Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 September 19

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.

September 19

Musical question

Should Tritonic (1) redirect to Tritone (2) redirect to Musical scale, or (3) remain a dab page with these two entries? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I would try to expand it. schyler (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the unlinked band gets no ghits to speak of. Based on what you've added, I'm going with (2). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Trying to identify a film

I have only seen a small part of it and the sound wasn't working well, but I believe it is English language. Judging by the clothing and furnishings it was set some time in the 19th century, and appeared to revolve around a boy of about 13-15 and a younger girl (8-10) who may have been his sister.

One scene involves the boy being spanked in an ornate sitting room in front of a group of people (family members?). A priest or monk seems to be orchestrating the punishment, and a rough looking man actually physically restrains the boy on a sofa. Several of the witnesses appear to be upset by this, while others look a bit smug, as if they dislike the kid and are glad to see him being punished. Afterwards the little girl talks to him in a dimly lit bedroom and she seems to be trying to console him.

It's definitely not Fanny and Alexander, although the bits that I saw were strongly reminiscent of it. Can anyone help me identify it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Little radiolarian (talk • contribs) 01:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Trogia Gazzela

Does anybody know anything about her? She was the mistress later wife of Alfonso II of Naples. I can't seem to find out anything about her what her background was, when they married, and when she died?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Italian Wikipedia doesn't have anything on her either. Women's lives in the Middle Ages were often not as well documented as men's, even if they were queens, so there may not be much anyone can know about her at this late date. Though it's interesting to see that she was the mother-in-law of Lucrezia Borgia and remotely possibly the stepmother of the model for the Mona Lisa.

You can't find her on any of the other language wikipedia or on google (except for some useless genealogical pages)!--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't discount the genealogical pages out of hand. I know from researching my own family tree that most serious genealogists are intrepid researchers, and some have tracked down the vital statistics of the most obscure kinds of people. Along the way, they may also turn up historical details too. Textorus (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it's not like I didn't read them. All they say basically is that she married Alfonso II of Naples and had two sons with him, and that's pretty much it.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

What's this supposed to mean ?

"...In 1941, before independence, the mummies were killing the Indian Medical Council, in order to introduce a uniform standard of medical education, abolished substandard schools, and raised many others to a university..." (italics mine) on this page  Jon Ascton  (talk) 05:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It was an old piece of vandalism, which has now been removed. DuncanHill (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It was added in this edit. Nyttend (talk) 11:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to find the edit that introduced something to an article? I remember something—I think it was called "Wiki-blame," but I couldn't figure out how to use it. Any other ways? Or just slow slogging through the edit history? Bus stop (talk) 11:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikiblame can do it (ages since I've used it though), otherwise it's the slog - but popups do help with that. DuncanHill (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Popups? What are popups? Is that like Pop-Ems? Bus stop (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. I somehow don't think I'll be trying fat-free, vegan, little brown jobs :( DuncanHill (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The editor who introduced the weird text says "I just recreated it after it was wrongly moved. Did not actually read every piece since I was only moving it. It seems that the history somehow got deleted." (see User talk:Rzafar#Dow University of Health Sciences. The previous history was lost. Is there a way to find and reattach the lost history, since otherwise the intellectual property rights of earlier editors appear to be violated? Edison (talk) 03:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Balliols and the Infanta Alicia

It is say that Infanta Alicia, Dowager Duchess of Calabria is the heir general of John of Scotland. But I don't think the Balliols left any descendants, so who were the heirs of Balliols after Edward Balliol's death?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a really good question, since John apparently had only one child, a son who died without issue. But the statement about John in Infanta Alicia's article is without a citation; so maybe that information is incorrect. I see that one of the reference links says this, which is a different claim: she is "senior representative of Edward the Confessor, King of England, David I, King of Scotland, and the ancient Kings of Navarre." Beyond that point I can go no further; those convoluted European royal genealogies make me dizzy, and I've already been driven to the point of madness wondering about Freddie's overbite. Textorus (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

nina simone vs. jihad

I've come across this in an article I read:

For sure, there aren’t many members of the new media who would post a video of Nina Simone singing “Love Me or Leave Me” on the same day (July 23) she (i.e. Pamela Geller) posted a picture of kaffiyeh-wearing youth holding up a swastika under the blog title “ ‘Palestinian’ Jihad Flag to Fly at the UN.”

and I can't figure out the Nina Simone vs. Jihad reference. What is it supposed to mean? Why would it be something unthinkable, as the author seems to imply? Any ideas? TomorrowTime (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know for sure. Perhaps a reference to Nina SImone's civil rights activism in the 1960s, along with many Muslim Americans. She also had a friendly (albeit short and boring) encounter with Louis Farrakhan[1]. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Lest I be misunderstood: It's not a Nina Simone vs. Jihad connection. It's the contrasting juxtaposition of Nina Simone who believed in and stood up for civil rights and tolerance, and the polemic act of posting that picture to support a cause which goes against the principles of civil rights and tolerance. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As she said, "please don't let me be misunderstood". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course. I wasn't exactly being exact in the naming of this question, but not because I'd be sloppy, I just wanted to give the title a little extra something. The reason I posted this question in the first place is because the way the author just sort of throws that particular factoid into the article made me suspect maybe this was one of those pop-cultural things that are blatantly apparent to an American, but less so to an outsider - something that would result in a reaction of "well, that's just terrible, for obvious reasons" - wherein the reasons aren't obvious to me. Incidentally, I dug up the blog reference as well, if that's any help: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/07/page/2/ - it's right there in the second and forth entry on that page. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Tischreden online?

I've not had any luck finding an online version of Picker's edition of Hitler's Table Talk (in German). Does one exist or is it still under copyright? Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Per German law, it is still under copyright until 2015 (70 years after the death of the author). When Hitler died his entire estate went to the state of Bavaria, which has since refused to allow new German editions of Mein Kampf; they probably also try to prevent publication of his other works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You'll probably be able to get one from some of the white supremacist organisations, in English at least. For a German language version you may have to try one of the larger German libraries. AllanHainey (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

How is the African union funded?

I looked at the article but it doesn't say. Does each member state contribute some money like the EU?--178.167.195.246 (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This press release states that "The budget is expected to be financed from membership contributions and assistance from development partners." There is a 2006 report on emerging options for funding the organisation here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Who are "development partners"?-178.167.195.246 (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Presumably, all the international organisations, governments, banks and so on who either invest in, or give aid to, Africa - there is unlikely to be a single list of them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

...and corporations.--Wetman (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church List of Banned Books

I just read that up until 1832 Galileo's books still appeared on the Roman Catholic Church's list of books which Catholics are forbidden to read. Is such a list still in force, if so can someone direct me to it? AllanHainey (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Index Librorum Prohibitorum meltBanana 13:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

In the article, it sates that it was abolished in 1966, so no, it is not in force. Aaronite (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Japanese Invasion of Alaska in World War 2

The Pacific Ocean was a wide area for the Japanese army to cross in World War 2. Did the Japanese ever try to cross into Alaska to invade Canada & the U.S.? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

They captured Attu and Kiska in the Aleutians. The Alaska Highway was built at least in part to counter a perceived invasion threat, but it never actually happened. Antandrus (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They sure seemed to want to for a while. Our article Aleutian Islands Campaign has some further information about that attempt, including that they did in fact occupy some outlying Alaskan islands for a brief time. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A minor side note of interest -- it's fun to look at Kiska in Google Earth. They've got the former harbor and airfield at high-resolution, and you can quite clearly see where things used to be. The bomb and shell craters are rather spectacular, as in that part of the world they don't erode away or overgrow quickly. For example, see [51° 57.128'N, 177° 33.032'E]. Antandrus (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've read that the Alaska campaign was a feint to divert American forces away from Japan's main offensives further south (just as the Allies spent considerable efforts to persuade the Germans that they'd attack elsewhere than Sicily and later Normandy, e.g. Greece or Scandinavia). The Japanese also sent some incendiary balloons into the forests of the Northwestern United States, which might be just an interesting curiosity had not a few people died from the successfully-set fires. Dashiell Hammett (author of The Maltese Falcon) and some enterprising but very lonely, bored and isolated troops in one of the farther U.S. outposts (I think Adak) exploited its excellent geographical position for intercepting radio communications to put out a regular bulletin of current world events—or so I read in an article in The Nation years ago. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A pregnant mother and five children were killed by a Japanese balloon bomb in Oregon in 1945, the only lethal incident of that kind, according to the wikiarticle. See also Battle of Los Angeles for a false alarm that resulted in six deaths.

