Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• 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.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

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:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

November 24

Complacency and South Korea

According to the Guardian: Park Weon-sun, a shopkeeper in central Seoul, as people crowded around a TV screen in his shop. "Koreans tend to be more complacent than they should be. I don't think it has yet really shaken them out of their complacency." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/23/seoul-south-korea-north-korea

According to Bloomberg's William Pesek: "Isn’t it odd that we in Tokyo or folks in Washington tend to fear Kim Jong Il’s missiles more than those residing 35 kilometers (22 miles) away from North Korea?" http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-23/black-swans-abound-as-north-korea-lobs-shells-commentary-by-william-pesek.html

I too have also heard that ordinary South Koreans weren't so worried about what North Korea could do. Does anybody else have any other direct anecdotal experiences of this. And if this theory does seem plausible, can anyone explain why there was this "lack of worry" among the public? (Obviously general perception within South Korea may have changed with recent events) 124.149.25.208 (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Living in a state of abject terror is usually not possible for most people. People generally go on living their lives because it isn't really helpful to cower in fear all the time. See also the related concept of gallows humor. --Jayron32 01:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

(EC)I lived and worked in South Korea last year, and I can say that most South Koreans I met weren't bothered at all about the situation with the North. I was there when a computer virus - purported to be from North Korea - hit government agencies (and hence the school I worked at), and no-one was really bothered about it. The situation was acted upon and contained quickly enough. As to why the situation is like this, I can only guess (in fact, I think anyone can only guess), but I will say that it must be remembered that the majority of the present South Korean population has been born since the cease-fire that brought about the present state of affairs with North Korea, so it can be said that that is all they know. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that the 'ordinary South Koreans' are more aware of what is really going on than the world media circus, or at least more used to this sort of posturing, and believe that this will all lead to nothing, as usual: unlike the media, they have no particular need to hype it up. I hope they are right. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that anybody in South Korea who did worry about North Korea were "not ordinary". I only used that term to try and distinguish between the public and the politicians/army. Politicians and the army are obliged to worry about external threats. I'm not really interested in their perceptions. Feel free to ignore the term "ordinary" if you feel it makes unnecessary assumptions.124.149.25.208 (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that Americans are truly that afraid of North Koreans — for example, I didn't see anyone but myself thinking out loud on forums that the "mystery missile" two weeks ago^[1] might have been a demonstration of sub-missile-?nuke? capability by the North Koreans. Mostly the interest runs more along the line of macho-juvenile fantasy regarding what might be done if/when people have the opportunity to put aside all ethics and restraint. Wnt (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree completely on this. I think many Americans are afraid of North Korea. They have nuclear weapons. They are run by a loony. They export WMD technology to other hostile nations. They are within striking distance of tens of thousands of US troops. That's enough to be worried about, without having to resort to conspiracy theories or fantasies. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mr.98's assessment. I am quite amazed that here in Italy, the media is really downplaying the whole situation, which has the potential to turn into a nuclear inferno.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It's far away and in no direct connection to them, that's all. Also, I think Italians (probably Europeans in general) just don't see the nuclear option as quite as feasible (and even if it went that far, it's, as I said, far away and in no direct connection to them). It's the same thing here over the border in Slovenia - no real reporting or general interest in the whole thing. I'm really anxious to know what's going all, since I'm a Japonologist and these thing are happening dangerously close to Japan, but I have to get my news from the Internet. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the source of the disagreement here is the use of words like 'fear' or 'afraid' and such. Nobody here in the UK was truly afraid of nuclear annihilation during the Cold War era - we really had a lot more to think about, like the economic upheaval of the 1980s, the Falklands War, Prince Charles' wedding, and so on. Same with thee days - no-one is really that bothered about the situation in North/South Korea. We are in the middle of the worst recession since the 1920s, as well as fighting in Afghanistan, and Prince William has just announced his marriage. When North/South Korea comes up on the news, it may spark a little bit of conversation in my house, but only because I have spent my life studying East Asia, and for no other reason. There's too much else going on for people to worry about whether two nations they know nothing about on the other side of the planet are going to go to war. If it does happen - God forbid - and if it does spark into a wider conflict, then there will be cause for concern, but not before. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"Nobody here in the UK was truly afraid of nuclear annihilation during the Cold War era". Speak for yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Why am I suddenly getting a mental picture of Neville Chamberlain? Or, for that matter, the average American during 1939-1941? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It could be that the Koreans are worried only about an escalation in the long-term regional conflict, while those farther away are worried about a global conflict. The "mystery missle" reported off California was just an "ordinary" jet contrail FTR. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The press in the U.S. is highly effective propaganda, as demonstrated by the ignorant responses above. North Korea poses no significant threat whatsoever to anyone, except its own people and a few unlucky South Koreans. If South Koreans aren't alarmed, it's similar to you and me not being alarmed when we drive our cars knowing that tens of thousands of people in the US die on the roads each year. The odds are tremendously against any personal harm. But, as lackeys of propaganda, many Americans -- here and abroad -- aren't intellectually capable of recoginizing the difference between a threat and a propaganda campaign. Kim will never, ever do anything (militarily) to anybody outside Korea. Duh. 63.17.78.65 (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Why so little diplomatic progress?

