Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of humanities.

Welcome to the humanities reference desk.
Shortcut:
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

  • Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question.
  • Type ~~~~ (four tildes) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Post your question to only one desk.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. We'll answer here within a few days.
  • Note:
    • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
    • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
    • We don't do your homework for you, though we’ll help you past the stuck point.


How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

  • The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
 
See also:
Help desk
Village pump
Help manual


Contents

February 25[edit]

New Chronology[edit]

Why is Anatoly Fomenko's New Chronology falsely considered pseudohistory if it's backed by solid scientific and mathematical data?Johndoe48 (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Because it isn't, despite what some conspiracy theorist echo-chambers insist. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
To elaborate, Fomenko ignores any material that doesn't fit into his theory, and imagines a variety of materials that some trace of would have to exist for his theory to be true. For example, he claims that Emperor Jingzong of Western Xia, Pope Gregory VII, and Jesus were the same person, whose name was corrupted into multiple identities. If that was the case, there should be some trace somewhere of corruption of manuscripts along the line. Since there are no traces, Occam's razor favors the idea that those three figures were separate. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Not so much pseudohistry, then, as sheer loopiness. PiCo (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

That's because the trace of corruption of manuscripts was destroyed.199.119.235.217 (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

That's what Occam's razor would call an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. It would also require that all literate persons at a particular time would decide to actively rewrite history they know is false -- an untenable position. It would also require that all of these perfectly coordinated diabolical masterminds would then immediately thereafter be stupid enough to miscopy "Jesu" as "Jingzong of Western Xia" and "Pope Gregory VII."
But let me guess, alien brainwashing? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Let's not forget that the lack of any evidence whatsoever that the moon landings were faked... simply goes to show how massive and all-encompassing the cover-up is.Ras.gif--Shirt58 (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
If I remember right, Fomenko says Byzantine Greece = pre-Norman England (I forget which is original and which the copy). Did he ever study linguistics, or art history? —Tamfang (talk) 09:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Or archaeology, or anthropology, or history, or really anything? His work is so batshit insane, it isn't even worth refuting. --Jayron32 15:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
It occurs to me later that the forgeries imply the oldest recorded conlangs, and probably the most elaborate. —Tamfang (talk) 09:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Hold on. Are you Johndoe48? If you are, I thought you said "it's backed by solid scientific and mathematical data". Now you're saying something fairly important to his theory was destroyed? How do we know whatever stuff which allegedly supports his theory isn't also a corruption, and in truth Emperor Jingzong of Western Xia, Pope Gregory VII, and Jesus were all my cat gone back in time a million years ago who BTW isn't called anything like those 3 names? Nil Einne (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Mr Thomas and Mrs Thomas[edit]

The article on a Wilfrid Thomas who seems to have married a Swedish dancer called Marga... is full of information about Wilfred Thomas (broadcaster) who married an English dancer called Margo... you can check this quickly at state library of NSW under Margo Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.163.6.74 (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you ... I think. Why are you telling us all this? Please discuss any matters about Wilfrid Thomas at Talk:Wilfrid Thomas. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Peter the Great[edit]

When Peter the Great was abroad in Europe, who governed in his place?2602:306:C541:CC60:852A:86F6:9EC2:1BCF (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

John Kline - US Chairman Education is given credit for introducing a bill he had not one thing to do with![edit]

I will be glad to provide more information on this. I will go back to the page & try to make the corrections of my own, Kline was dead-set against President Obama's Education Reform plan -which he wrote in the first 3 1/2 years of office & presented to Congress & was of course refused. He then took it to the individual states & 10 took him up on his offer. John Kline said of such plan, that teachers would strike!!

Please advise me as to what to do to correct this grievous error! President Obama should go down in history for this one - the good side & not the bad! Is it perfect? NO, but a site better than "NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND"! This must be corrected & give the President his dues & not John Kline, who will of course sit back & take all the credit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by America Jane (talkcontribs) 08:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Presumably we have an article on that, and these comments should go on the talk page there, along with any sources you have. StuRat (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
As StuRat said, you need to deal with this in the appropriate article. Even if you want to seek help elsewhere appropriate like in some noticeboard, you'd need to be clear about what you're referring to. For example Student Success Act mentions John Kline, but doesn't seem to be what you're referring to since Obama threatened to veto it (but the Senate never passed it anyway). Success and Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act does mention John Kline. I'm not sure what Obama's role, if any, on the bill is although if there is some and it and can be probably source this should probably be mentioned, but the claims about John Kline seem to be supported. Neither School Improvement Grant nor Race to the Top mention John Kline. Nil Einne (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
This looks like a political coatrack, not a real question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Pedophiles per capita across modern-day societies and cultures[edit]

Firstly, for what its' worth, I ask this question in good faith, and hope I'm not accused of trolling. I am NOT assuming what the answer is likely to be; it's an open question. Neither am I making any moral statements of any sort.

My question is: from what we know, does the percentage of individuals who are pedophiles vary significantly between countries, religions, or cultures?

I am specifically asking about pedophilic orientation - i.e. the number per capita who have intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children, whether or not they've acted on them. (I.e. those with the paraphilia or pedophilia)

I am NOT asking about the rate of child molestation - (this would likely vary greatly, I assume, based, to give an obvious example, on the likely ramifications for the molester, which can vary dramatically between jurisdictions).

I know this question may be a tad difficult to answer - we're not mind-readers, after all, and I'm not suggesting hooking random innocent men up to Penile plethysmographs. But can anyone source some expert answers, or at least hypotheses, to this question? 101.160.63.123 (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is a very good one for answering your question. Or, at least, telling you why it is very hard to answer your question. To wit, "There are pedophiles in the world who don't molest children, and never will. No one disputes that fact. So what portion of pedophiles actually victimize kids? We have no fucking idea. That is, in fact, the point." The article is on Cracked.com, which is ostensibly a humor site, but it is a very well written and often well researched one. As seen from the quote, they use non-scholarly writing, but their articles are usually very well done, and take a serious attempt to at least try to be accurate. They have links to more articles and studies and the like which indicate the problem with the question you're asking. And the problem is pedophilia (as in the attraction to children, not the crime of child molestation) is essentially unstudied in any culture. It's a worthwhile question to ask, but it does not have any answers. --Jayron32 15:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Are you interested in past cultures? Pederasty has a section on the practice in ancient times. This honors thesis, "ancient pedophilia" [1] may not be top notch research, but at the very least it has a decent bibliography. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Searching for an English term[edit]

These pictures show jesters/fools/etc. and they carry an accessory which looks like an very old-fashiened pair of glasses. The German expression ist "Narrenbrille" (fool's glasses), a term which can be found in the literature and which is used in idioms.

I try to search the English literature but find surprisingly little. What would be the correct terms for the "fool" and which one for the "glasses"?
In addition, is there an English expression for "looking/glimpsing/peeking through/between the fingers" ? (as seen in the pictures) THX GEEZERnil nisi bene 14:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the link to the first image. Richard Avery (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, "playing peekaboo" means hiding the eyes and uncovering them, although not necessarily looking between the fingers. StuRat (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
According to a Swedish saying (looking between the fingers; the Danes know it, too; Brueghel shows it in one of his paintings) the meaning is "it appears (to you) that I do not see/know, BUT I DO" - in relation to the jester "I do and say stuff, as if I didn't know (that it hurts/that it is insulting/bad), but of course I know!". So peekaboo may be a little bit off... :-) GEEZERnil nisi bene 16:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
A lorgnette is probably the closest thing to fool's glasses, but that term, and the actual item, aren't much used, at least in US English. StuRat (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The English term for those style of glasses, AFAIK, is Pince-nez, which is not a native term, but a borrowing from French. There isn't a particular term for them when associated with Jesters, AFAIK. --Jayron32 15:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone have good ref for the glasses as common accessory? I don't get it... SemanticMantis (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
For the gesture: going off Geezer's description, in English the phrases "a wink and a nod" [2] or "tongue in cheek" convey a similar attitude of being facetious or "in-on" a joke, though it isn't conveyed by a hand gesture. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The only term that I'm aware of for the gesture in English is the very literal "laughing behind your hand". Tevildo (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The facepalm of embarassment
  • Is there any evidence this is not simply an earlier version of the facepalm? Obviously the latter didn't originate n 1890. μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The statue is actually hiding his eyes, while the jester is only pretending to do so. Huge difference. StuRat (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I started out with "facepalm!", too, but the situation/feeling is different. Facepalm ist "despair"/frustration/shame about what someone else said ("Fremdschämen").
I am not sure whether gesture and glasses actually are recognized in English-speaking cultures. It also could be an (a) very old and (b) continental Europe thing, which caused no feedback in English. It seems a bit so ... GEEZERnil nisi bene 08:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The website of the College of Optometrists has an article called Rivet spectacles, which apparently is the correct name for the medieval glasses in the paintings shown above. At the bottom of the right-hand column, there is a photograph of "a 'joke' pair of rivet spectacles... in the Royal Armouries, supposedly worn by Henry VIII's court jester, Will Somers." So it seems that taking the piss out those of us who wear glasses has a long history. Curiously, I only knew the right search term because yesterday, I watched a repeat of the 2004 edition of Time Team which is referenced at the bottom of this article. A strange coincidence. Alansplodge (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I've not heard the phrase "laughing behind your hand" which Tevildo brought up, but it's appropriate for the jester because people frequently will instinctively partially cover their faces like this when they have uncontrollable laughter. Searching with Google on "can't stop laughing" brings up numerous videos of this reflex including this compilation [3] (it includes Dustin Hoffman at 6:53 cutting up at the end of it). -Modocc (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I'd call that "peeping", wikt:peep#Etymology_2. You could also ask at WP:RDL. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Why not adopt the german meaning of (looking at things or some situation or topic) "seen with jester's eyes" by saying: "seen through jester's glasses"? comp. as well: jester's license (=Jester's_privilege) (DE:Narrenfreiheit).   I'm afraid for the gesture, you'll have to call it the "medieval_painting's_jester's-You_think_I_don't_see_but_I_do-hand_before_the_face" :o]p   ;o]) --217.84.85.167 (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Japan[edit]

In Japan in the 1870's, what were the important national and local government institutions, and how was the country administratively divided?2602:306:C541:CC60:852A:86F6:9EC2:1BCF (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You might want to check out our articles on the Meiji period, Meiji Restoration, Meiji oligarchy, Government of Meiji Japan, and Meiji Constitution. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Bokassa[edit]