Self-Corrections: I was wrong about the bombs, although carried by flammable hydrogen balloons (which were automatically ignited 90 minutes after dropping their payload), the bombs themselves don't seem to have been incendiary (however, there was some Allied concern that it would be possible for the balloons to carry biological weapons). Also they were launched after the forest-fire season and weren't specifically aimed at the forests. They spread farther than I'd thought, as far as Arizona and Michigan. The Wikipedia article on the Japanese campaign in the Aleutians says that the theory that its main intent was diversionary has been discounted by more recent historians who point to factors such as control of the Great Circle air route over the North Pacific to Europe and North America. For an overview of offensives aimed more closely to population centers than Alaska, Hawaii or Greenland, see Attacks on North America during World War II. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No Kings

Resolved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

All countries like India, Japan, Germany, England, France etc. have so many, indeed uncountable number of kings in the history. USA seems to be the only exception. Why is that ?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Ascton (talk • contribs)

The modern country of the US is a new country founded only 234 years ago, whereas countries with uncountable numbers of kings in their history have existed in some form for many hundreds or thousands of years. Back then, having kings was the most common form of government, so any country that was around would have had a king. I should point out that the land that now makes up the US had kings from 1534 to 1776, and before that it was divided by the aboriginals into many small regional governments, so there was no unified area to be king of. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the thing about 1534 to 1776, what exactly do you mean ?{{subst:unsigned|Jon Ascton}

King of France and its overseas departments, King of England and all it colonies, etc.--Aspro (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Before the 1534, the area that now makes up the US was ruled by many small local governments. Starting in 1534, different parts of the US were ruled by the kings of Spain, France, and Britain (and to a lesser extent, Netherlands, Sweden, and Russia). In 1776, the part ruled by the British king declared independence from those kings and has had a president as head of state ever since. Eventually the rest of the US joined the independent part to form the country you have today. You can go to Colonial history of the United States to read more about this time in US history. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(more edit conflict) I don't know about 1534 (Cartier claimed "Canada" for France - maybe that included some parts now in the US?), but back to the original question: Very many states have no Kings in their past. Japan, from your list, did not have any king I'm aware of. Finland has not had a king since its independence. Neither has (modern) Israel, or Albania, or Luxembourg, or the Czech Republic, or Turkey, or South Africa, or Argentina, or Mexico (which had an emperor, though, just like Japan), or Peru... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I depends on what you call part of a country's history. The modern country of France is the French Fifth Republic, which was founded in 1958, but it would be silly to say that there has never been a king of France. The same could be said of all of the countries on your list. As for my 1534 year, I don't know when New France expanded deep into the US, but in 1534 it included the shores of the St. Lawrence, which I would guess includes upstate New York. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Modern Albania had a king. See Zog of Albania. --Jayron32 00:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Indeed, it's just confirmation bias, as well as fuzzy accounting for when the history of a "country" begins, and what it means to "have a king". There are many (usually fairly young) countries that have never had a monarchy. Peru and Chile are in some ways similar to the United States and, since independence, haven't had a king. You claim Germany has had many kings, but I disagree. The area where Germany now is has had kings rule portions of it, but the modern state of Germany has not. The current France has never had a king. Why do we count monarchist France as being the same country as modern France, but aren't willing to consider colonial North America to be the same as the modern United States of America? Canada has a Queen, but she doesn't live there and probably couldn't care less about how the country is run. Buddy431 (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Dumping on the poor old Queen again, who has made 20 visits to Canada during her reign and repeatedly expressed her enduring interest in and affection and admiration for Canadians. Whether Canadians themselves reciprocate the feeling is a different question, but the sincere interest of the lady herself is beyond question. Personally, I would have retired to Tahiti long ago and told all my ungrateful subjects to bugger off, but that just shows what a sweetheart the old girl is, still hard at work anyway. Textorus (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't meen to question her majesty's sincerity, but I think that's kind of a silly argument. Most countries have their head of state visit more often than once every 2.5 years. In fact, many even have their heads of state live in the country. Saying that she has visited 20 times in 57 years isn't really saying a lot. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

