn one day ;) Grutness...wha? 00:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• For whatever it's worth, Brown University (an Ivy League school in Providence, Rhode Island) uses a rising sun-in-spendour among clouds as the crest to her arms, which are displayed in Brown's Wikipedia article. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article Solar symbol, but it doesn't discuss that (lots of other things, but not that). AnonMoos (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's there; under the headline "Rayed depictions". It's just not showing the variant with the face. — Sebastian 09:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Various online articles (such as this one) refer to the "sun in splendour" as being a heraldic device used (or even invented) by King Edward IV in memory of the parhelion or "sundog" that appeared in the sky just before his victory at the Battle of Mortimer's Cross in 1461. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also called in heraldry, a sun in his splendour.
Sleigh (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's the baby-faced sun in splendour in the Teletubbies' closing segue...--Wetman (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personifying the sun, moon, the various winds, etc., goes back to ancient times, a remnant of polytheism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True; the ancient Egyptians typically represented the sun as a disk, although during the reign of the pharaoh Akhnaten, who promoted a religion based upon himself, this was altered into a depiction of the sun with rays coming from it and ending in hands. Slightly off the subject. --Major Bonkers (talk) 05:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And for a cute, but UN-santioned, decoration sporting a sun with a smiling face, see Order of the Smile. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]