After he became leader of the Central African Republic, what ministerial portfolios did Bokassa have, and when did he have them?2602:306:C541:CC60:852A:86F6:9EC2:1BCF (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's coverage of the CAR isn't detailed enough to find out through Wikipedia's articles. We do have articles about Jean-Bédel Bokassa, Politics of the Central African Republic, and the History of the Central African Republic. None of them get into that level of detail, describing his various ministers and whatnot. I looked into the articles over at fr.wikipedia (since CAR is nominally French speaking and a former French colony) but their articles are less well developed even than those here at en.wikipedia. Sorry we couldn't be of more help. --Jayron32 01:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The fact we don't have an article on Wikipedia doesn't mean the information doesn't exist. What I can find is that Bokassa did not occupy any ministerial functions before becoming President of the CAR following a coup on January 1, 1966. He proclaimed himself President, then made that President for life in 1972 and Emperor in 1976, until being deposed by a coup in 1979. [4]. But he did hold various ministerial functions during his time as Head of State, including Minister of Defense (1966-1976) (I guess it was unbecoming for an Emperor to be a minister after that) and Minister of Interior and Justice. [5]. According to this article [6], he was Minister of Justice (garde des sceaux) from the time of the 1966 coup, but not minister of interior (that was Jean-Arthur Bandio, who already held the position before the coup). Bandio was named minister of Foreign Affairs on January 13, 1967 [7], so that may be when Bokassa took on that portfolio as well. --Xuxl (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

February 26[edit]

Best publish place for research paper on books?[edit]

So I just wrote a research paper on a literature book. I would like to know which academic journal are the best in terms of impact factor or alexa ranking (aka number of viewers). Those are strictly my two criterias to decide where to publish. It would be nice if someone happens to find a ranking table somewhere with one of the two or both criterias. Thanks!146.151.91.129 (talk) 08:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Criterion - singular, criteria - plural. Richard Avery (talk) 11:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
It could be worse: I've occasionally seen the plural written as "criteriae". Of course, as it's a Greek word, it should obviously be "criteriata"... AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt, κριτήριον is second declension, both in ancient Greek and when borrowed into Latin, and forms a regular nominative/vocative/accusative plural as κριτήριᾰ. RomanSpa (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Ooh, gosh, you are clever, so what would that be in English? Richard Avery (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The plural in English is "criteria", as you've already remarked. I was merely clarifying the matter. I wasn't seeking to correct you, since as an Englishman I'm sure your command of the language is fine. (I know you're English because only English people find sarcasm an appropriate response to educated comment.) RomanSpa (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
If you're a student at a university, the best thing to do would be to talk about this with your professors. They will be able to give you appropriate guidance about (a) whether and (b) where to publish. If you submit an unacceptable paper to a reputable journal it will be rejected, and if you persist in submitting unacceptable papers they will all be rejected and you will damage your reputation. If you're not currently a student at a university, it might be wise to start by contacting a suitable academic at a nearby institution and seeking their advice. In all cases, you will have to demonstrate competent use of the language in which the journal is published. RomanSpa (talk) 13:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Who said I'm going to submit it many times? I'm not stupid. Submitting the same unacceptable many times is useless and stupid. I'll submit only once. And of course I would have competent use of language within my paper. Don't judge my grammar based on what I wrote on here. I don't usually pay much attention to my grammar when I write things on the internet, so I do make silly errors sometimes. However, for my academic papers, that's a different story. Anyway, none of you really answers my question. I'm not asking so I can be directed to somewhere else. I also asked them. They and I know many places to publish, but I want to know the best place to publish based on the two criteria I listed above. Thanks!146.151.85.1 (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
If you don't actually know the journals in your field, you have no place publishing in them. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how things work for papers on "literature books", but in my area of the social sciences a lot of journal submissions start as working papers. This is a particularly good way to start if it's your first paper, as you can learn a lot about how to write without facing the pressure of writing specifically for journal publication. Also, you're wrong about multiple submissions. Although it hasn't happened to me, I am aware of cases where a paper has been declined by one journal, but has been returned with reviewers' notes along the lines of "not acceptable for our publication, but with list of changes/expansions/discussions would probably suit name of alternative journal"; this has included some important work. RomanSpa (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't know of any tabulation of Impact Factor for journals in area of your interest (and have never seen Alexa rankings considered in deciding where to publish), but you may want to look at the Modern Language Association's Directory of Periodicals to help find and compare the journals that may be of interest. Typically though, the practice is to consult working academicians in the area who are well-informed about the focus and reputation of the journals, and are able to advice on which journals your work is likely to be accepted in. Hope that helps. Abecedare (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

arm sleeve thingies[edit]

In this photo what are the arm sleeve thingies Laura Poitras is wearing called? Are they some standard fashion gizmo? Pic is of her getting the Oscar for Citizenfour. Thanks. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 08:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sleeves, they're gloves.
Sleigh (talk) 08:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Amazon calls 'em "long sleeve fingerless gloves". Clarityfiend (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Fingerless opera gloves.
Sleigh (talk) 09:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks all. Sleigh's answer helped me find the article opera glove. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The fingerless version seems rather pointless until you consider what happens when she needs to visit the rest room. I'm guessing she wouldn't take them off?--Shantavira|feed me 12:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually it looks to me like she's wearing fingerless gloves made of some kind of fabric like nylon, and then has leather sleeve thingies covering part of them. Any idea? I typed "fingerless opera gloves" into web search and did find some leather ones. I'm still wondering about the fashion statement of those things and whether they're a normal clothing item, or some BDSM specialty thing, or what. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

'For you, I make special price!'[edit]

So, I'm familiar with how effective shopkeepers in the Old City of Jerusalem (Arab and Jewish) are at helping visitors to the city to part ways with their money given that it's a tradition almost 1,700 years old (thankfully they lost their effect on me long ago). Luxorites also have this sort of reputation. What other cities have a reputation for exceptionally pushy hassling salesmen? Shukran. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 7 Adar 5775 13:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can respond adequately to the question but Bargaining contains some related information. And https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Bargaining provides pleasant reading. Bus stop (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Singapore's Change Alley used to be well known for this, but when I actually lived in Singapore I was too young to go there unaccompanied (so my parents would do all the bargaining), and from the look of our article's photos, it's changed (heh!) a lot since the 1960s. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
All the souqs in the world seem to have this reputation, especially if they are visited by Western tourists. Carpet shops too. The Middle East in a large sense (starting in Morocco and all the way to Turkey) would qualify. --Xuxl (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not just the Middle East. This kind of practice exists practically everywhere outside of Northern Europe, the Anglosphere (and French Canada), and Japan. Societies with little bargaining (outside of large transactions) are the exception globally. Marco polo (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Bargaining is definitely still a fact of life on the street markets of China. I've also bargained or seen people bargaining at Aztec/Mayan tourist sites in Mexico, at a flea market in the middle of Paris, and in the Grand Bazaar in Istanbul. Now that I think about it, it seems strange that people don't usually bargain in Canada/USA; I can't believe I've never noticed this before. --Bowlhover (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe a cost/benefit analysis figures in. In a rich country, it would be a waste of time to bargain over a loaf of bread, since it only costs like 5 minutes of labor to earn enough money to buy it at the asking price. But in a poor country, if that loaf of bread costs them a day's labor, then it's definitely worth their time to haggle, comparison shop, etc. StuRat (talk) 06:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
This is quite common with high-end merchandise like cars, jewelry, furniture and flooring or home remodeling/repair in NJ and NY. It even sounds like a catchphrase from SNL. μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course a person has to have autonomy over price for bargaining to take place. When variance from a set price is not allowed there can be no bargaining, Bus stop (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
There can be ways around that:
1) The salesman might be able to throw in something for free, like free delivery or extended warranty or no interest financing.
2) They might pay part of the price themselves. For example, if they get 10% commission, then paying 1% of the sales price to seal the deal makes sense.
3) Dealers sometimes get rebates from the manufacturer, and can apply a portion of that to the sales price. StuRat (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and for cars and houses, haggling is the norm, even in rich nations, since there those items still cost enough time to earn that any time spent haggling is seen as worthwhile. However, there are also people who want a good deal, and yet don't want to haggle. For houses, since every house is unique, it's a bit difficult to set a "fair price". But with cars, where there are thousands of identical models, it's not so hard. Saturn car dealerships offered no-haggle prices, and at time other dealerships have, but they don't seem to last, making me think that they need to rip-off the occasional easy mark to make a profit. StuRat (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

In the Lourdes apparitions, what accounts for the gaps in time between Bernadette's visions?[edit]

Does anyone know what accounts for the gaps in time that I have referred to here: Talk:Lourdes apparitions#Gaps in time? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

There have been no responses on this Reference Desk page. If anyone wishes to respond, please do so at the following Talk Page: Talk:Lourdes apparitions#Gaps in time. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Нужен текст гимна всех студентов "Гаудеамус"[edit]

Прошу знающих гимн студентов "Гаудеамус" сообщить мне текст на латыне .Заранее благодарю.Вилма. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.162.8.104 (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you maybe ask your question in English? It seems to have something to with Gaudeamus. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 7 Adar 5775 15:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Спросите на российском Википедии, это английский Википедия. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 16:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
See ru:Гаудеамус and scroll down to the Latin text there. --84.58.246.235 (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The user asks us to provide the Latin text of the hymn Gaudeamus in the Latin text, thanks in advance.
Посмотрите Gaudeamus igitur, 192.162.8.104, ничего. μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe, he/she can't read latin letters and needs ( not a translation, but) a transcription of the latin spoken or written text into cyrillic letters, so as to be able to read the original Latin in Cyrillic letters? See: http://gaude.ru/page/gimn-studentov-gaudeamus-i-ego-russkie-perevody:
"Гаудеамус игитур,
Ювенес дум сумус!
Пост югундам ювентутем,
Пост молестам сенектутем,
Нос хабебит хумус.
.."
"Nios chabjebjit choomoos" lol ;o]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.84.91.160 (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
--217.84.85.167 (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Japan[edit]

What was Japan's first legislature, at the national level? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C541:CC60:4897:AF86:CD38:DFCF (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

In which era? KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 16:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
National Diet has the details, particularly in the History section. The first legislature was a result of the Meiji Constitution, which is also worth a look. Alansplodge (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Anigunta[edit]

The only reference I can find online to "Anigunta" is the Wikipedia article. Does anyone know to where this may be referring? Could it be a transliteration issue, and possibly known by a slightly different spelling in Standard English? Sotakeit (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The creator of the article (whose ID, by an amazing coincidence, is Anigunta (talk · contribs)) states that it's a "village". So it might not be on Google's radar. Or it could be a hoax. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
In Google Maps, the village is known as Anegunta, coordinates (17.605447 N, 77.594904 E). - Lindert (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Excellent. So the question is, what (if anything) is its more common English transliteration? Whichever it is, the other could be created as a redirect. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
It appears that this article also exists in Telugu: te:అనెగుంట, which word is transliterated by this website as "aneguMTa", though typing "anegunta" in this convertor does yield అనెగుంట. -Lindert (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The easiest solution, lacking any definitive evidence, is to recreate redirects to this article from variant transliterations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
It is listed in the Indian census as Anegunta. It was formerly in Andhra Pradesh, transferring to Telangana state last year.[8] Hack (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Brand Mascots's of the 1920's[edit]