Why is there so little diplomatic progress between the Koreas? Would a citizens' armistice reenactment based on [2] help? Do we have an article on the list of issues which need to be resolved? North Korea#21st century suggests that whether U.S. troops remain may be the largest difficulty. Is that correct? Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a deeply political question, and one you're unlikely to get answered here in any definitive sort of way. I'd start by suggesting that 'diplomatic progress' doesn't occur because it is in the interest of a lot of powerful entities that it doesn't. As for who the 'powerful entities' are, no doubt this will be debated... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, there has been some considerable diplomatic progress, actually, though it is often of the "two steps forward, one step back" variety; we often feel during the "one step back" times that nothing good has happened. That is quite far from reality; Korean reunification shows a significant amount of progress, though we are still far from a true "single Korea". The Sunshine Policy covers about a ten-year period of entente between the countries. The past two years or so have been pretty shitty, but it's still nothing like it was in the past, on the balance. --Jayron32 21:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It takes two to tango. When one side maintains a huge, expensive army bigger than Russia's, they're not interested. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the military presence is 'huge', and 'expensive', on both sides of the border. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but only one side is straining itself economically while its people starve in order to maintain a military that contains over 10% of its population. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

True enough. On the other hand, would they be doing this without the perceived threat from outsiders? Or more to the point, would they be able to justify it to their own population? North Korea may be a particularly nasty dictatorship, but external threats (real or otherwise, though in this case the threat is hardly entirely fictitious) make their nastiness easier to 'justify'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand seen by the rest of the world as just a Balkans incident? And weren't the soldiers marching off to hell convinced they'd be home in a few months?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

True enough, but on the other hand, many people see this potential war as just sable rattling by proxy between China and the US, and a similar war like that a few kilometers to the west started, went on and finished without drawing the rest of the world into WW3. The fact that neither the US or China would at this time gain anything by a full out war (rather loose a lot) makes people think that this will not escalate. Weasel wording aside, I personally am still concerned this doesn't blow out into full scale war, even if it does remain localized. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Korea is not Vietnam. A full-scale war between North and South Korea would be hard to corral.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Communication between America and England in the 18th century

How long did it take for messages to travel between America and England during the 18th century? --75.33.217.61 (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I've found one reference which gives 7 to 12 weeks from England to Philadelphia [3]. I guess at much the same coming back? --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Mail moved on packet boats. See Packet trade.
Sleigh (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The 1800s are the 19th century. Packet boats with scheduled departures followed the Napoleonic Wars (which played havoc with shipping).--Wetman (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It could vary significantly depending on whether a ship had favorable winds or not. And of course it took further time for information to get from the main port cities (Boston, New York, Charleston) to less maritime locations. AnonMoos (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

According to Boatner's Encyclopedia of the American Revolution, "it normally took an 18th-century sailing vessel a month to cross from America to England and twice that time to return. (Westerly winds prevailed.)" He then notes that there are examples of faster and much slower trips, due to weather. This was particularly important in political, military and economic matters because people were often acting on information or orders that were at least a month old. —Kevin Myers 08:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't that delay a factor in the outbreak of the War of 1812?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You may be thinking of the Battle of New Orleans, an American victory about 2 weeks after the peace treaty had been signed. Tobyc75 (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's more likely a reference to the Orders in Council dispute. The British repealed the orders, hoping to improve relations with the US. Not knowing this, 2 days later the US declared war. Whether prior knowledge of the repeal would have changed the outcome is open to question. —Kevin Myers 19:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That's it, Kevin.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

To illustrate the unreliability of travel by sailing ship, have a look at this[4] New York Times article from 1912. On 12 June, a steam liner off the West Indies found a sailing barque which had left Pensacola on 27 February - 14 weeks previously. The crew had been living on one biscuit a day for 40 days. The captain of the barque took on 6 weeks' stores with which to finish his voyage to Montevideo. Alansplodge (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt

