Humanities desk
< May 9	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 10[edit]

dedicatee's last name[edit]

I recently read, "Sadako and the Thousand Paper Cranes," by Eleanor Coerr. When I did a little more research I learned she was aided by a missionary who was living in Japan. In the opening pages, the dedicatee's name is Laura. Apparently, that was the missionary's name. But I'd like to find out Laura's last name. If more information is available, please let me know. Thank you so very much.24.90.204.234 (talk) 01:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only information I could find was on this bio page of the author herself. It doesn't mention the missionary's name. Maybe you could contact the publishing company and ask them to relay this question on to the author. On a side note, I am very surprised to hear that there were missionaries living in Hiroshima during WW2, so I too would be interested in finding out more about this person. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying flags - The Hippodrome Theater, 1905[edit]

I direct you to this picture put up on Shorpy today: http://www.shorpy.com/files/images/4a12613a.jpg. Obviously it being black and white confounds identifying every single one, but there are a couple I'm not sure about:

1) What is the one two to the right of the Turkish flag, directly adjacent to what appears to be the Argentinian flag? Sri Lanka wasn't a country.

2) 2 to the right of 1)

3) 2 to the left of the Turkish flag. Looks like the present-day Andorran flag, but they were of course not a formal entity back in 1905 so that can't be it.

4) On the far right, left of what is presumably the American flag. Unless I'm seeing this wrong it's the Portuguese flag (only adopted in 1911 after the young King Manuel II was deposed) except with three vertical bands instead?

5) 9th flag from the left.

The rest seem a bit too blurry to make out, but if anyone could do the rest as well that'd be interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlmostCrimes (talk • contribs) 03:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://i.ebayimg.com/06/!Br1sNmQ!mk~$%28KGrHqQOKjoEvO0ucsKfBL1bORUPTw~~_3.JPG I've found a postcard that is LIKELY from the same time that's in color! AlmostCrimes (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, two comments: 1) the first link doesn't work, at least for me, and 2) you should bear in mind the possibility that whoever hand-colored (?) the postcard might not have actually seen the flags, and just filled in whichever colors he/she found appropriate. Jørgen (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, that's curious. http://www.shorpy.com/node/8145 should definitely work. AlmostCrimes (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And there we go, I seem to have neglected to notice the comment already there. Italian flag's a curious one. Thanks anyway.AlmostCrimes (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great-great-great grandparents of Charles II of Spain[edit]

How many Great-great-great grandparents did Charles II of Spain have out of 32 possible Great-great-great grandparents? Can someone do the genealogy for me? It doesn't matter that some of his Great-great-great grandparents were also the fathers or mothers of his other Great-great-great grandparents, I just the number of his Great-great-great grandparents without repeats? I trying to compare European inbreeding and Hawaiian inbreeding. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this image help? (On the Charles II of Spain article it says "note the large amount of inbreeding", heh). Adam Bishop (talk) 05:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, really the whole different line thing is really messing with my head. Can anybody give me a specific number? I found Keopuolani had only 13 out of 32 possible Great-great-great grandparents by adding an extra genetration on the ancestry box and then crossing out the same people in that generation. Can someone do the same for Charles II of Spain? I would do it but it took me a really long time to just do this one and I'm really tired.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This image here: File:Carlos segundo80.png implies that most of the thirty-two slots are filled by two people: Philip I of Castile and his wife Joanna the Mad. It is complicated by generational jumps (for example, his father and mother were uncle-neice). It appears that all but 6 of the 32 possible Great-great-great grandparents "slots" were Philip and Joanna, or direct decendents thereof (that is, depending on the path taken, one could make the same person either a great-great-great grandparent or a great-great-grandparent). The only exceptions I can find is Francis I, Duke of Lorraine, Albert V, Duke of Bavaria, Manuel I of Portugal, his wife Maria of Aragon and Castile (who was actually a sister of Joanna the Mad), Vladislas II of Hungary, and Anna of Foix-Candale. Numerous decendents of Philip and Joanna also could count as "5 generations back" from Charles II, depending on how you count, for example Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor appears to count as one of the 32 slots, as does Charles II of Austria, while Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor seems to count for at least 2. You'll have to play around with that chart to get an exact number, but at MY count, I get all of the following as possible "5 generations back" ancestors:

Several of these (marked with * or $) are decendents of other great-great-great grandparents, * = decendent of Philip and Joanna, while $ = decendent of Manuel I and Maria of Aragon & Castile. Also, as noted, Maria of A&C was a sister of Joanna the Mad, so there's some complications there as well. I hope that helps. At my count, then, that gives 14 different individuals would could be counted as 5 generational steps back from Charles II, though as noted, all but 8 of these were themselves sons or daughters of other people already on the list.--Jayron32 05:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. It's amazing that sibling marriages were almost equal to the inbreeding within the House of Habsburg.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on pedigree collapse. The German version has more on examples of European royals. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god! [[Keopuolani had a maximum of only 18 out fo 64 great-great-great-great grandparents compared to Charles II's 32 out of 64. By the way thanks!--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK Election[edit]

Is Quentin Davies who is now not an MP still Minister ~~of state~~ for Defence Equipment and Support? Kittybrewster ☎ 06:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that, until such a time as a new Prime Minister is invited to form a new Government by the Queen, both the Prime Minister and all department heads maintain their positions indefinately. There is also no requirement that either the PM or any of the other ministers are actually MPs. For practical reasons, the PM is always a member of the House of Commons, but that is a pragmatic concern, and not a constitutional requirement. So, AFAIK, constitutionally speaking, there is no requirement for ANY member of the government or the cabinet, including the Prime Minister, to also be a member of the House of Commons, though most (possibly nearly all) usually are. --Jayron32 06:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See [1] and [2] for example. Gabbe (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In practice we're still in Purdah so not having a minister isn't really an issue. No major procurement contracts are likely to be agreed until such time as the new government is appointed.

It does raise an interesting issue of clearances, as MPs aren't formally vetted, they have a right of access by virtue of their position. So essentially members of the public are part of government and have access to some potentially very sensitive material yet don't have the clearances to allow them to.

ALR (talk) 08:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm I'm not sure they're "not formally vetted": I believe (this is OR due to my involvement with the political system over the years) that security clearance is informally sought for each candidate in each election as soon as their nomination papers are received by the officials. I'm not sure whether this extends to their nominees though. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MI5 give the PM advice of whether prospective ministers can be trusted. I don't think regular MPs are vetted in any way. --Tango (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Security Service advise the PM on any risks to the compromise of an MP that he or she is considering appointing to certain posts. The PM may or may not appoint. They don't have any vetting status, as such. Essentially one can't call up FCO Services, Defence Vetting Agency or the Met and ask for the question as one would for Civil Serpents, military or external advisors.

MPs don't have any vetting as a matter of routine and don't have any right of access to government information. They ask questions either through PQs or FOIA requests.

ALR (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically enough, once Jim Knight is replaced as Employment minister, he'll be unemployed... ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 20:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet dissidents - quoting and denouncing[edit]

I once heard a story about Soviet dissidents, it goes something like this: In order to get criticism of the Soviet Union into print they would quote a critic (Western or otherwise), ostensibly to denounce him. So you quote the critic for a page, then denounce him for a paragraph, then quote him again at length and then briefly denounce him again and so on.

Is there any truth to this story? If there is, does anyone have a decent source which mentions this? Haukur (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard anything about that, but it does remind me of a certain style of 19th-century supposedly "outraged" journalism, which apparently went something like this: "How long will Mademoiselle Fifi be permitted to continue to perpetrate her debauched exhibitions of terpsichorean lasciviousness which are corrupting the very moral fabric of this community, every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday evening at 7 o'clock in the second-story rooms at 123 State Street, admission price fifty cents? How long?"

-- AnonMoos (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, good one :D Haukur (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The real dissidents were excommunicated. The practice did in fact exist, but those were men and women of the establishment, not dedicated opponents of the regime. And their topics were usually limited to something specific and manageble rather than wholesome critic of the system. East of Borschov (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the correction - this would indeed not be something a full-blown samizdat-publishing dissident would do. Nevertheless, I would be interested in any specific example or source you could think of. Haukur (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure excommunication is the word you're looking for? Marnanel (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He made a funny. Check out what he linked to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used to hear that the comedians in Russia could venture into political topics if they kept it to impersonal subjects like bureaucratic red tape, which was probably a frustration even for the country's leaders. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excommunication in a clerical state was a very serious matter. East of Borschov (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So was what the editor linked to, which was Punitive psychiatry in the Soviet Union. In the old days, getting excommunicated could cause you a lot of trouble. Nowadays excommunication only matters if you think the Catholic Church matters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's still administered when believed necessary by many Protestant denominations as well. Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the same principle applies. A church can no longer send you to Siberia or burn you at the stake. All they can do is tell you to get out and stay out. "Excommunication" in the USSR was not at all a good thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK election results[edit]