Is there anyone here that's able to identify the brand mascots shown on this poster?

http://www.ltmuseumshop.co.uk/posters/pre-printed-posters/product/poster-art-150-international-advertising-exhibition-mini-print.html

The Michelin Man is obvious , but id like to place some of the others. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It would be a far sight easier to investigate this if it would led me download the illustration. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I suspect the two urchins at the front of the poster are the Bisto Kids. I also recognise Mr Punch, and wouldn't be surprised if one of the dogs (perhaps the one on the left) is Nipper. RomanSpa (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Image is also at File:Underground_to_Wood_Lane_to_anywhere,_International_Advertising_Exhibition_at_the_White_City,_1920.jpg with some notes. Nanonic (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
And the V&A have (on the More Info tab) "Subjects depicted ... Michelin Man; Cardinal Furniture Polish; Rowntrees Cocoa Nibs; Kodak Girl; Pears Soap Tramp; Skipper Sardines; Johnny Walker Whisky" which gives some. Nanonic (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Do I see the Gorton's Fisherman (which dates to 1905) on the right side ? StuRat (talk) 06:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The clownish figure with "Vim" on his top hat is from Vim polisher and cleanser ads. - Nunh-huh 08:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The chap with the top hat is Johnnie Walker [9]. I thought that the children in the centre foreground were the Bisto Kids, but maybe not [10]. Mr Punch is from Punch (magazine). The little Jack Russell might be Nipper - the HMV dog. The chap in the red robe may represent Cardinal Polish but I couldn't find a similar image. Alansplodge (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

What is the capital of the USA?[edit]

Legally, is the US capital Washington, the city, or Columbia, the district? If they're now the same, what about before the Organic Act? — kwami (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The federal statute defining the seat of the United States Government provides that "[a]ll that part of the territory of the United States included within the present limits of the District of Columbia shall be the permanent seat of government of the United States." (4 U.S.C. § 71) The City of Washington and the District of Columbia are, geographically, exactly the same territory and have been since the nineteenth century. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
(ec)The capital is the city of Washington, D.C., which was once a subset of the District of Columbia, but the two entities are now the same entity. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
How can that be, if it was only one of five entities in the district, and it was the district that was defined as the capital? — kwami (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
No, the city is the capital, and it exists within a state-like entity called the District of Columbia. Prior to the 1870s, there were other autonomous cities within DC, such as Georgetown. Then it was decided that the city of Washington would occupy the entirety of DC, and places like Georgetown became merely neighborhoods instead of cities. It's kind of like Indianapolis' relationship to Marion County, only "more so". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
In addition, the District of Columbia originally consisted of a portion ceded by Maryland, and a portion ceded by Virginia. The Virginia portion was returned to Virginia ("retroceded") in 1846, and is now Arlington and Alexandria, Virginia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
But I thought the territory was defined as the capital before the city was founded. So, the district merely houses the capital, and before the city was established, we had an imaginary capital? — kwami (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The territory was originally defined by the Residence Act of 1790 and was ceded to the national government to become the future capital (as contemplated by Article One, Section 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution). The capital remained in existing cities (New York and later Philadelphia) temporarily until the first federal buildings in Washington were completed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! — kwami (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) List_of_capitals_in_the_United_States#Former_national_capitals lists all of the former seats of government of the U.S. The best known were Philadelphia (when the Declaration of Independence was signed) and New York City (which was the first capital under the Constitution). But such places as York, Pennsylvania and Trenton, New Jersey acted as de facto capitals and seats of government at various times. As noted above, the seat of the U.S. government, since moving to the district, has always been located in the settlement known as Washington, in the District of Columbia. The actual district was divided into 5 different political entities:
  1. the incorporated capital city itself, known as Washington
  2. An existing incorporated city, Georgetown which had been part of Maryland, and which was a separately incorporated city within the District until 1871.
  3. An existing incorporated city, Alexandria which had been part of Virginia (the modern corporate bounds of Alexandria, Virginia are larger than they were in 1800)
  4. The balance of the land which had been part of Maryland, but not part of either Washington or Georgetown was unincorporated Washington County, D.C.
  5. The balance of the land which had been part of Virginia, but not part of the city of Alexandria was unincorporated Alexandria County, D.C., now known as Arlington County, Virginia.
The last two were returned to Virginia in 1846, while the first three (two incorporated cities and a large area of unincorporated land around them as Washington County) continued their separate existence until 1871, when Congress made them all a single entity. Historically, there were parts of the District which were distinct political entities that were not part of the U.S. capital city, which was defined only as Washington, D.C. Thus, the capital really is Washington D.C., and not just the District of Columbia, or at least, it was until 1871, after which there was no difference in any sense, so it really doesn't matter. --Jayron32 02:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC

Important correction. The legal name of that single entity existing since 1871 is the District of Columbia, not Washington, DC. See the article: "revoked the individual charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown and combined them with Washington County to create a unified territorial government for the entire District of Columbia". Or better yet, see the actual law, cited in the article (which the original poster already knew about, as they mentioned the "Organic Act"), specifically the last two sections. From §40: "That the charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown shall be repealed on and after the first day of June, A . D. eighteen hundred and seventy-one, and all offices of said corporations abolished at that date..." And from §41: "And upon the repeal of the charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown, the District of Columbia be, and is hereby, declared to be the successor of said corporations..."

So the answer is simply "the District of Columbia". In legal terms there is no such place as Washington; the everyday usage is a holdover from how it was before 1871. And on the second question, about the situation before the Organic Act, the Constitution provides that the entire district (which it does not name) is the "seat of government", so I think DC is the best answer even before 1871. 70.49.169.244 (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC), edited 13:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC).

So there's not really a "Mayor of Washington". We learn something every day. —Tamfang (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Israel Shamir[edit]

Was he born in Sweden or Russia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey13952 alternate account (talkcontribs) 23:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article titled Israel Shamir states that he was born in Novosibirsk. At some times in history, some parts of what is now Russia were once part of Sweden, but a) never Novosibirsk and b) Never at the time when he was born. So it seems pretty definitive he was born in Russia. --Jayron32 02:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


February 27[edit]

Central African Republic[edit]

What states have been in the area that is now the Central African Republic before and during its time as a French colony excluding the French colony and the state that was derived from it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C541:CC60:4897:AF86:CD38:DFCF (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe the answer is possibly none. There was no organized state in that area when the French showed up. The politics were purely tribal and the area was likely somewhat depopulated due to the slave trade. Daniel(talk) 00:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
To provide some references for Daniel's supposition, see List of kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa which shows no historic polities located where the French later formed Ubangi-Shari. The area was occupied by non-state civilizations such as the Sao civilization. The nearest states I can find through research include the Kanem Empire, its successor the Bornu Empire, and the Kingdom of Baguirmi, which all came close to the area, and which had fuzzy enough borders that they may have exerted control over some small parts of what became the CAR. Most of central African states, however, were really concentrated on Lake Chad and into the Sahel, and probably didn't exert any real state control over what became the CAR, or were much further south along the Congo River. --Jayron32 01:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

House prices: domino effect[edit]

If I own a house and I reside in it and I do not wish to sell it and I do not wish to move, and my next-door neighbor demolishes his house and replaces it with an apartment building having a higher assessed value but causing increases in traffic congestion and air pollution and worsening the quality of my life, then why does the apartment building cause my house to have a higher assessed value and a higher tax rate?
Wavelength (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

See Property tax in the United States, particularly the "Valuation" section. Tevildo (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
More importantly, see supply and demand. By increasing the demand for your property, the value goes up. Quality of living issues, and how much you now "like" it has little to do with it. Also, your "house" is not necessarily what is being valued, but the total value of your land and all that is on it. Most of which is land. The value of the structure itself is of lesser concern. It's a real estate adage that "Buildings depreciate and land appreciates". --Jayron32 01:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Related to this, consider the potential uses of your property. How big is your lot? If you own the house and just a few feet past it in every direction, it may be far less valuable because not much could be put there. This is an interesting aspect of Bloomington, Indiana, where I went to grad school. While there are some apartments near the huge university campus, most of the campus is surrounded by neighborhoods of small houses, since most of the lots are really tiny, and constructing an apartment building would require that several house owners all be ready to sell together. Yes, you could buy one at a time, but if one has a young couple who won't move, you might get stuck holding the other houses for decades. Consider the film Up. If you've seen it, you remember Mr Frederickson's small house surrounded by all the development — since everything's been built around it, isolating the house and its little lot, there's not much you could put there. It's not as if someone could buy Mr Frederickson's property and put in a big apartment building, for example. Nyttend (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Nyttend, my reply has four parts: (1) Monetary values are not the only values. My land could have value for growing fruits and vegetables, for beekeeping, and for maintaining a view for the benefit of my neighbors. (2) Taxing it while I own it is imposing a capital gains tax on its increased monetary value (of no benefit to me unless I choose the risky option of leveraging its value for a loan), instead of imposing a sales tax after its sale (which sale I do not want). (3) Real estate brokers might hope to gain from its hoped-for sale, and the local government might gain from increased taxes, but the higher assessment is of no benefit to me. (4) The expression "supply and demand" is fuzzy, because the term "demand" blurs the distinction between needs and desires.
Wavelength (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I have no clue how potential future uses (e.g. agriculture) or æsthetic uses (e.g. neighbors' views) are taken into account, let alone the way that things like taxes and real estate brokers' wishes fit in; go find a real estate agent if you want to understand how those fit in. Did you see that most of the above comments, especially supply and demand, were made by other people? Anyway, the concept of demand in economics seemingly doesn't attempt to distinguish between needs and desires; after all, it's virtually impossible to draw a firm line between them. Nyttend (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I see that another editor mentioned supply and demand. Thank you for your replies.
Wavelength (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Is there a wp:wikiproject where interested editors can discuss such issues? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. There are WikiProjects in Category:WikiProject Business. Maybe I will start a discussion in one of those, after this discussion has been archived and when I can provide a link to it in the Archives.
Wavelength (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC) and 16:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Leaning liberal-conservative[edit]

How can anything or anyone "lean liberal-conservative"? How can you lean in opposite ways simultaneously? Yes, I understand that one can have conservatives within a body called the "Liberal Party" and liberals within a body called the "Conservative Party", but when neither one is capitalised, it looks like the leaner has tendencies toward liberalism and conservatism. The context for this question is our Allgemeine Zeitung article, which says "The newspaper leans liberal-conservative"; the source won't help, as it's no longer a working link. Nyttend (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