I have noted that while American's are pretty much divided as to whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in assassinating Kennedy, most Europeans I have met are firmly convinced he was part of a conspiracy. I am curious as to whether the Americans who believe he was guilty and acted alone tend to be politically right-wing or left-wing?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It depends on which conspiracy you place him in. Was he part of a Soviet/Cuban conspiracy to bring down America? Or was he part of a rightist conspiracy to bring down a popular, young, leftist President? The article John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories is a fairly comprehensive list of the more popular conspiracy theories; some appear to appeal to right wingers, and others appear to appeal to left wingers. Take your pick. --Jayron32 07:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That's BS, Jayron. Soviet/Cuban conspiracy theories disappeared, rightfully, decades ago. Your answer is strawman-based. Almost no one, right or left, believes anything other than it was Oswald alone OR it was a US-based conspiracy. As for right vs. left, "wine and cheese" left-wingers toady to the establishment line (provided by half-wit journalists), while "my country right or wrong" right-wingers can't believe that any theory associated with the 60s and 70s can possibly be correct, since that was before Reagan saved us all from the hippies. 63.17.78.65 (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well another factor is regional. In Texas, where I lived for two years most people believed the US government to have been behind it. They tended to be right-wing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Off hand, I would say those of us who don't believe in conspiracy theories -- of all kinds -- tend to be the politically middle-of-the-road, normal, reasonable, thoughtful, balanced sort of folks. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean you don't believe that Oswald (real name: Elvis) was working for Haliburton to kill JFK because he was a space alien hired by Communists to write Shakespeare's plays and turn America socialist? You must be part of the coverup! —Kevin Myers 09:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I strongly question Oswald's sole guilt therefore I must be abnormal, widely-veering-off-course, unreasonable, thoughtless, unbalanced! Actually, I am all of those things; however, I do draw the line at Elvis Presley, Martians, and the ghost of John Wilkes Booth!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect, most Eurpeans are not interested in LHO and have no opinion about him although they may know what he did. 92.15.15.224 (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

How would they know what he did?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

For those alive at the time it was reported in the news, for others it is part of the general historical knowledge that all but the most ignorant would be expected to have. 92.15.15.224 (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

According to a 2003 Gallup poll, "Republicans are almost twice as likely as Democrats to believe Oswald acted alone (28% vs. 16%)." This is after the publication of the Posner book and other anti-conspiracy efforts of the 90s. (For what it's worth I'm a Democrat who doesn't believe in a conspiracy.)--Cam (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, my parents were both Democrats and they believed in a conspiracy (from the moment Ruby shot Oswald in the stomach on live television).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I only have anecdotal evidence, but I'd concur with the IP above. As a European who knows many others knowledge of what he did is fairly widespread but conspiracy theories are both broadly uninteresting to us and those who do know in my experience don't believe it. Prokhorovka (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm only judging by the considerable number of European people I have met in my lifetime, as well as the myriad documentaries about the JFK assassination which are still produced for television viewer consumption.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There's not much money to be made in denial of conspiracy theories, although such a book can effectively shoot down (so to speak) the conspiracists' stuff and severely cripple the market for it. After a rash of books about the "Bermuda Triangle", someone investigated the claims in more details and proved that every one of the so-called mysteries had a reasonable explanation and/or was distorted by the promoters of those books. One thing that was demonstrated in Oswald's situation was that someone of his pretty-good rifle skills would indeed be able to squeeze off two more rounds in the 6-to-8 seconds following the first shot. In short, it was possible for Oswald to have pulled it off all by himself. The JFK conspiracy stuff has somewhat faded over time, along with the UFO mania, as new conspiracy theories have come along that have more currency, such as 9/11. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd think that in the UK, it is mainly people on the right that are attracted to conspiracy theories, though I'm not sure how you could reliably test this. By and large, such theories tend mostly to be concerned with issues that effect the theorist, or at least with issues they think affect them, and the circumstances surrounding the killing of JFK doesn't really matter that much to most of us here this side of the pond. Personally, I think Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK, with a Carcano rifle fired from the Texas School Book Depository... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe I 'd have to concur with Baseball Bugs that interest in JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald has indeed waned since 11/9. I brought up the issue because half my life has been spent in Europe and virtually every single (European) person I have spoken to about the JFK assassination believe it to have been a conspiracy hatched from within the US Government.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