Hi, do anyone know of a place to download full UK parliament election results, by constituency? The official page surprisingly says they won't put the results up for some time, and most other places I can find (such as BBC) has only fancy color graphs for the constituencies and a summary table for the country as a whole. I'd like a text file such as CSV or some sort of easily copy-and-paste-able HTML table. Any help appreciated. Thanks! Jørgen (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MPs_elected_in_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010 Kittybrewster ☎ 10:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Apparently, I was not specific enough. I am looking for a full list of the votes cast for each party, by constituency. Again, thanks to anyone who might know... Jørgen (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC has a whole country summary here, but it also has a link from the same page to each constituency's own page, which contains a full breakdown of its results ("constituency ~~results~~ list" button on the left side of the page). This is not the easy table you're looking for, but at least the information is there if you don't find a better source. Ka renjc 12:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spreadsheet here. Dalliance (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just what I was looking for! Thank you! Jørgen (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parallels of the Prime Ministerial situation[edit]

The current UK situation of the scramble to form a majority - and to find a PM who all of that majority can support - has got me thinking of parallels in the past. I know there have been situations where the King/Queen has invited X to form a government but X hasn't been able to garner the necessary support & so has deferred to another individual. I can't remember the individuals involved so I thought I'd ask here. I was thinking it was possibly Rockingham/Fox & that timeframe or Asquith & some others. Any ideas, or just other, UK, historical parallels? AllanHainey (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They wouldn't usually defer to another individual in that circumstance, there would be another general election. The current PM doesn't need to be asked to form a government, they get to do so anyway. If they fail, the monarch will ask someone else. There will generally only be one other person worth asking, so if they aren't able to manage it there is no choice but to have another election. --Tango (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The closest I can find on the Number 10 website is the resignation of A J Balfour in 1905, and Campbell-Bannerman being asked to form a government as the leader of the next largest party, to govern before the next election could be called. Is this what you were thinking of? Balfour didn't resign because he couldn't form a government, though: he resigned because he couldn't get any legislation through the Commons. [3] --TammyMoet (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tango, I'm not talking about the current political system but rather that of 90+ (likely more) years ago when the parties were less rigid, when there wasn't a clear party leader who'd become PM. I can't remember much but I think I may be thinking of the 19th century.

What I was thinking of was when after an election one person - the 'leader' of a block or someone holding significant support would was asked to form a government but found he couldn't muster sufficient support (possibly he alienated another block he'd need to depend on) so allowed someone else to become PM and served in a more junior position. I'm fairly certain I'm thinking of late 18thC or mid 19th C but I can't remember the names of those involved. It wasn't Balfour & Campbell-Bannerman. AllanHainey (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it came up last week, but the closest parallel to the current situation was the situation in 1974, see United Kingdom general election, February 1974 and United Kingdom general election, October 1974. In the February election, the breakdown of votes was almost exactly what it was in the 2010 election; Harold Wilson's Labour party won enough votes for a plurality of seats in Commons, but not enough for a majority. Rather than immediately form a new government, the leader of the Conservatives, Prime Minister Edward Heath refused to resign, believing he could establish a majority coalition. Things went from bad to worse, Heath resigned, and Wilson was invited to form a government. Wilson immediately called for new elections, got a BARE majority in the October elections, and went on to establish majority rule. No telling where the current situation will lead, but in terms of what happened in the election, this is a very close parallel to February, 1974. --Jayron32 19:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't thinking of 1974. I wasn't looking for a parallel with the recent election but rather with the process of forming a government or ministry. Nowadays the formal party structure (& dominance of the 2 parties) provides a ready made government but formerly it was more a process of horsetrading & balancing of competing power blocks - more like we're seeing now. I've done a bit of searching & I'm thinking of a situation like the Fox-North Coalition where Fox & North couldn't lead on their own but got the Duke of Portland to serve as a unifying PM for their 2 blocks. I don't think that was exactly the situation I was thinking of but its much the same principle. AllanHainey (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've had an organised two-party system for a while now, I believe. The parties have changed over the years, but there have been two main parties for as long as we've had a parliament like we do now (when parliament really did just advise the monarch it was different, of course), as far as I know (this article says the parties formalised in 1784). --Tango (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose on the face of it thats accurate, but while there were 2 parties from the late 18th C they weren't as rigidly structured as today. They were labels of convenience with distinct and changing component blocks voting different ways on different issues. A lot like the U.S.A. parties of today but probably looser than that. AllanHainey (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how is it possible to GET a patent (directly or indirectly) without being associated with it in any way?[edit]