See liberal conservatism. As I've mentioned other times, "liberal" and "conservative" are not opposites, and not even necessarily in tension. --Trovatore (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
That's all right-wing stuff. Where's the "liberal" part? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing left-wing about liberalism in general. Actually, the entire mainstream of the American political spectrum is liberal in a broad sense.
I once asked my brother-in-law, a historian, whether there was ever any large American political movement that wouldn't fall under the broad rubric of liberalism. His answer was the American Party from the 19th century, more usually called the Know-Nothings. There is also plenty of anti-liberal sentiment on the left, among adherents of identity politics, but even they are so influenced by liberalism that only a few radicals really fundamentally reject it as a whole; they just aren't willing to embrace it fully either. --Trovatore (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I've seen other editors claim just the opposite - that the US is all conservative (compared to Europe, anyway). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Once again, "liberal" and "conservative" are not opposites. --Trovatore (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Once again, in America they are. Maybe in Canada things are different. Although I recall Dave Foley saying once, "In Canada, we're so liberal we make Castro look like a Republican." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Once again, they are. Conservatives want to maintain the power status quo. Liberals want to expand liberty to more people. You can't retain the power status quo AND expand liberty. Not possible. The confusion arises because people who were genuinely "liberal" back-in-the-day eventually became entrenched in power, and their policies ARE the status quo; they are no longer interested in expanding liberty to more people. See classical liberalism, which had to have the word "classical" added to the front because this is no longer modern liberalism. --Jayron32 17:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
So this is the American-center-left party line, which I obviously don't agree with. If everyone already has liberty, then there is no "expanding it to more people", because there are no more people to expand it to, and in that case, preservation of the status quo is liberal, because the only way it could change is to take away liberty from someone. I don't claim that's the situation we're in, certainly, but further discussion of that gets down to details that are not relevant to the current question.
What is relevant to Nyttend's query is that the word "liberal" is used in multiple ways. It is not purely an America-rest-of-the-world distinction, but one of a distinction between a (mostly American, but not entirely) sense meaning "center-left", and a broader sense meaning "supports the idea of individual rights, civil liberties, procedural and substantive due process, free enterprise, free trade, etc", things that are virtually universal across the American political spectrum, and not universal but have a strong majority in the Western European spectrum.
The broader sense is used even in the United States; you generally have to understand it from context. There was a column by Jeb Bush recently talking about, I think, al-Sisi (I'm not 100% sure on that point) where he raised the question whether this person was a "small-l liberal democrat as we understand it", and responded that he obviously was not, but that he might still be the best option for the region given the alternatives. Implicit was the claim that Jeb was a "liberal democrat". And in fact, Jeb Bush is a liberal democrat, understood in this broader sense. He is also, obviously, a conservative, and the two things are not in contradiction. --Trovatore (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
What world do you live in where every individual has the ideal level of liberty?!?!? --Jayron32 22:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Didn't say they did. However, the threats to individual liberty, in the current American context, come grosso modo as much from the left as from the right. "Change" is not always liberal; defending against illiberal change is a liberal undertaking. --Trovatore (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Some examples would help. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, there's for example the individual mandate from Obamacare, which takes away your freedom to roll the dice and bet that you won't need that coverage you're not buying. More generally there's the trend to hold that the State knows better than you what risks you (or especially your children) should be taking (how about this one?). Lots more. --Trovatore (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
That's the same argument that you shouldn't have to wear a motorcycle helmet because it inhibits your freedom. As to the child-endangerment case, that's at the state level, not the national level, and conservatives love to talk about "states' rights". And are you saying that we shouldn't have child-endangerment laws? Do those laws inhibit the freedom of adults to do whatever they want to their children? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
It is (the motorcycle thing). And in fact you shouldn't have to wear a motorcycle helmet, because it inhibits your freedom. Legislating otherwise is illiberal, even if it comes from the center-left, and opposing such legislation is liberal, even if the opposition comes from the center-right. --Trovatore (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Presumably you would also be arguing against seat belts and every other safety device on cars, as well as speed limits. Keep in mind that the state owns the roads, and the people (via their representatives) make those rules. On your own private property, the rules of the road don't apply, and you can ride a motorcycle without a helmet, and drive as fast as you want to. And by the way, who says it's "liberals" who have passed all these safety rules? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you're making the mistake (common to all sides of the political spectrum) of thinking "<my ideology> is good, therefore if something is good it is <my ideology>". Telling people they must use seatbelts/helmets is a restriction on liberty, and hence "illiberal" in the most basic sense. It's also a very minor restriction on liberty, for a lot of benefit, so (in my view) is eminently sensible. Can someone support such rules while still being liberal? I guess that depends on how exactly you define "liberal", but unless it means "100% liberal 100% of the time" (which is not a standard demanded of most other political ideologies) then the answer is probably "yes". But the policy itself isn't "liberal". Iapetus (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Part of the problem is assuming, however, that the ONLY source of restrictions on liberty is the government; the deal with classical liberalism is that, AT THAT TIME, the government was the primary source of illiberalism. What happens when other forces (corporations, societal norms, advantaged social classes, etc.) are providing the restrictions to liberty, and the government itself is acting to expand individual liberty against those forces? That's really what distinguishes modern liberalism from "classical liberalism", the use of the apparatus of state to expand personal liberty rather than to restrict it. --Jayron32 02:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
We aren't going to agree on this point. The thing relevant to Nyttend's query is that "liberalism" has multiple meanings, and the one that matters for understanding why a newspaper can be described as "liberal-conservative" is the one I explained. --Trovatore (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, it is good to see you've come around to my point, '"liberalism" has multiple meanings' is what I was arguing days ago: Liberalism and Conservatism can only be understood in context, as related to a time and a place: What is liberal and conservative in one place is different than in other places and times. You seemed to want to say that Liberalism was a universal set of principles which did not vary (at least, that's the point you took on in the last discussion). It's nice to see you've come around to my thinking on this. --Jayron32 05:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Wait a minute. I agree "liberalism" has multiple meanings. That's completely different from "relative to a time and place". You seemed to be arguing a historicist notion of a natural progression of history, and a natural refinement of the notion of "liberal" as society "advances". I haven't signed on to that at all. I'm just saying the word has different meanings, in a linguistic sense. What I'm calling the "broad" sense of the word is a set of universal principles. --Trovatore (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know about Canada, but in America there is no such thing as a "liberal conservative". That would be like a Catholic Unitarian. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what Canada has to do with anything, but yes, in fact, there is. Jeb Bush implied that he's a "liberal", and he's correct. He's also a conservative. In saying that he's a liberal, I don't in any way imply that he's at all left-wing, even within his party; it's a different use of the word from the one you're using, one that is in fact current within the United States, but has to be understood from context. --Trovatore (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
When has Jeb Bush ever called himself a "liberal"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Scroll up and see. --Trovatore (talk) 06:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
So he didn't actually say it, you're inferring it somehow. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
What would you infer from his implication that a "small-l liberal democrat as we understand it" would be the best possible politician (at least for a foreign state)? —Tamfang (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
That's a typical Republican attempt to redefine the word or to deny that Democrats are really "liberal". They do the same thing with the word "democrat", claiming that the "Democrat Party" is not "democratic", while the Republican party somehow are the "real democrats" ("small d"). The word "Liberal" is generally treated as poison by conservatives. They use that term as a synonym for "Socialist" or "Communist". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be insisting that liberal has always and everywhere had only the meaning of 'welfare statist', and any other usage is hypocritical "redefinition". Well, you're welcome to that belief. —Tamfang (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Bugs, are you saying that political "liberals" exist only at the Federal level? Or that when "conservatives" howl about the Tenth Amendment they waive their right to express opinions on more local policies? —Tamfang (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
For a threat to liberty from the nominal left, we could mention the Most Transparent Administration In History which has vigorously defended its power to do things that at least some voters expected it to undo. —Tamfang (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I think Obama found out, as presidents do, that national defense knows no party preference. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Or the rest of us were reminded that greed for power, and willingness to wrap it in the holy mantle of National Security, knows no party preference (at least within the Established Biparty). —Tamfang (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Some American non-politicians who label themselves "conservative" are liberal by Jayron's definition, or at least oppose what they see as new restrictions on liberty. They vote Republican because Democrats are less likely to give lip service to their (vague) ideals. —Tamfang (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Name one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I once heard William F. Buckley Jr. say that conservatism is all about freedom (exact words forgotten). I was a bit surprised to find him so naïve; at least I don't think he meant 'freedom' in Rudy Giuliani's infamous definition. —Tamfang (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
You shouldn't be. Conservatives talk about "freedom" all the time. They consider "liberalism" to be the enemy of "freedom". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
So did you really need me to "name one"? —Tamfang (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, now, remembering that conversation, I think the Know-Nothings were my brother-in-law's answer to a slightly different question, namely whether we had ever had a religious party comparable to Shas in Israel. But I think he might have given the same answer to "large non-liberal party" ("political movement" is not right I guess; the Ku Klux Klan was at some point a large political movement). --Trovatore (talk) 07:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
It's all due to the fact that the US uses the word 'liberal' in a completely different manner than the rest of the world does. Liberal means socially permissive and fiscally conservative in the rest of the world, whereas conservative is socially regressive and fiscally conservative. There is in fact of course no left wing in mainstream American politics, and they are by and large all conservative, yes. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no actual one-size-fits-all definition of left v. right, or liberal v. conservative. Each place and time finds totally different definitions used, frequently simultaneously. Abolitionists were "liberal" but were also "conservative" in many ways - depending on which attributes one looks at. In the US, a huge percentage of people would actually be called "centrist" by the standards of European politics. Collect (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  • In the US we have RINO's, (Republican in name only) if that's what's meant. John Boehner is widely considered one. There also used to be Rockefeller Republicans and Arlen Spector and John Lindsay μηδείς (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Anybody who thinks liberal and conservative in America are somehow the same thing needs to listen to Sarah Palin for a few minutes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Could I just shove a rusty cheese grater in my ears instead?
American politics usually is a single spectrum with liberalism on the left and conservatism on the right, but I've seen a double spectrum (or even a triple spectrum, like a cube) of authoritarian (or fascist, or populist) vs liberal (or libertarian, or democratic) on one axis, left-wing (socialist or communist) vs right-wing (capitalist) on another, and socially liberal vs socially conservative on the third.
American politics, in the grand scheme of things, is really more "moderate vs conservative" (heading toward "moderate vs neoconservative") than truly "liberal vs conservative." Ian.thomson (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
See political spectrum; many sets of axes to grind have been proposed. One factor analysis of votes in Congress found that the second important dimension is (or for a long time was) race relations. —Tamfang (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that if Left and Right have any meaning that's at all consistent through time and space, the Right seeks social stability and the Left seeks equality — though what they mean by these ideals can vary too! They are not always incompatible, nor do they cover all options. —Tamfang (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Consider the social pyramid. Conservatives like it to be as tall and steep as possible, while liberals want to make it flatter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the steepness is a consequence of at least some kinds of conservatism (including the conservatism that seeks to preserve power-grabbing Democratic institutions at all costs); I'm skeptical of the assertion that it's the intent of enough people to win elections. —Tamfang (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Punishment points of view, sources?[edit]