At the time it happened, most of us figured the USSR and/or Cuba were behind it - as did LBJ, apparently. In one of his final interviews, with Walter Cronkite, he admitted that he had never fully rid himself of the notion that there was foreign involvement. It was politically important to be sure that Oswald acted alone, as such an accusation leveled against a foreign government would have made JFK's own international crises seem like a picnic by comparison. Another problem was that the Kennedys themselves pulled the wagons into a circle (for good reasons, as we now know), and that had the unfortunate side effect of fueling the theories further. There was also the squeamishness of the media in their portrayals. Abraham Zapruder's famous film did not come into the public arena for like 10 years - and as I recall, the Kennedys opposed it even then, understandably so, it being a "snuff film". Although Life Magazine published a number of Zapruder frames soon after the event, they left out the bloodiest ones, which showed his head being blown apart. The idea that the US government was behind it doesn't really hold water - but a significant number of Europeans have no shortage of reasons for hating the US, so they will often embrace anything that seems to justify it. In fact, embracing a particular conspiracy theory says more about the one embracing it than it does about the theory itself. There is also no shortage of folks who I think would prefer that there were a conspiracy, because the idea that one solitary individual could change the course of human history is very unsettling. But the bare fact is that it was possible for Oswald to have done it by himself, and no solid evidence has emerged to contradict the lone assassin theory - and is less likely to as time goes on, as most of the principles are long deceased. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of how to put it, but I basically agree with what BB is saying here. From my observation, there is no lack of people over here in Europe who see the US government as an ominous overpowering puppet master who doesn't flinch at even the most extraordinary conspiracy - JFK might be a bit dated, but try asking otherwise perfectly reasonable and intelligent people about 9/11 and you'll be shocked at the number of "It was an inside job, obviously" replies you get. Part of it is due to being outsiders and being able to see (and sometimes feel) the ugly side of US foreign policies, I suppose. What I find surprising is how many people fall for conspiracy theories that are specifically geared at Americans and engineered to tickle specifically American fears, though. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as Democrats vs. Republicans embracing conspiracy theories, it depends on the paranoias of a specific era. Maybe some of you recall Hillary Clinton referring to a "vast right-wing conspiracy" during the impeachment proceedings. Meanwhile, in the 1950s, there was talk of a "vast Communist conspiracy", which in fact the right wing still holds to, except now they use terms like "socialist" and "liberal" as synonyms. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I believe it is entirely possible for one individual to change the course of world history (look at Hitler), and as in the case of loser Mark David Chapman, an insignificent, drab non-entity was able to eliminate the iconic musical giant who bore the name of John Lennon. It's not the mere fact that Oswald was a nobody who managed to kill a somebody; rather it was the logistics involved in the assassination, of which I was always suspicious, especially after having visited the TSBD in 2006.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hitler had lots of help. The issue with these assassins essentially is that no one was paying attention, or at least insufficient attention (as with the Columbine massacre and other such events). What did you see in 2006 specifically that raised questions? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Out of interest Jeanne, where in Europe have you lived? I wonder if our different experiences are national variations? Prokhorovka (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

To answer BB, it was the trajectory from the window, as well as the relative distance from Oswald's sniper's nest to the stairwell (haVing wasted precious seconds carefully hiding his rifle between boxes). In answer to Prokhorova's question, I have lived in England, Ireland, and Italy where I am residing now. But I have friends from all over Europe including the Czech Republic, Romania, Russia, Germany, Austria, Moldavia, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The trajectory was practically straight down from the sniper's viewpoint. Hard telling how long it took him to exit the building, but given the shock and unexpectedness of the whole thing (to everyone except the assassin), I expect he would have had time to beat it before someone decided to lock down the building. But do you know how much time elapsed between the shooting and the building lockdown? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

90 seconds had elapsed from the third shot to Officer Baker meeting Oswald on the 2nd Floor. There's a big oak tree blocking a clear view from the sniper's window (It was already there in 1963).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Presumably the officer didn't try to detain him. 90 seconds I could see. It wouldn't take all that long to go down 4 flights of stairs. Interesting point about the tree. I wonder if it had leaves on it and how tall it actually was - and how Posner got around that problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The tree was not in the line of sight when the shots were fired. These points have been raised and refuted endlessly elswhere. This is not the place to do it yet again! —Kevin Myers 13:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems like the trees at that point were only about 1 story high, which might have given him enough clearance. The crux of the conspiracists' many questions is the underlying assumption that they can demonstrate it was impossible for Oswald (or anyone) to have done it alone. And the counter to that is to demonstrate that it WAS possible. Which doesn't prove he did it, but undercuts a conspiracists' core premise. It's also important to remember that the whole situation was absolute chaos. There hadn't been a succesful assassination attempt in 60 years, and people were running around like decapitated chickens. So it's no surprise that the facts were hard to pin down. It can be hard to pin down the particulars of a traffic accident, never mind an assassination. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with BB. There's no way to know, it's all opinion and speculation.