Let's say you have a fantastic idea that does not fit your personality, who you are, how people know you, etc etc in any way.

You can consider the following examples: - You are a politician and your invention will make the cigarette industry obsolete. You don't want them to know it's you, as you fear political retaliation.

That's just an example. Another example would be that you are a fashion icon and make all of your public moves extremely carefully, and your pr agents told you that getting this patent will be negative for your public image, they don't want you to be associated with being an inventer.

These are just two examples, you can think of others. Anyway you're resourceful, I don't need to give examples. Onto my question:

How is it possible, in this case, to gain control over the patent of your idea, without it being made in your name. 1) can you file a patent under a pseudonym or through a "publisher" who will keep your real identity anonymous? 2) in case this isn't possible, would there be a way to have someone else file the patent but contractually be obligated to assign it to you, and if so, can this assignment be made anonymously? Maybe it should be assigned to a corporation in which you happen to have a controlling stake?

Any other thoughts you have are much appreciated.

Thank you. Best regards, 92.230.66.49 (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have to have named inventors and its difficult to patent an idea anyway. It has to be something tangible. The US is more open to patenting methods, but even there evidence is needed of a formal process or similar. You can register a patent to a company if the inventors sigh their rights (most employment contracts would provide for this as standard), but again you need inventors. --Snowded ^TALK 19:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you could hire attorneys to apply for the patent on your behalf, and presumably they would be happy to take the credit, for just a small fee no doubt. Googlemeister (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't want to do that. See the "United States" section of Inventor (patent). Incorrectly identifying or falsifying the name(s) of the inventor(s) could invalidate the patent. Even if a company registers a patent, the inventor(s) must be identified. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically yes, but the next sentence says, "Ordinarily, the courts presume the named inventors are the inventors so long as there is no disagreement". This would mean that for all intents and purposes, you could be an anonymous inventor as long as you do not want the credit for your invention. Now the tricky part would be if either you try to screw your attorney (patent holder) or v.v. because if the contract you would want in order for your agreement to be binding was ever used as evidence, then the patent might get ruled invalid and you both would no longer have anything to fight over. Kind of a MAD situation there. Googlemeister (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, as I said, you don't want to do that? Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional patent law requires inventors to be named, even if they were incorrectly named in the application, or even the issued patent. Corrections can be made in District Courts in the U.S. You could pay someone to act as your agent, with an agreement in advance that they will eventually reveal you as the inventor, using a nondisclosure agreement with cash consideration. 208.54.5.60 (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as of now this is legal advice, which we are not allowed to give. We are not qualified to give legal advice, and you should trust nothing that has been said above. Please consult a patent attorney. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trade secrets. Coca-Cola is not patented, as it would have to reveal the recipe. Aaronite (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But not everything is appropriate for a trade secret. It works OK for complicated chemical mixtures, but not so well for mechanical devices that you would be selling directly to anyone (which could then be taken apart and reverse engineered). --Mr.98 (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coca cola can be reverse engineered. There's lots of really good chemical seperation, identification, and quantization methods. GC-MS, for one. --Jayron32 04:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But figuring out the recipe used to produce it is still not-trivial, even if you know all the chemical constituents in the final product. That doesn't tell you how it was made, it just tells you what was made. (Cases in which the how and the what are linked in an obvious way are not good candidates for trade secrets.) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's interesting is that you can use pseudonyms for copyrights, but apparently not patents. I wonder if you couldn't 1. change your name, 2. file the application, 3. wait for it to issue, then 4. change it back again. Pretty cumbersome and in some ways self-defeating (you could trace the names, if one wanted to, and if someone challenged the patent, you'd have to reveal), but I don't think it breaks any rules. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an interesting wrinkle. In the People's Republic of China, it is apparently possible to have anonymous patents of some sort. "Inventor must use his/her true name and not a pseudonym ... Inventor may request the Patent Office not to disclose his/her name."[4] I'm not sure how that works out in practice. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to go as allegory[edit]