She does have a lot more countries to visit than any other head of state. Just about the one thing you'll find politicians, political commentators etc of all hues all agree on is her deep commitment to the Commonwealth and particularly to her Commonwealth Realms. DuncanHill (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Arctic Gnome, you are confusing two entirely different issues, as I specified in my comment. Nobody but an ignoramus can doubt, based on tons of reliable sources, that the Queen has a genuine interest in Canada as well as all her 15 other Commonwealth realms. And as a Canadian yourself, you know perfectly well that she is represented, personally, by a Governor-General for all the day-to-day tasks required of the Canadian monarchy; so it's not like you folks have been simply ignored for years at a time, as I understand it from this side of the border. Now - as to whether this system of a shared or divided crown - which Elizabeth II didn't dream up on her own, it was that way when she got the job - is a workable or even advisable system, well, that is of course for you and your compatriots to decide. Frankly, I have a strong suspicion that the whole system will come loose at the seams after the demise of the current monarch, whom God preserve. But I admire Her Majesty very much for her tireless devotion to duty, whether her own subjects appreciate that or not. She could have been painting her toenails on the beach at Cannes all these years, you know; but as a person who has made the best of a truly rotten job, she's quite a remarkable woman I think, who won't be fully appreciated until its far too late to tell her so. Textorus (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no question that she takes her job seriously, has respect for her realms, and is a competent and intelligent person. Furthermore, the idea of a foreign and hereditary head of state does seem to work well enough, as we've gone this long without descending into political anarchy or dictatorship. The question comes down to a matter of political philosophy and how one views the relationship between the people and their monarch. Does the job of personifying the state need to be done full time, or can it be designated to governors general? Can one rule with consent of the masses by virtue of them not campaigning to change the system, or does consent need to be renewed via term limits or elections? Will someone perform better at a job if they are born into it or if they win a competition for the job? Good arguments could be made for both sides, and I don't think that you can label either side as right or wrong. I will say, however, that if a general referendum ever showed a clear majority opposed to the status quo after an educated debate, we would have to change it, because she really can't rule without at least having implicit consent of her subjects. This is probably only a matter of time, because as primarily British-descended people become a smaller percent of the population, some prime minister will eventually figure that he can gain political capital by holding a referendum, and her support level has always been a bit shaky here given the francophone population. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No doubt it will come to that in most or all Commonwealth realms, eventually. Certainly the experience of my own country has amply proven these 200+ years that the monarchy is not essential, and perhaps your country will decide the same thing one day. Which is your privilege, of course, as it was ours: We the people, and all that. I do hope it won't be during the lifetime of this Queen, though, because from all I've read, upholding and promoting the Commonwealth has been one of her guiding interests all along; and I suspect future historians will discover she has been a quiet influence for peace, tolerance, and goodwill behind the scenes in many ways not now generally recognized. A great lady, and a classy dame; they don't make them like that anymore. Textorus (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. By the way, a country can stay in the Commonwealth of Nations even after getting their own head of state. India and the African countries did. It's now like a club for democratic English-speaking countries, (similar to the Spanish-speaking Hispanidad and French-speaking Francophonie). I think even if every member state got its own head of state, people would be happy keeping the British monarch as head of the organization for tradition's sake. Your country should think about joining, it has its own athletic and cultural events and whatnot. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the invitation. Joining the Commonwealth, what a marvelous idea. And it would be totally appropriate, for all the reasons you mentioned; now why didn't I think of that before? No doubt Her Majesty would give us a warm family welcome, too. Only thing is, sigh, it would probably just be seen here as another devilish attempt by our allegedly atheist-muslim-fascist-communist President to deliver the country into the hands of the Forces of Darkness, and that would cause no end of a screaming row. But I love the idea, though; makes perfect sense. Textorus (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Australia has never had a king. Nor New Zealand, unless you go back to the Maoris. Nor South Africa, unless you count kings of individual tribes. In fact there are lots of exceptions. Looie496 (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless you count the people in our List of Australian monarchs or List of New Zealand monarchs. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Do we have a List of South African monarchs? It should include Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI and Elizabeth II. DuncanHill (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