I personally think that it was a CIA/military op, using mobster assets, with a couple of hitmen from Marseilles doing the actual killing from the sewer, and two "Lee Harvey Oswald"s, (the one who shouted out "I'm just a patsy", and was then shot on TV, actually having been just a patsy). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and definitely the Freemasons did it, too. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget the theory that it was done by 3 or 4 different guys, each of which had been issued just one bullet. That's the "Barney Fife Single Bullet Theory". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

...And don't forget Opus dei, the Illuminati, and the shape-shifting lizards. Does Wikipedia really need another "who shot JFK" thread? Probably time to put this one to bed...

I don't know, Opus dei...? Doesn't seem too plausible. There are no modern-day Illuminati, and do you mean to say JFK wasn't a shape-shifting lizard? Agree it's end-of-story time now... WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Who says there are no illuminati lurking about? One thing that nobody has ever been able to answer is how Oswald managed to get out of his sniper's nest within that 90 second time frame? Did he take a running leap over the stacks of boxes containing books or push them aside, then back in place? Have you seen the stacks as they were that day? I have and they look very heavy and hard to move.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Jeanne, now your real agenda is coming through. You want everyone here to believe it was a conspiracy, and you're adducing argument towards that end. That wasn't your original question, which was whether the Americans who believe he was guilty and acted alone tend to be politically right-wing or left-wing. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of having a hidden agenda. My original question was sincere. I am interested in the political leanings of those Americans who question his guilt and vice-versa. I rarely beat about the bush and I grab issues by the balls. Had I wanted to discover whether or not other editors believed it to be a conspiracy, I would have framed my question in that manner. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, my apologies, Jeanne. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Accepted.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Problems with Optimum Currency Area: Models and differing GDP exposure

Hi

On the topic of OCA, I was wondering if there is no consideration paid to differently exposed economies (industrial exports, oil exports, agriculture, etc). Mundell's model in the OCA article does not seem to raise this concern, but I'd think that the different economies of eg Norway (if it was in the Eurozone), France and Ireland would react differently to, say, an oil crisis: Norway would likely profit, others not so much. As I understand Mundell's theory, any loss or disturbance in one state is cushioned by capital mobility to the other members of the OCA. Consequently, gains must also follow the same rules. If the state owns (or partly owns) eg the oil industry, how much capital mobility is there really? Can we attribute differing levels of capital 'permeability' to profits made in different types of corporations, such as part or wholly nationalised ones?

The way I see this (and I am asking whether I've understood the matter correctly!), with anything less than ~100% labor and capital mobility, there will not be any efficient 'cushion' the way Mundell speaks of it. Therefore, arguing for or against a state's level of compatibility with an OCA, you would include the factor of how their GDP is exposed; what the country creates or makes wealth out of, setting them apart from others. In industrial economies which are tied to geographical dispositions (eg raw materials not found elsewhere), this is very relevant.

Is there an updated model that discusses GDP exposure?

Furthermore, I find it very interesting how America provides an illustration for labor and capital mobility (the rust belt and migration of jobs to other states). Would I be correct in stating that as far as Mundell's model goes, the only 'imperfections' of America's OCA are due to either natural resources, or, and I believe more prominently, differing state legislation?

Thank you! 88.90.16.74 (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The surname Griffin

I have read the article on the surname Griffin. I am seeking information as to whether or not the Irish Griffins are descended from the Welsh who arrived with Strongbow? The surname Griffith is obviously Welsh whereas Griffon exists in France. Most Irish Griffins come from the deep southern counties of Ireland (Cork, Kerry, Clare), and there are no Scottish or Ulster equivalents to Griffin. I therefore must conclude it has a Welsh and possibly earlier Breton origin. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen this site? It says that "Griffin was a very popular choice of personal names in medieval Ireland; it had been introduced to the country by Bretons who came over with the Normans in 1172. At this time too, a clan with the surname Griffin settled in Ireland. There is no doubt however, that the great majority of Irish Griffins are really O¹Griobhtas of Gaelic stock who merely anglicized their name during the seventeenth century." Any use? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. My surname is Griffin. I have two separate lines of Griffin as my paternal great-grandmother was also a Griffin. I would opine that the name, O'Griobhta originated in Brittany.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