I am looking for metaphors of the form: cancer is to hell as stroke and/or heart attacks are to heaven, in English and other languages. In particular, I'm looking for the use of that metaphor to bridge the scientific and religious communities. Thank you for your help. 208.54.5.60 (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone understands what you are asking -- I certainly don't. Anyone can make up a metaphor and your attempt above is an example. If you'd like your metaphor to have meaning, well, that's another issue. Why is cancer to hell as stroke is to heaven? For a metaphor to be meaningful, it has to elucidate a not-already clarified concept. But your metaphor is lacking because there's no real connection between the compared items. Are you suggesting that, next to cancer, a stroke or a heart attack are wonderful? That's definitely not universal, because multiple forms of cancer are easily treatable while some strokes and heart attacks take the life of the victim. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to elucidate what you would like to know. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Judas Tree"[edit]

I have heard a story about the Judas Tree (Red Bud). Is there any information available? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.88.138 (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article about Cercis siliquastrum, aka the Judas Tree, which is a European member of the Cercis or "Redbud" genus of trees. Without knowing what story you are talking about, I'm not sure how to confirm it. --Jayron32 20:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We also have an article on the novel The Judas Tree or there is a ballet of the same name by Kenneth MacMillan, which is is an allegory of Christ's betrayal.--TrogWoolley (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using an Alias for your Surname?[edit]

I know that this question might be tiptoeing by the "no legal advice" boundary, but bear with me. I've recently started a new career in a field and with a company that has little to no contact to my life before now (beyond, you know, giving information for tax forms). For a variety of reasons, mostly personal, I've started using an alias for my surname (as in "Peter Jones" rather than "Peter Smith"). What I'm doing, more precisely, is using my middle name as a last name (and going without a middle name).

I've known plenty of people who use a middle name as a first name, but I don't know of anyone who has a different last name on their tax forms than what they go by in day-to-day life. Is this common anywhere (other than for some married women)? Is it likely that prospective employers will be put off by my having one name on resumes and another on my legal documentation? And, without asking for specific legal advice, how do varying legal systems deal with this (by which I mean people who have a "legal" name and then an "everyday" name)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.5.181 (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't say where you were located, but according to U.S. law, so long as no attempt is made to defraud anyone (especially the gubmint), you have the legal right to call yourself anything you want. --Jayron32 21:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same is true in the UK. Your employer will be confused by you using two names. You can either explain to them that you are using two names, or you can inform the taxman of your new name. As long as your reasons for using a different name don't involve anything fraudulent, you shouldn't have any problem with either option. --Tango (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget that many performers use a stage name in exactly this way. --Phil Holmes (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Jayron says, in the U.S. you can call yourself anything you like as long as there's no intent to defraud. (I can't quote a source, but I'm pretty sure this is not necessarily the case in certain European nations.) Not only performers but various authors have used an assortment of aliases. HOWEVER: I believe you'll find that in the U.S., your dealings with the IRS, the State Department (in applying for a passport), and certain other agencies will require you to divulge your full "legal" name -- the name attached to your social security number. I can promise you, Cher's tax return doesn't just say "Cher" at the top. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legal status of part of Kashmir[edit]

Our article on Azad Kashmir, based on something from Britannica, says that Pakistan sees the region as not being part of Pakistan proper. From the point of view of Islamabad, why is it a good idea to recognise the region as independent or semi-independent? It seems to me that declaring it to be part of Pakistan would be a logical part of Islamabad's claim to all of Jammu and Kashmir. Nyttend (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By not directly claiming it they can deny responsibility for terrorist attacks on India carried out by state-funded groups from Pakistani-Kashmir. DuncanHill (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can also help to get support from the local independantists (if any), who would see that position as positive and help keeping order. --Lgriot (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]