Hey, I would like to know if there is any information published by reputable sources that provide criticism of punishment and point toward a reward-based system of discipline to add within the page on "Punishment". That would really help me. thx. Frogger48 (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Supposing someone commits murder, what type of reward should they get? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't be facile, the OP clearly meant what preventative measures are there as disincentives for crimes. 130.195.253.12 (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't be arrogant. I'm not the only one (see below) who's apparently dumber than you are. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Personal attacks, we can't have that now can we Baseball Bugs? 130.195.253.60 (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
What, only you are allowed to make personal attacks? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs you need to realise that this Reference Desk is for helpful comments, not sarcastic responses. 130.195.253.60 (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Good. So stop attacking other users, and start making helpful comments. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, you should stop making sarcastic comments to people and calling people dumb. 130.195.253.60 (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Take your own advice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
A search on Google Scholar produced plenty of results. You may wish to refine the search terms depending on whether you are interested in sources relating to children or adults - a spell on the naughty step might not deter bank robbers. Alansplodge (talk) 12:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Are you interested in the penal system, or child rearing, or something else, or anything related to punishment? If the former, we have Rehabilitation_(penology), if the latter, recall that negative reinforcement is not punishment, and of course there's also positive reinforcement. If you can explain a little bit more about what you're looking for, I can probably get some scholarly references. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
In both cases the consensus seems to be to try to use positive reinforcement first, along with the threat of punishment, then, if that fails, switch to actual punishment as a deterrent. So, if you have a kid who is vandalizing buildings by spray painting his "art" on them, try getting him into an art class and maybe getting permission for him to paint on walls or buildings somewhere. This would be more productive than tossing him in prison. But when you get hardened criminals, that approach doesn't work any more. Note that punishment doesn't work very well, either, at that point, since prison may actually be better than life on the outside. However, prison does serve a removal from society purpose, in that he can't commit crimes (except against other prisoners) while in prison. StuRat (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Pre-2003 USA-Iraq Oil Trading[edit]

Did the United States and Iraq under Hussein trade oil before the 2003 invasion? 130.195.253.12 (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It would surely depend on what you mean by trading. However a simple search for 'us iraq oil' finds [11] which shows US imports orof Iraqi oil. which suggests a peak in October 2001 - January 2002 until October last year edit: the end of the data. However it looks like the peak is because the graph isn't smooth as much as anything, the levels may be slightly higher but seem to have been fairly consistent from August 1998 until the end of the graph with a brief drop around the time of the invasion. Unfortunately the stats start in 1996. It seems that imports was zero for 1996, with a small amount in 1997 before the larger increase in 1998. It wouldn't be surprising if oil imports were zero since about 1990 i.e. the time of the Gulf War but there's probably a fair bet it wasn't zero before then, perhaps since Saddam Hussein came to power in 1979 (well before 1979, but your question as stated only covers the period from 1979 onwards). Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
[12] has an analysis of the data on a year to year basis until 2007 which shows there was indeed a peak in 2001 although it was only about 20% or so higher than the next higher year, 2004. It also looks like figures seem to have some degree of correlation with Iraqi crude oil production, at least in recent years until 2006. Nil Einne (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
See also Sanctions against Iraq#Limitations on exports and the Oil For Food Programme for the post Gulf War situation. Alansplodge (talk) 12:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Welsh flag - pre 1953[edit]

1953-1959
1959-today
Flags of Wales 1953-1959 (Left) and 1959-Current (Right)

The current Flag of Wales shows the welsh dragon. During 1953-1959 one was used showing the Royal Badge of Wales. Was any flag or ensign used immediately prior to that or was the Union Jack used for all things? For instance; what would have been used at international football games and the British Empire/Commonwealth games prior to 1953?. Nanonic (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

"Cumberland Clark’s 1926 book about the flags of England and the Empire has no reference to a Welsh flag, but his 1934 book ‘The Flags of Britain’ has; ‘Those who happen to be in Wales on Saint David’s Day will catch a glimpse of a British banner that is rarely seen beyond the boundaries of Cambria. The national flag of Wales has a horizontally halved white over green background, with the famous Red Dragon over all.’" History of Y Ddraig Goch. The same article also shows another flag, used "by government buildings in London" was a "white field with the dragon standing on a patch of green grass". Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Alansplodge) Also see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Flag of Wales, where the issue was actually raised, and where there's a sort of a discussion going on. --Theurgist (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I have added my six penn'orth to the discussion by the football people, which I hope has helped. Maybe. Alansplodge (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

bond market - structured products - german "Zertifikate"[edit]

hi, anyone here into german "Zertifikate"-stuff? Is it possible to find a translation for them: "structured bonds, bond market"? "Structured derivative european-style bank-issued exotic bonds"? "Structured Reverse_convertible_securities"? "Structured reverse Convertible_bond"? "Over-the-counter derivatives"? Is there a common term for them? (OP on german refdesk: DE:Wikipedia:Auskunft#Was_hei.C3.9Ft_Zertifikat_.28Wirtschaft.29_auf_englisch.3F) Thanks advanced! --217.84.85.167 (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

UK military decoration ceremonies[edit]

L/Cpl Joshua Leakey was awarded the Victoria Cross on Wednesday. As can be seen from, for example, the BBC article on the event, he received the award wearing his everyday camoflage battledress. Not knowing much about this subject, I would have expected a more formal dress uniform to be appropriate for this sort of ceremony - however, my expectations were incorrect. Is there a tradition or protocol which dicates this sort of clothing for medal ceremonies? If so, perhaps a reference to it in the relevant articles would be useful. Tevildo (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't find an answer for you, but note that in the same video sequence, there was an image of Johnson Beharry receiving his VC while wearing No.2: Service dress which is more formal, but not THE most formal uniform.[13] I suspect that a decision was taken by his unit that the soldiers should appear in their "working clothes" (actually No.8: Temperate Combat Dress) to show that they are really fighting troops and not parade soldiers, but that's just a guess. Alansplodge (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

UK Chief Constables[edit]

Are UK Chief Constables of Police fully warranted police officers? Does anyone have any references or legislation to shed light on this issue? Thanks. asyndeton talk 22:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a notoriously difficult to disprove something, but look at it another way... When a serving police officer is made Chief Constable, is he somehow stripped of his powers or required to hand in his warrant card? It seems a bit unlikely. Until recently, many chief constables still wore their whistle chains, a symbol of their status as a police officer. Alansplodge (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The question would then become: are all Chief Constables of Police promoted from the ranks of warranted officers, or are some appointed as "political" position? My wife works in law enforcement in a forensic science lab: the Lab Director has no lab experience whatsoever, it's always been a political appointment of the State Attorney General, and IIRC, neither does the Deputy Director. The highest ranked person at her lab who are promoted from within are the two Assistant Lab Directors. So, by analogy, it would not be unexpected that a high ranking person such as the Chief Constable would be a political, rather than professional, appointment. If there were some Chief Constables who did not get their job by rising through the ranks, they may not be warranted. I have no idea if this applies to any currently serving, of the 50 listed at Chief constable. About half of them have biographies on Wikipedia. I checked the first three, and all were career warranted police officers. --Jayron32 00:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Chief Constables are now all professional police officers promoted through the ranks. They are all warranted officers. (There are political overseers of police forces (police and crime commissioners and the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime, and formerly police authorities), but they are not police officers and do not have operational control over the police.) The sole exception - a chief police officer, though not a Chief Constable - is the Commissioner of the City of London Police, which is governed by separate legislation (the City of London Police Act 1839). Although, like other chief officers, he has risen through the ranks (he was formerly Deputy Chief Constable of Kent Police), he is technically a justice of the peace and not a warranted police officer. The same used to be the case for certain senior officers of the Metropolitan Police, but they are now all warranted officers. (For completeness, the City Police are also overseen differently from other forces: instead of a police authority and now a police and crime commissioner, they are overseen by the Court of Common Council.) Proteus (Talk) 12:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Final Authority on UK Law[edit]