That seems a little counter-intuitive and contrary to what that site (and others) suggest - that although bearers of the name "Griffin" came from Brittany (and elsewhere), there was already an O'Griobhta clan of native origin existing in Ireland, some of whom later anglicised their name to Griffin. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that nobody seems to know when these Gaelic Griffins settled in Ireland and from where did they come? Were they Celtic, pre-Celtic? And how would one know whether or not their ancestors were Bretons or the earlier Gaels?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

International debts

Which countries are net lenders, and which are net borrowers? Thanks 92.15.15.224 (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read the details, but someone else asked a similar question on Yahoo Answers here and got a surprisingly well put-together answer. Vimescarrot (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose its difficult to distinguish between a lender and an investor. 92.15.15.224 (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

where can I change the source

I would like to change the actual source (i.e. reality) behind our clock articles, as until you flip back to zero, obviously it makes sense to count "10 p.m.", "11 p.m.", "12 p.m." before getting back to 1. It doesn't make sense that 12:48 at night should be "AM" when you are at 12, which is like 10 or 11. It should become AM after 12:59 PM, by which I mean in the middle of the night. So, I would like the change this. How could I do that? 84.153.199.218 (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

AM means before noon (and after midnight) while PM means after noon (and before midnight), which is why the hour after midnight is 12:00 AM to 12:59 AM (not PM). In fact, clocks and telling time use a simple "modulo 12" counting system, with 12 taking the place of 0. Please don't edit Wikipedia articles to reflect how you think things should hypothetically be (as opposed to how they actually are)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you'd have to change how the world standard works, not just Wikipedia. Don't think that's going to happen. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Um, I specifically said I would like to alter REALITY, not just the wikipedia article. It's very simple. It makes more sense to flip between AM and PM when you flip from 12:59 back to 1:00 again. Let me put it another way. It would be as though we flipped the tens digits at 8, then continued to 9 anyway. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 19, 10. Does that make sense? No: because the tens digit is flipped, but you still count one more. That's exactly what happens. 1 AM, 2 AM, 3 AM, 4 AM, 5 AM, 6 AM 8 AM 9AM 10AM 11AM 12PM 1PM. Obviously the flip should happen when you flip from 12 to 1. How do I change the world measurement system to reflect this? THanks. 84.153.199.218 (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. In order to change observed reality, you'd need to sell many millions of people on the good sense of your illogical views. I sense your need for a regular pattern, but sadly it is not provided by ack emma nor by her cousin pip. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not entirely unheard of. One or two people managed to convince half of the world to change the time on their clocks - not just once, but twice a year, every year - just because someone thought we should should have more leisure time after work. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

84.153.199.218 -- In that case the AM/PM changeovers would not occur at noon and midnight, but instead an hour off from noon and midnight. It would be much more self-consistent and less disruptive to change the hour "12" in clocks and AM/PM timekeeping to "0" (if you could do it). AnonMoos (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No, because 12 midnight really is 12 hours after noon. It doesn't make any sense for it to read "0 pm" or "0 am" since it is neither zero hours after noon or zero hours before noon!! Of course, the AM's don't have a semantic meaning (what is 1 AM?) but all the same, it would at least make sense to let 12 keep its meaning... I mean, 10:59-11:00 11:59-12:00, 12:59-1:00. At which point would you expect the AM/PM to change? 84.153.199.218 (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