India has never had a King. Ireland has never had a king, etc.--178.167.195.246 (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

India had a King from 15th August 1947 to 25th January 1950, when it became a republic, see King_of_India#King_of_India_and_Pakistan. Ireland had a King from the establishment of the free State until 1949 when it became a republic. See Monarchy in the Irish Free State. DuncanHill (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ireland had kings well before the free state; Máel Sechnaill mac Máele Ruanaid was crowned King of Ireland more than one thousand years earlier. India, likewise, has had hundres of maharajas in its history, which is a king-level position. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thus always to tyrants.

• The United States of America came into existence as a constitutional republic and has been one ever since. (The State I am in right now, Virginia, has as it's official motto: Sic semper tyrannis – "thus always to tyrants"). Did you really not know this, Jon? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You do realize that "Virginia" was named by Queen Elizabeth I and Sir Walter Raleigh, and the region was settled as a British Tobacco colony, right? 1776 marked the point of revolution - same people, same territory, different name. --Ludwigs2 20:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Different country. A new one. Please see our Declaration of Independence. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
      • lol - that's either ridiculous or unnecessarily parochial. or both. By that logic, we'd have to say that France has never had a king either, since they had an equivalent revolution in the late 18th century and became a new nation. and, of course, China has never had an emperor (because of the Maoist revolution) - the forbidden palace belonged to some unknown people who existed before the modern state of China came into being. And neither Cuba nor Mexico has any relation to Monarchy either. Sorry, but you can't mix and match your definitions of 'state' to satisfy your personal preconceptions. --Ludwigs2 21:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
      • The Virginia General Assembly repeatedly calls itself "the oldest continuous law-making body in the New World" given that it was established in 1619 (for example, here). So they seem to think that the British colony and the US state are a continuation of the same political entity. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Good solid points, Ludwigs and Gnome. (And "Louisiana" had an Emperor before Napoleon sold it, too.) France went through some administrative changes, but remained France in the same sense that an adult used to be an adolescent used to be a child. The US "budded" off the British Empire as a de novo national entity with the key feature of royal-sovereignlessness. That's the way I see it, and I'm the one who gets to say. Me and my army. :) Foggetaboutit. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I find it kind of funny that you can simultaneously quote a document that discusses self-evident and inalienable political truths while also suggesting that truth is determined by military strength :P. Nevertheless, I agree that there is some validity to the argument that the federal union of the United States did not exist until the states actually joined together. Maybe we should say that the federation never had a king, but the individual states did. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• I find it funny that the above statement about Louisiana's emperor is wrong - the Louisiana purchase was in 1803, with formal transfer of ownership on March 10, 1804. Napoleon crowned himself emperor on May 18, 1804. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)brilliant point steven :) Before they became States of the Union, sure. But that event was more "discontinuous" than the sorts of transitions many nations have been through. The US became a new independent national entity by due legislative process and was made fact (despite objections) by declaration on July 4, 1776 -- it did not exist before that date. It did not come from nowhere, either -- all the various component sub-entities of it each had their own previous histories, of course. And note that the declaration itself hardly seemed to matter at the time and was mostly ignored: it was the the army and navy that made it happen, and it wouldn't have happened otherwise no matter how self-determined or legislatively self-evident it may have claimed its new existence to be. ;) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