Can legislation.gov.uk be taken to be the final authority on UK law? If so, why is this? How many times is it peer reviewed (I ask as I wonder how sure they can be there are no errors that would affect the law)? Are there any other safeguards? How does the whole thing happen, if that can be easily explained? Thanks. asyndeton talk 22:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks to be the official government website. If there was an error on that site (anything is possible), it would not be binding. What is binding is the wording of the legislation as it was passed by Parliament, not a mistake in publishing it to a website. Is there a specific piece of legislation, whose text is on that website, which you have reason to doubt is the same as the text originally passed by Parliament? If you have specific questions about that website, This page here I found with a few clicks will likely answer them for you. --Jayron32 22:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
No, the final interpretation of the law, so in that sense the final authority, is by the judicial service. However, the website does indeed carry the legal text of the law, as held by the National Archives (see 'About Us'). You'd have to contact the National Archives about their error save-guards. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Interpretation of the law wasn't the question; the question asks about the text of the law (which can easily be ascertained from the printed originals), not its meaning or application. Only in an extremely rare situation, if ever, would the judiciary have to attempt to ascertain the official text itself, since official texts are routinely printed and distributed to law libraries. Nyttend (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The question was about "the final authority". Nowhere did it mention the text of the law. Whatever a law says, it's the interpretation of that law by a judge (or a series of judges) that matters in the end. Judges surely are the final authority, except where countermanded by a more senior judge. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I apologise for not being clear in my question. By final authority, I meant to ask whether or not the text of any act on legislation.gov.uk can be taken to be "the law" in the sense that it is the complete and official version and representation of the law, as passed by Parliament. I wondered whether or not there is a paper document somewhere that is seen as the unquestioned representation of the law, and the aforementioned site is simply meant to make what this says more widely available. Apologies again for not being clear. Thanks. asyndeton talk 00:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Neither their About Us page nor the page linked by Jayron addresses the issue of the website's authoritativeness. Based on viewing other legislation-hosting websites, I'll guess that Jayron's correct: in general, websites of this type are provided as public services, not as authoritative sources. While the webmasters attempt to be as accurate as possible, the online text has the force of law only if it's identical to the text of the law enacted by the legislature; if they make any mistakes in transcription, the officially enacted text takes precedence over the online text. This is why some such websites have disclaimers that say basically "If you rely on an erroneous piece of text on our website, you will be liable for violating the actual law, so consult a printed copy of the law and/or talk with a lawyer." Nyttend (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
It should be as good as printed copies, though. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Seeing as it is an official website of the UK Parliament, and not an independent site, I suspect (but cannot prove) that the text is not transcribed (by hand or OCR) but rather simply copied from the actual word processing files used to print the text of the bills voted on in Parliament. It is quite likely (but again, cannot be proven from what I can read at the site) that the text is as identical as possible. --Jayron32 00:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it probably is, but it's still possible for corruptions to occur. I don't remember where I read it, but there was a US court case (Supreme Court?) that held federal law to consist of what had officially been enacted by Congress and published in its official organ, the Statutes at Large — any other medium of publication is unofficial, unless Congress decides to make something else official. I would strongly suspect the same to be true of the UK Parliament with its website: unless they've designated the website as their official organ, some other publication is the complete and official version and representation of the law. If you don't have a single official publication, which always takes precedence when differences arise, you're in a horribly undesirable situation: people can always debate the meaning of the law, but it's absolutely necessary for the judiciary and the rest of the citizens to be able to know what the official text of the law says. Nyttend (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia articles are a bit out-of-date, but it does appear that the online database is official. See UK Statute Law Database and Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom#Acts in force. It appears that the office responsible for maintaining accurate records of the Acts of Parliament in force (and thus the corpus of British statutory law) is the The National Archives (United Kingdom). If the OP has genuine questions regarding the official copy of legislation, how it is maintained, and how to research it, they would be the people to contact. Their website is at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ and they have a contact page at http://apps.nationalarchives.gov.uk/contact/ which even has a phone number. That'd be the best way to get the question answered, since they are the ones responsible for maintaining the official records. --Jayron32 02:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Huh. Well, if Parliament have decreed that the online database be their official organ, it is the final authority on UK law, and there's no getting around it. I'm somewhat surprised, but I suppose it's to be expected in our electronic age. Nyttend (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe or maybe not. The Wikipedia articles are either uncited, out of date, or unclear on the matter. They certainly imply or state that, but where they state it outright they are uncited. Near as I can tell, the National Archives are the body charged by Parliament with maintaining the official records, and the online database MAY be that official record, or may be a copy of that record, it is unclear since we don't have a definitive outside-of-Wikipedia statement to that effect. Which is why I recommended the OP (and you if you really want to know) contact the National Archives directly and ask them. --Jayron32 02:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
No, again, it is not. It may be the final authority on the text of the law, copied from that held in the National Archives, but the final authority on the law itself is still the judiciary. Very important distinction to make. 82.21.7.184 (talk)

February 28[edit]

Who polices the police who police the police?[edit]

The Metropolitan Police Service has a specific department for investigating complaints against officers, ie the Directorate of Professional Standards, Who though is responsible for policing them? I have read a Freedom of Information Request that suggests it used to be the Metropolitan Police Authority, but has that not been replace by the Police and Crime Commissioner? Is their office responsible for keeping the DPS in line? Thanks. asyndeton talk 00:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you asking about the Metropolitan Police Service in Greater London?
Wavelength (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, although I suppose the question also applies more broadly to other constabularies within the UK, as I would have thought they would all follow a similar structure regarding these matters. If not though, the Met is the on I am most interested in. Thanks. asyndeton talk 00:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The Independent Police Complaints Commission (according to the Met's website [14]) "primary statutory purpose is to increase public confidence in the police complaints system in England and Wales." It continues; "The IPCC also investigates the most serious complaints and allegations of misconduct against the police in England and Wales, as well as handling some appeals from people who are not satisfied with the way police have dealt with their complaint". So the IPCC seems to have a regulatory role as well as being the ombudsman for those dissatisfied with police internal investigations. The Police and Crime Commissioner does not appear to have a direct role in enforcing police standards or the investigation of complaints according to Role of the PCC. Alansplodge (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
There's a division is responsibility between the IPCC and PCCs - the latter's role explained here. My understanding of the original question here would suggest that the PCC polices the DPS in all PCC'd areas. But for London, no PCC, but instead still Boris & co. [15] [16] ... and so the London assembly is the next level up. Clearly there is a lot of common ground between the IPCCs remit and that of PCCs; not sure how they handle that overlap. I disagree with Alansplodge ... if PCCs hold chief constables to account, then they are standards enforcers. If the DPS is failing, that is a matter for the PCC/Boris; but I suspect the cases which are failing in the DPS are the remit of the IPCC. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you're right. Alansplodge (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
"When in the Course of human events...." μηδείς (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Go on, enlighten us please. What is the relevance? Alansplodge (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I am fairly certain you can identify the next noun in that sentence without my help. μηδείς (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
"People"? Still means nought to me I'm afraid. Alansplodge (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Specifically, people armed with video cameras. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Bugs. I knew there was a point in there somewhere. Alansplodge (talk) 09:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
One important thing to consider is that the police, unlike victims of the police, are fairly well able to defend themselves. Consider a prostitute who is raped by a cop. Who is going to believe her ? Nobody, so he gets away with it, unless there happens to be some rather substantial proof. Now consider a cop who is told by somebody investigating him that he needs to pay a bribe or be found guilty of whatever offence. The copy would know how to wear a wire, mark the money he pays as the bribe/write down the serial numbers, contact the proper authorities, etc. StuRat (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Mind your POV, please. --70.49.169.244 (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

UK royal assent[edit]

The discussions up above make me wonder: who officially grants Royal Assent to Acts of the Scottish Parliament? It's not in the UK section of Royal Assent, but neither is anything on who officially grants it to Acts of the UK Parliament. I remember reading somewhere (but I can't remember or discover where) that Royal Assent was first granted by a non-monarch (by an individual? by a committee? I can't remember) during the reign of Henry VIII, since he didn't want to sign the bill of attainder against one of his wives, and that this procedure is pretty much always followed today for Acts of the UK Parliament. I'm curious if the same type of official or same type of body grants Royal Assent to Scottish, Welsh, and Nirish acts. The article quotes the ordinary Assent formulæ, which say "By The Queen Herself Signed with Her Own Hand", but it would seem odd for Royal Assent always to be granted in person to Scottish, Welsh, and Nirish acts if it were rarely or never given to acts of the UK Parliament. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I just realised that there's additional information farther down in the Royal Assent article. Does the Queen personally sign all bills passed by the national and devolved parliaments? Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Likely she doesn't. The job of officially assenting to legislation long ago passed out of the hands of the Monarch, even before the Monarch lost all of his or her real power. Even when Monarchs had power, they had a official "Keepers of the Seal", whose job it was to affix the official seal to Acts that had royal assent. The UK has both a Privy Seal and a Great Seal of the Realm. It also has people whose job it is to keep said seals, the Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal and the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal. In the modern UK, the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal is usually also the Lord Chancellor. In commonwealth realms today, royal assent is accomplished when the Governor-General personally signs the bill. In the UK itself, a bill gets royal assent when either the Monarch appears personally in parliament to grant said assent (a rare event) or, more commonly, by the Lords Commissioners, who are given the authority to grant royal assent; the most important commissioner is the aforementioned Lord Chancellor. In reality, it seems, few acts of Parliament get the full "ceremonial" treatment in Lords; the Lords Commissioners simply issue a letters patent giving the Royal Consent. I can't find who formally signs or seals the legislation, but I doubt the Queen does personally. --Jayron32 02:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
That's something I found unclear in the article. It says that no monarch since Victoria has personally granted assent to Acts of the UK Parliament, and it says that the commission process only happens once per year, with all other bills being granted assent by letters patent. Since the personal-granting process involved the monarch physically going to the House of Lords and going through the various ceremonies, I figured that the "not since Victoria" statement didn't address whether the monarch personally signs bills. Acts_of_Parliament_in_the_United_Kingdom#Sovereignty says that there are only approximately fifty Acts of Parliament annually; I figured it wouldn't be that much of a strain on the royal right (or left) hand to sign her name once per week. Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but that would still imply that she actually participates in passage of said acts. I seriously doubt it. I suspect (but cannot find sources) that the actual official passage involves the Lord Chancellor in some way; much of the roles held by the Governors-General in other commonwealth realms are held by the Lord Chancellor in the UK. --Jayron32 02:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The process is described here [17] --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Prince William was scheduled to be next king of UK?[edit]

[18] This is news to me, they were going to skip over Prince Charles? Is that for real? Does it refer to some kind of rumor or joke that was making the rounds in the UK? I couldn't find anything about it in the Wikipedia articles about Charles or William. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

There was some idle speculation (by people who get paid to do nothing except idly speculate) that Charles would be skipped over, especially around the time of his split with Diana and his much-publicized relationship with Camila. See here for but one example. However, there has never been any official word on this in any sense. Officially, Charles is in line to succeed Elizabeth. There has never been any word otherwise from anyone except people who like to suppose about such possibilities. --Jayron32 05:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I wondered if the article might even be satire. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
As the article itself acknowledges, the law says that Charles will succeed Elizabeth unless he predeceases her. That is an almost insuperable obstacle to bypassing Charles. Sure, people have speculated that an alternative plan will be engineered and the throne will go direct to William. But they never talk about what the mechanics of that plan would be. The law would need to be changed, and that would require the support of the government, and a majority of MPs and a majority of voting peers to agree. Then it would require the Queen's assent. She has never shown the slightest indication that she favours altering the current succession arrangements. She has lived her whole life doing her constitutional duty, and long ago she vowed that she would serve as queen till death. So with a record of continuity like that, it's hardly likely she'd support ditching her son and heir after having groomed him assiduously for 65 years. Then the Statute of Westminster would come into play. The governments of all the other 15 Commonwealth realms would need to agree. That's hardly likely given that Charles has been showered with honours by all of them. But before such a process ever got anywhere near that stage, there would need to be very, very, very, very good reasons advanced for going down that path. "Charles is a bit eccentric", or "Charles was not loyal to Diana", or "We don't like him" are most certainly not such reasons. Apart from the acknowledgment about the legal situation, the article is complete rubbish. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Is there a provision that if, for some reason, an heir is disabled somehow and cannot perform the duties of the Monarch, that the next in line would take it instead? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Not as far as I know. If a monarch is unable to carry out their duties, there would be a regency in theory; for instance when the Prince Regent took over the role of George III. However, it's much more likely that the role would be unofficially delegated to other members of the Royal Family, as happens when a monarch gets too old and frail to do the job. Alansplodge (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The article is absolute bollocks, and can be safely ignored. There has been absolutely no discussion of this in Parliament, and without a change in the law it cannot happen. When the Queen dies, Charles will become King at exactly that instant. I have to say, when I read it I almost thought it was satire too. RomanSpa (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally, at the moment Charles becomes King, Camilla will become Queen. It has been indicated by Buckingham Palace that she will not use the title, but that won't in any way change the fact that she will legally be Queen Consort. I have the strong impression that neither Charles nor Camilla is particularly popular, with Charles being particularly unpopular amongst educated people, but we've had stupid and unpopular monarchs in the past, and have gradually evolved ways of keeping them in their (gilded) cages, so we'll survive. RomanSpa (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Nope. Camilla does not get the title "Queen Consort." "consort" will be a description of her position (as opposed to "regnant") but that is it. "lower case." Collect (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
How embarrassing, but on further checking I suspect you're right! My apologies to the questioner for my incorrect use of upper case, and thanks to Collect for his kind correction. RomanSpa (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks all. I figured the succession couldn't be altered unless Charles went along with it, but if the rest of the family convinced him to do so, he could step aside in favor of William, something like Edward VIII did in the movie about the speech coach. Anyway it all sounds unlikely. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I think some of this talk could be fuelled by the terminological inexactitude favoured by some members of the fourth estate and other lower orders. People often refer to William, and now also George, as "heirs" to the throne. Well, the fact is that there is only ever one heir, and that is the person who would succeed on the current monarch's death. Charles is the sole heir, and has been for the entirety of the Queen's reign. The fact that his progeny are in the line of succession does not make them heirs. They are, at best, probable future heirs. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Some insist an heir is strictly one who has inherited: nemo heres viventis. Charles is heir apparent, meaning that he will certainly be king if he lives long enough (and the creek don't rise). The same is true of William and George, and not of Anne or Andrew; so I reckon it makes sense to describe William as the second heir apparent (though that usage may be unique to me). —Tamfang (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Mutineer John Adams[edit]