But you understand me if I suggest we meet at 00:15? 0am is the first hour of the day and makes complete sense (but does not fit your argument very well). All reminiscent of the discussions around the turn of the millennium: did it take place on the 1999->2000 transition, or the 2000->2001? --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not get more of the world to accept a 24 hour clock and your quest would be half complete. Dismas|^(talk) 17:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised no one has mentioned the terms Ante Meridiem (AM) and Post Meridiem (PM) meaning "before midday" and "after midday" respectively. Taken as such, the two labels actually all make sense (though as mentioned above the numbers don't, semantically). If we consider noon to be midday (which we do), then everything prior is before midday, or Ante Meridiem. That includes midnight as well, because 12 noon cannot be before midday and the clock must contain exactly 2 halves of 12 hours each. What the OP would need to do is change midday to make this work, not change AM and PM. The numbers bear no relation to the AM/PM divide. In other words, 1-2 am is actually the second hour of pre-midday. Think of what we call 1 am in spoken language: 1 o'clock. Or, 1 of the clock. Or, first hour (and x minutes) of the clock. 12-1 am is the first hour, completed at 1 am, etc. It's the same way we name the years. Aaronite (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's probably easier to modify your own personal reality rather than that of the consensus of the rest of our species. Try imagining the measurement of time as a way of tracking your own personal daily journey around the circumference of the Earth. Imagine looking down on the Earth from above one of the poles as it rotates. Imagine a dot on the surface marking your house. At your local noon you are at the closest point of one Earth rotation to the sun. The Post-meridian period is that of your 180 degrees of travel between noon and your local midnight, at which point you are at the furthest point from the sun (we'll disregard the precession of the Earth around the sun for convenience). Ante-meridian is the subsequent 180 degrees traveled as you approach your next local noon. You may then appreciate that midnight is zero-hour as at that point you have zero degrees to travel towards the point of furthest possible distance between yourself and the previous noon and have traveled zero degrees towards your next one. Blakk^{and ekka} 18:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised Aaronite did not notice the first response to the OP which did indeed explain the meaning of AM & PM. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

So am I, actually... I was looking for the Latin. My mistake. Aaronite (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Essentially, the OP seems to be wanting each new calendar date to start at 1 am rather than at 12 am. That has a certain logical appeal, as months start with day 1, not day 12. But the am/pm thing is still based on noon, which has been defined for the past 2000+ years as 12 o'clock in the day. Under the OP's proposed system, mornings would go from 1 am to noon (11 hours) and afternoons would go from noon to 1 am (13 hours). That's a bit lop-sided. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The choice of 12 is actually rather arbitrary. I think what the OP is proposing is to change the clocks so that 1 represents both High Noon and Midnight, and put 1 rather than 12 at the top of the circle on the clocks, shifting all the numbers back. Its perfectly logically consistant, its just kinda pointless in terms of overcoming the inertia of the prior system. That is to say that it wouldn't be impossible; the calendar used to change years at March 22nd, such that March 22, 1250 would be followed by March 23, 1251. This was because of the connection of that date to the Equinox. This lasted for thousands of years, and was only changed during the changeover from the Julian Calendar to the Gregorian Calendar, which occured in stages over several hundred years; in some parts of the world have only been using the Gregorian calendar for about a century. However, unlike the calendar change (which occured during another calendar change, the need to shift the days due to inaccuracies in calculating the leap year. The change of the start of the year date was kinda snuck in as a "rider" on the more important change) the change to the clock doesn't have a lot of justification beyond change from one arbitrary start time, to another slightly less arbitrary start time. --Jayron32 22:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It was more often "Lady day" (March 25th) which was taken as the start of the year (though it varied considerably between different jurisdictions). As to why days start at midnight, it's because out of the four quadrant points of the day-night cycle (sunrise, noon, sunset, midnight), midnight is the one where people were generally asleep in agricultural societies... AnonMoos (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Imagine a race where most everyone was asleep at the start. Maybe those who are most capable of carpediemically seizing the day are those who are awake at midnight.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

March 25 was once the actual vernal equinox, and December 25 was the winter solstice, which is how those dates were chosen for Anunciation Day and Christmas Day respectively. Although the Gregorian calendar fixed one problem, the mistake that had led to those days sliding toward the 21st was never corrected, which is kind of a shame. And just as the first day of spring was taken to be the start of a new year, sunset was taken to be the start of a new day. That last fact is echoed in the many Christmas celebrations that occur on Christmas Eve, as in the old days once Christmas Eve arrived, Christmas was "already there". Christmas Day of course followed it - until sunset. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The Gregorian calendar reform basically tried to change the alignments back to how they were at the time of the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.), not at the time of the beginning of the Julian calendar three centuries earlier... AnonMoos (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe that in Jewish custom, the new day started at sunset the previous evening. Anyway, the new day starts sensibly at 0hrs 00mins, its just that clocks somewhat confusingly display 12 rather than 0. 18:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)92.28.251.194 (talk)