aaaaah, yeah. Jingoism at its best. Please keep in mind that all nations (from the lowest to the highest) maintain armies; there's nothing special about that at all. and you can certianly engage in historical revisionism to paint whatever picture of the US you so desire - that was a major pastime in the 19th century, when every one idealized the US as being somehow free of European history. As I said, that perspective is either silly or parochial. --Ludwigs2 04:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• "The United States of America came into existence as a constitutional republic and has been one ever since." I am not sure what you find silly or parochial about that statement. Enough, Ludwigs. I see no substantial disagreement here. :) Cheers, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• • The parochiality and silliness lie in the dual assumptions that (a) the US congealed out of thin air, with no relation to the previous forms of governance that ruled Europeans in the continental US (all of which were monarchical - remember that the Boston tea party was a revolt against taxes levied by a king), and (b) the assumption that this in some way makes the US special. as I said, and will extend here, if you want to take this kind of blindered definition, then it is equally true of Cuba, Mexico, and in fact of most of the central and south American nations (almost all of which came into existence by revolting against European powers), and also most of the African states, possibly India (which I think went straight to a republican form after relieving itself of Britain) and most of the south-east asian nations. In fact, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an ex-colonial nation that wasn't 'invented' as a non-monarchical system after breaking free form the British, French, Spanish, Dutch, or what you will, because most of those nations were built by colonials steeped in Enlightenment-era Liberalism who encouraged such constitutional ideals. Maybe Japan and China, but then Japan was never as thoroughly colonized as African or South American nations, and China went fairly quickly to communism after they claimed independence from the colonial system (12 years or so between the boxer rebellion and the establishment of the Chinese republic). Your claim has no historical scope. --Ludwigs2 06:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

All this in response to a question from your ol' friend Jon, Ludwigs2...? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 07:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

no. all this in response to misinformation. I have nothing against Jon except that he's a bit childish; he'll grow out of that in time. but if we're going to answer one of his questions we should at least do it accurately. --Ludwigs2 07:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, even the opening question itself is mistaken, as, other than the European emperors of colonial times, the USA itself also had a king. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Le Roi est Mort: "[o]n the reeking pavement, in the darkness of a moon-less night under the dripping rain..., Norton I, by the grace of God, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico, departed this life". lolz :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This highlights a hidden truth. San Francisco is the only city in the US that has a decent sense of humor. --Ludwigs2 21:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Many countries which "had lots of kings" are now the combination of several smaller countries. This is true of Germany and of the UK. Parts of the UK had separate kings back in the day. Parts of Germany had separate rulers back in the day. In the land constituting the present US, there were indeed once numerous local native kings or rulers such as Chief Powhatan, who was considered a "King" rather than just an "Indian Chief" by the Europeans of his day [2], as in this writing from 1612:[3]. Edison (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• To sum up (I think): India, Japan, Germany, England, and France have all at one time or another been ruled at least nominally by a monarch as those countries (I'm counting Victoria for India in a way that George was not to the Colonies -- debatable, I know). USA has never been ruled by a monarch as the USA. That seems to be the only real difference specifically in regard to your question. Beyond that, it breaks down into a lot of points-of-view so there's not really any one answer to try to give you. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • In the case of federal countries, it's pretty much a matter of whether you count the union as a different entity from the sum of its parts. A similar question would be: if your ancestors moved to Boston in 1710, can you say that your family has lived in the US for three hundred years, or have they only been living in the US since 1776? I would argue the former, but the later is technically true. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hence: no one real answer to this question. And given that Jon's the one asking it, that may have been the point... WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Well, the Federal Republic of Germany never had a king, either. Nor the Confœderatio Helvetica. You are applying diffent definitions - why is the FRG "Germany", but the US not "America"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The German Empire had a Kaiser and became (loosely speaking) today's "Germany" by transitional processes with histories firmly grounded in that region and that culture. I see a difference between that and the case of the US declaring itself a de novo national entity as a constitution republic in the way that it did. I can also see no difference at all. It is not hard to have both your perspective and mine, because this is a fuzzy topic and the OP's question itself is not precise. I really see no reason at all for the amount of disagreement in this thread. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of the anger above comes from a failure (perhaps convenient) to define terms. The States of the U.S. never had a King as they exist today, but they did as colonies of Britain. I don't know how much of a war you need before Virginia the state is no longer a colony... and that goes for other nations too.. but I think that one met the test. France would be a good example of another example. If you want to talk geographical regions, then North America had hundreds of sovereign nations (as they continue to be recognized by the U.S. government) prior to widespread western settlement. But that goes on ad infinitum until the first homo sapiens set foot on a piece of ground and declared it his own, or maybe until the first one laid up with an ankle sprain envisioned government. Shadowjams (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"Every Man a King" (Huey P. Long) or "Monarch of all he surveys" (William Cowper on Alexander Selkirk, the model for Robinson Crusoe) —— Shakescene (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are we counting kings from before other countries existed but the countless native cheiftains and foreign kings that ruled the USA aren't counted?--178.167.184.77 (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• It turns out that Jon actually wanted to know: "What I am asking is that - of course there were Red Indians out there, but why the hell they not have a well defined history like other countries?" And my response to that question is:

You could start with our article Native Americans in the United States for the history of Native Americans (no one calls them "Red Indians" here, Jon) in the United States. It is a sad one. But it's there. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"Law is the King of America." --John Adams, 1776.

"He thought he was the King of America / Where they pour Coca-Cola just like vintage wine." --Elvis Costello, 1986 (referring to the OTHER Elvis) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.17.55.219 (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Given the problems in the premise of the question and the use of the ridiculously archaic term "Red Indians", I'm starting to think that Jon might be trolling us. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Never. Jon is in India. Red Indians is the term we are accustomed to use for them here.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Aye gods it just goes on and on. <sigh> See also User talk:WikiDao#"No Kings" at the Humanities Desk, arcgnome. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Soviet Wartime (?) Song

Does anyone know the name of the song in the background of this video? Cheers --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It's "Тёмная ночь" ("Dark Night"). Music by Nikita Bogoslavsky, lyrics by A. Fatyanov and V. Agatov. English words by Hal David). Here are lyrics and translation. It gets mentioned in these WP articles. It was composed for the movie Two Soldiers (1943), directed by Leonid Lukov. You can watch and listen to Mark Bernes singing it in one of the original scenes here. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! Cheers! You're a star! --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Medieval Paleographic “Identifont”

I'm looking for a page that helps to differentiate between a diversity of medieval fonts. (Preferably more differentiated than “insular” vs. “humanist” vs. “Textualis”.)

I found a page like that some days ago, with a lot of questions to answer (each answer was a page-intern anchor link) and some three example images for most questions (and a red backgroud, I think, if that helps...), unfortunately I didn't bookmark it and can't find it again.

Thanks in advance if someone can give me a hint where I found it or where I might find something similar :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalkühl (talk • contribs) 19:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

"Font" is a term usually applied to printed text. For hand-written text, the term used for a style of writing is usually "Hand" (e.g. Chancery hand or Court hand) or "Script". We have a Category:Medieval scripts, but that doesn't appear to be quite what you remember. -- 174.21.233.249 (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You might want to start with the penmanship article - it has a lot of links that might take you where you want to go. Also the calligraphy article. --Ludwigs2 07:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Corporate personhood in Canada

What rights to corporate persons not have in Canada? I'm assuming that they cannot vote or have custody of a child. Are there any others? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.161.203.6 (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the articles Corporation and Legal personality? Those as well as the linked references should give you some idea of the limitations on corporate rights generally in Anglo-American law, which would include Canada; though of course particular details may vary from one country, state, or province to another. Textorus (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)