The article John Adams (mutineer) and the sources are in contradiction whether his real name was John Adams or Alexander Smith. Does anyone know for sure when he had assumed which name, and maybe even the reason? And another question: As the British got to know the community in 1814, William Bligh should have got to know it before he died in 1817. But there is no indication this happened. Why, possibly? --KnightMove (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

WAG alert. There's no indication he wasn't notified. By this time, I imagine he would rather not have brought attention to this particular part of his career. What could he have done about it anyway? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, by "got to know it" you mean "became aware of what happened to the mutineers"? —Tamfang (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Decoration in a Buddhist temple[edit]

Recently I visited a Buddhist temple in Margaret Street, central London. It seems to be mainly used by the local Chinese community. On the walls of the main hall are very large numbers of plaques with images of the Buddha, all in the same style, but with differences in colour and posture, and each with a different number. In another room the decoration comprises paper wall coverings each with very large numbers of small rectangular panels, each numbered, and some containing Chinese characters.

Can anyone explain what all this signifies? To forestall the obvious answer, I intended to ask the attendant on the spot, but she was engaged with another visitor and I wasn't able to wait until she was free. --rossb (talk) 10:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

UK population by age and sex in early 20th century[edit]

I'd like to have UK population estimates by age and sex for 1900-1950 or so. I thought it would be relatively easy to find, since surely it has been calculated before, but it's not popping up on google. Close to yearly data would be ideal. Wikipedia's article Demographics of UK is not really helpful for this. --86.50.42.2 (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

UK law re ejaculating during rape[edit]

I was reading the news when I came across this article, which states:

Delivering the sentence, Judge Peter Lodder QC, said: "The starting point for an offence of this nature is eight years but...this was aggravated, it was a group attack and you ejaculated.

This is the first time I have seen a sentence for rape extended because the man ejaculated. Is this common? Is there a specific law against ejaculating during rape? I thought rape was defined as penile insertion into an orifice without consent; whether he ejaculated or not is besides the point because the act of rape has already been committed. I'm also struggling to think of a scenario where a man would commit rape but NOT ejaculate, as that would seem to be the main goal of the act.

Thank you for your help TepidLaw (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure about the last bit. Some rapists have been known to use condoms, or ejaculate on their victims' body. Also, whilst rape may be motivated by sexual desire, this is far from a given. A significant proportion of rapes would qualify as hate crimes, in the sense that the rapist has a burning hatred against the female half of humanity. Sex being simply the weapon to hurt the woman, rather than lust. A classical example of this sort of rapist would be Peter Dupas, but no doubt wikipedians can point out dozens of others. Such rapists may well not care whether they ejaculate101.160.63.123 (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
See Rape in English law and this official guideline from the Crown Prosecution Service. The actus reus of rape involves any degree of penetration (of any orifice, but with the penis), and ejaculation is explicitly listed as an aggravating factor. Tevildo (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) According to Sentencing in England and Wales, the Court has the discretion to issue sentences within ranges determined by the guidelines laid out by the Sentencing Council. Whether the Court issues a sentence along the lower or upper edges of the range is due to aggravating factors which may not necessarily be outlined by statute (indeed, it may be impossible for the statutes to forsee every potential aggravating factor). In this case, statute DOES explicitly list ejaculation as aggravating enough to give a sentence on the harsher end of the guidelines. It doesn't necessarily mean that penalties for ejaculating during rape are specifically laid out by statute; that is ejaculation gets X number of years tacked on. But it does mean that Judges are supposed to consider it when deciding sentences. UK law is based on common law, which gives judges in courts a lot of leeway in making determinations of this nature outside of statute. --Jayron32 17:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Without ejaculation, there is minimal chance the woman can become pregnant. Ejaculation has the potential to change the event from something horrific to something horrific + having a child she never wanted and whose very presence would be a perpetual reminder of the rape, regardless of how much the woman was able to love the child. That is an entirely new ball game. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Pregnancy is an additional aggravating factor under English law, incidentally. Tevildo (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Swords and Prostitutes Myths[edit]

Does anyone know any story/myth about the ‘sword’? A ‘female’ used as a ‘sword’? Prostituting woman/women for personal benefits…? Anything relative? -- (SuperGirlsVibrator (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC))

The only thing related I can think of is that vagina (not safe for work) is from the Latin for (sword) sheath. See Vagina#Etymology_and_definition (still not safe for work). However, that says nothing about prostitution. StuRat (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay thanks; I've not found anything either... -- (SuperGirlsVibrator (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC))

Was the constitution of 1787 was a conservative document?[edit]

In reference to the original United States constitution and before any of the amendments, was this a conservative document? --Samghatski (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

This was just asked. Were you the one who asked last time ? StuRat (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
no. --Samghatski (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The answer is the same as it was a few days ago.[19]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Also some answers here [20] Nil Einne (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Just answer the fucking question. --Samghatski (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Just follow the fucking link; it's not a one-word answer. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
People help around here; everyone will help to the best of their knowledge. A friendly advice, "Don't swear at these people/Don't bite the hand that feeds you". You are the one who is in need of help, and you are using provoking words... Please don't anymore, cause someone will reply back e.g., Jpgordon. Treat people the way you wish to be treated... -- (SuperGirlsVibrator (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC))
Okay.... Nil Einne (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
No. Nil Einne (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Nil Einne (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Ahoadamah and Fathi al-Ka'en[edit]

Who are Ahoadamah and Fathi al-Ka'en actually? Google returns only news about destroyed buildings named after them, but both guys seem to be some kind of saints (with Fathi al-Ka'en being probably a Sheikh). The only source about Ahoadamah I've spotted briefly says he was the Patriarch who was killed by the Persian King Khosrow I. Maybe there an alternative, more common spelling of these names? Brandmeistertalk 20:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

"Ahoadamah" is probably Ahudemmeh. Still searching for al-Ka'en. Tevildo (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
No joy so far, I'm afraid. He doesn't appear to have come to the attention of the wider historical community until his shrine was destroyed. The shrine doesn't appear in Mosques and shrines of Mosul. See Destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL for context. Tevildo (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks anyway, I've redirected Ahoadamah to Ahudemmeh (the Destruction article was created by me). Brandmeistertalk 17:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Good work on that! Incidentally, although most of the post-ISIL sources state that the Green Church (Mar Hudeni) was 7th-century, sources from a few years ago (here, for example) state that it was (first) destroyed in 1089, and this site states that it was "reconstructed" in 1970. Not that this makes ISIL's activities any less barbaric, of course, but accuracy is always important. Tevildo (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, that second link is about a church dedicated to Ahudemmeh in Mosul, not the one in Tikrit that ISIL destroyed. Tevildo (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

March 1[edit]

How enlightened was Sarastro?[edit]

In the Magic Flute (Zauberflöte), Sarastro answers Pamina's plea to spare her mother with the immortal words "Within these holy portals, revenge remains unknown, and if a mortal erred, he will walk cheerfully and happily into the better land." That was after he had held Pamina captive and subjected her to what amounts to psychological torture which for a mere mortal like Papageno (performed by the librettist himself) was unbearable. But when Pamina's worried and erring mother enters the holy portals, she is plunged to destruction and infinite night. Of course some standards were different then, but that clearly seems like a broken promise, if there ever was one. Was that a role model of an enlightened ruler? — Sebastian 06:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I found an interesting article on Sarastro-as-tyrant here. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, that's an excellent essay. I wholeheartedly agree with Mr Jochnowitz. He concisely expresses (almost) all my concerns, even those I had only been subconsciously aware of, and opened my eyes for a number of points I hadn't even noticed, such as that all the good and life saving genii and gadgets come from the Queen. This leads to an earlier unanswered RD/H question by (anonymous) titled "Così fan tutte", which I may rephrase as: Was there any contemporary critic who objected to the misogyny of these operas or the tyranny glorified in the Zauberflöte?
But at least the idea of "revenge remains unknown" is very laudable for a worldly ruler. My first reaction was "what hypocrisy!", but maybe that was just a natural step in the process. Despite the claim that "A woman does little, chatters a lot", talking comes easier to men, too. Can it be that talking about a ruler not using revenge, even when he breaks that promise, was still a step towards true enlightenment? — Sebastian 20:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Which is the oldest city arms?[edit]

Is the coat of arms of Košice the oldest municipal heraldic arms? Please give your view at Talk:Coat of arms of Košice! Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 09:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

According to Coat of arms of Madrid, that city's coat of arms goes back to 1212 (easily beating Košice at 1369). If the requirement is for an unchanged coat of arms, that of Ventspils also dates from 1369 (see this site). The coat of arms of the City of London officially dates from "time immemorial" (1189), but is only recorded from 1381. Tevildo (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Exotic areas within the same country[edit]

Many Finns from the Helsinki capital region think of Lapland as an exotic wilderness, even though it's in the same country. Does this happen in other countries in Europe outside the Nordic countries? Are there countries there where people in one area view another area in the same country as an exotic wilderness or a tourist resort? Do for example Berliners think this of Bavaria, or Parisians of the Riviera? JIP | Talk 10:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure this is true for many city-dwellers. I'm in London, and regard anywhere outside about Zone 3 as a bit foreign (though I make an exception for Manhattan, which is clearly just another part of London, though with a tiresomely long commute). There has long been a joke that "Civilisation ends at Watford". I think of the Lake District and the Peak District as rather wild and untamed, and Snowdonia as complete wilderness. Of course, I also think that Hampstead Heath is a bit wild! This is what happens to you if you live in cities too long. RomanSpa (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I live in Liverpool and anywhere outside our metropolitan borough is exotic, especially the places RomanSpa has mentioned, plus North Wales and Scotland. It makes us feel we are back with our Celtic roots, after this Anglo-Saxon invasion. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 12:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
All nicely summarised here. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I think in The Madness of King George (I can't remember if it was the play or the flick, but it was probably both) somebody describes Scotland as being 'five hundred miles north of civilization'. I know we're not supposed to refer to original research, but my original research confirms this assertion. Hayttom 15:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talkcontribs)
Well, it was the Scottish Highlands which were actually thought of as being foreign and uncivilised, and not just by the English. Before the Acts of Union 1707, Lowland Scots, who spoke Lallans, regarded the Gaelic speaking Highlanders as a breed apart, to kept in check by "Letters of Fire and Sword". The Glencoe Massacre was ordered by the Scottish government and carried out by Scottish troops. To make matters worse, the Highlanders often retained their Catholic faith, while the rest of Scotland became strict Presbyterians. Alansplodge (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Having lived or travelled just about everywhere in the US east of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, as well as in Houston, and Puerto Rico, I don't share this view, but this is the iconic image of a New Yorker's view of the world. μηδείς (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The Japanese used to view the Ainu people of Hokkaido as foreign barbarians apparently. Alansplodge (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Citizens of Minneapolis have been known to express similar sentiments about St. Paul. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
(New Yorker observation) Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 10 Adar 5775 22:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Even governor Ventura was known to make negative comments about St. Paul. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Back to the OP's question, the U.S. tends to think of Hawaii as rather foreign and exotic, owing in part to its remoteness from the rest of the country and in part due to the large ethnic and cultural differences between Hawaiians and mainlanders. --Jayron32 00:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The same could be said of Alaska, it used to be our great last frontier, but the recent perception is more of it being bumpkin territory (especially thanks to a certain former VP candidate and reality shows on a certain channel) whereas Hawai'i is the sort of stereotypical tropics with a bit more America tossed in. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 11 Adar 5775 01:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Have a look at the portrayal of southerners in Asterix. —Tamfang (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
In France, Corsica is considered somewhat of a wild frontier with very different mores than the rest of the country. Brittany used to be thought of the same way (think of Paul Gauguin starting his career as an exotic painter there before moving to Polynesia), but it's been pretty much tamed since the 1940s or so. Not to speak of the overseas departments and territories which are not in Europe and are therefore genuinely exotic. --Xuxl (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
In Canada, Nunavut, Northwest Territories and Yukon are sometimes thought of like that. Occasionally they are thought of as foreign parts. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Saving Private Ryan[edit]

I watched this excellent film portraying the Normandy landings in 1944. Two scenes stick out in my mind, though I have to say that Steven Spielberg must have been devastated to lose out the Best Picture Award to Shakespeare in Love, despite winning Best Director for himself. I digress. We saw Tom Hanks collecting "Dogtags" from dead soldiers and using them to rule out the possibility that Private Ryan might be already dead. But at the beginning and end of the film, we see the survived Ryan visiting a War Cemetery in France and paying tribute to the Tom Hanks character who died in battle. My question is simply this. How were the dead soldiers' bodies identified for subsequent burial if their ID Dogtags had been removed? Is it likely that those un identified soldiers would have been buried amongst their identified fallen comrades and their headstones been engraved with the details taken from any one of the collected Dog tags? I would have no personal problem with that scenario given the horrifying circumstances and aftermath of any battle, but am just curious to know the reality of what happens in such circumstances. Many thanks in anticipation. 92.239.221.31 (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

In WW2, the dogtags were collected to show the commanding officer the number of casualties, and the names of such. When bodies were finally retrieved and buried, they were essentially unknown, unless someone could come and identify them. KägeTorä - () (Chin Wag) 12:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
As I suspected. But thanks for your early confirmation. I know that when I visit a cemetery and read the inscription, I am thinking of the person I remember, not the contents of the gravesite. A bit like the Westminster Abbey Grave of The Unknown Soldier. Thanks again. Jaspergardrum (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
A pair of US Marine dog tags. One was collected, the other stayed with the body.
I don't think you're right KägeTorä; our dog tag article says (in the lead paragraph) that tags are "designed to break easily into two pieces; some nations use two identical tags. This allows half the tag (or one of two tags) to be collected from a soldier's body for notification, while the other half (or other tag) remains with the corpse when battle conditions prevent the body from being immediately recovered". Apparently, the US Army dog tag adopted "...in 1942, the first tag is to be suspended on a necklace 25 inches in length, while the second tag is to be fixed to a separate necklace extension not further than 2 ½ inches under the first one...", according to WW2 US Medical Research Centre - U.S. Army WW2 Dog Tags. Unknown soldiers would have lost their dog tags, easy to imagine if you get blown up by a mine or high explosive shell. Alansplodge (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

During Henry VIII's reign, what areas did he control besides England?[edit]

During Henry VIII's reign, what areas did he control besides England?Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Our article Henry VIII of England begins "Henry VIII (28 June 1491 – 28 January 1547) was King of England from 21 April 1509 until his death. He was Lord, and later assumed the Kingship, of Ireland, and continued the nominal claim by English monarchs to the Kingdom of France.". --ColinFine (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and Wales had been incorporated into the English Crown some while before, but Scotland was a separate country with its own monarch. --ColinFine (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
He would have also had control over a smattering of other areas not formally part of England proper, including the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, which were not then (as they are not now) part of England, and the Pale of Calais in what is now France, but which had been controlled by the English crown since early in the Hundred Years War. In his various wars, Henry also at times expanded or lost land in and around Calais, including Boulogne, which Henry had taken control of for a few years in the 1540s, see Sieges of Boulogne (1544–46). --Jayron32 00:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
In Ireland, Henry only had any real control over The Pale in the east of the country, and even that was delegated to Hiberno-Norman lords. After assuming the Kingship of Ireland in 1542, the policy was to bring the native Irish nobles under royal control by the grant of titles, privileges and outright bribes, which was only partially successful. Henry's successors would use more repressive methods - see Tudor conquest of Ireland. Alansplodge (talk) 11:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Where can I find a copy of the 1964 Constitution of Haiti in English?[edit]

Where can I find a copy of the 1964 Constitution of Haiti in English? Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Here. 3rd result on a google search for "1964 Constitution of Haiti". Nanonic (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Who controlled Aquitaine in 1066?[edit]

Who controlled Aquitaine in 1066? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.84.28.198 (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Unless you mean something I'm not picking up on, it was William VIII, Duke of Aquitaine. Deor (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2[edit]

Turkmenistan[edit]

Who controlled what is now Turkmenistan in 1066?Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I infer from the Turkmenistan article that it would have been the Seljuk Empire. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
A bit of northern Turkmenistan wasn't controlled by the Seljuks. At the time, that little northern sliver was probably under the control of various Turkic petty states, probably Oghuz Turks from who modern Turkmen people evolved. --Jayron32 01:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, since the OP seems to be picking through every country in the world and it's state in 1066, here: File:East-Hem 1100ad.jpg is a map of Eurasia and Africa in 1100AD, which is about as close as we're going to get to a complete map in exactly 1066. --Jayron32 01:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Vanilla Coke[edit]

When was Vanilla Coke Zero made and released? Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Somewhere around 1066. Or, check out Coca-Cola Vanilla. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Very funny. (No,really.)Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

No, really, check out the article. As Prego would claim "It's in there!". Dismas|(talk) 11:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Ha! Nice. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:22, March 2, 2015 (UTC)
Seriously though, that just says "2007-present". When's that? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:25, March 2, 2015 (UTC)
Nevermind, it actually means present. You never know with Wikipedia sometimes. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:27, March 2, 2015 (UTC)
You never know ... sometimes: What a strange language we have! That reminds me of the playground exchange between a teacher and a distressed child:
  • Why are you crying, Mary?
  • Julie's horrible to me! We're playing fiddle-de-dee but she always never lets me have a turn. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Aunts ...[edit]

Is it possible to be sexually attracted to your first cousin, half sibling or an aunt? If so, how rare is it? Also whats the correct terminology for individuals who harbour such feelings? I have thought about incestophiles, incesters, cousincest, incestophilia and siblingcest but am unsure. 89.242.85.248 (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Not just sexual attraction, but cousin marriage. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
There's also accidental incest. If you were closely related to Mariah Carey or Brad Pitt, the word would be "normal". Clarityfiend (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
In the Book of Common Prayer is a Table of Kindred and Affinity showing those that the Church of England thinks should not marry each other. The fact that they found there was a need for a list suggests that it's not a rare issue. Alansplodge (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Are you trying to tell me that if your sister or aunt looked like Jessica Alba it would be normal to be excited? 89.242.85.248 (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Sexual attraction, or lack of it, between close-ish relatives is partly determined by how unfamiliar, or familiar, they were with each other while growing up: see Westermarck effect. I recall reading that kibbutzim who, though unrelated, were raised together communally like siblings, tend to feel sexually attracted to one another no more that actual siblings do on average. Conversely, siblings (or other close relatives) raised with little contact in childhood are more likely to feel mutual sexual attraction that if they had shared an upbringing: see, as a dramatised example, the play/film 'Tis Pity She's A Whore. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
You might be interested in the general biological concepts of kin recognition, and inbreeding avoidance. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Precedence of Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna of Russia[edit]

The Wiki article on Maria Alexandrovna states "Queen Victoria granted her precedence immediately after the Princess of Wales." The Wiki article on her husband, Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, says that she was "She was surprised to discover that she had to yield precedence to the Princess of Wales and all of Queen Victoria's daughters". As the wife of the sovereign's second son, surely she would have automatically been entitled to a position in the order of precedence after the Princess of Wales and before the queen's daughters, without the need for the queen to "grant" her this? Sotakeit (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thailand[edit]

What wikipedia articles should I read to get a good idea of the political history of Thailand? Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

How far back do you want to go? We have History of Thailand, but also things like History_of_Thailand_(1932–73), which covers that period in more detail. List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Thailand doesn't have much writing on political history per se, but it has lots of links to relevant articles like Siamese_coup_d'état_of_1933 and Khana_Ratsadon. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I want to go as far back as possible, and then from there to the present day.Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Start with History of Thailand and see where that takes you. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)