That's because there ain't no place on an analogue clock (or what we used to call a clock) for 0 hours. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You could just replace the 12 with 0, so that the numbers go 10 11 0 1 2... The current clock set-up gives the correct/customary number at noon but not at midnight. A better alternative would be a 24-hour clock rather than 12 hour clock, where the numbers go 22 23 0 1 2... Military clocks during WW2 were colour-coded I think, does anyone know why? 92.29.115.8 (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is what you were referring to but this article from the Data Administration Newsletter says, "[Bentley Priory] had a sophisticated real-time event model with an elegant user interface, which visually mapped the skies above the U.K. The WAAFs mapped this information into color-coded counters on a map table (of the U.K.) of both friendly and enemy aircraft. Enemy planes taking off in France were tracked and plotted in real time. Every 5 minutes the WAAFs changed the color of all the enemy counters, corresponding to the operations room’s clock, also color-coded in 5-minute increments. "--Kateshortforbob _talk 14:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Saxe-Coburg-Kohary and Bragança Line

I was wondering were the line of Saxe-Coburg and Bragança (the descendants of Princess Leopoldina of Brazil) rival claimants to the Brazilian throne to their cousins, the descendants of Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil. Also why were they considered undynastic after 1908? I can't tell from any of their articles since most of them are just stubs.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There are still descendants of Isabel alive today so why would the issue of rival claimants ever arise? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 03:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

OECD tax haven treaty

I am having a hard time understanding the current legal status of the OECD's prohibitions against tax havens. It takes several minutes for [5] and [6] to load in my browser. In particular, I would like to know why the United States is not listed on [7] as a supporter. Who in the US could change that? Hillary Clinton? What are the names, phone numbers, and email addresses of the people who work on this for her?

[8] represents a bilateral law enforcement agreement, [9] seems to be a list of bilateral agreements, and there are some new bilateral agreements from 2008-9 in [10]. Do these bilateral agreements represent any kind of progress over multilateral agreements?

What is keeping multilateral agreements from being enacted? Maybe [11] can help answer these questions. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

History of the colonial history of Nigeria

I wan't to read about the colonial history of Nigeria. What would be the best books to start with? P. S. Burton (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The article History of Nigeria (1500–1800) has some references, including book references, listed at the bottom. No idea if these are any good, but its a start. --Jayron32 00:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

YOu also may want to read through Colonial Nigeria, there's a book reference listed for that one as well. --Jayron32 00:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The history of the colonial history of Nigeria can be found here and here. schyler (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

...And humour can be found here. You seem to lack it :) P. S. Burton (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the Reference Desk. Perrsonal cracks about editors trying to help here are particularly inappropriate. :) Wetman (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Lenin

Did Lenin speak English ? I'm writing a book and it involves the main character meeting Lenin, but I do not want the character to speak Russian. What other languages did he speak besides RUssian ? Thank you a lot. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Vladimir Lenin understood several languages, as noted early in the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The only language other than Russian that he could really speak was German. He might have understood a bit of English but couldn't really speak it. Marco polo (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

According to the article he studied "the Classical languages of Latin and Greek, and the modern languages of German, French, and English, but had only limited command of the latter two". He lived briefly in London, and maybe picked up a bit of the idiom there - I've seen it suggested that he attended Speakers' Corner, though whether the idiom of that locale was particularly useful, I'd not like to say... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it needs rephrasing, but "limited command" also gives me the impression that German was the only modern foreign language, besides his native Russian, that he could speak well. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

That's the way I read it too. He spoke good German, but only a little English and French. I'd have to check outside sources to be sure but I think this is probably correct. There was possibly as great a proportion of German-speakers in London while he was there as there are now, so maybe he got by without any English, though if he'd studied it, presumably he understood a little?

It might have been a case of understanding English but not sufficiently schooled in it to be able to speak and write it well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I remember a story about Lenin saying that he taught himself what he thought was English from books, but found that, after he got to London, although he could read it fine, no Englishman understood his spoken English. I don't remember where I read this though, or how reliable the source was. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Lenin lived for a while in London, where, among other things, he did some research in the library of the British Museum. His "Collected Works" include some letters Letter to the Secretary of the Socialist Propaganda League, TO THE SECRETARY OF THE BRITISH LABOUR REPRESENTATION COMMITTEE written by him in English. One of them he concludes with "I must apologise for my bad English." (I am not sure, though, if the text of this particular letter on marxists.org is Lenin's original English text, or back-translation from the Russian translation, as published in the Russian "Collected Works").

In the delegate's questionnaire Lenin filled in at the 10th Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), he responded to the question «Какими языками вы владеете?» ("What languages can you use?") as follows: «Английским, немецким, французским — плохо, итальянским — очень плохо» ("English, German, French - poor, Italian - very poor"). Soviet biographers usually would say that this was an indication of his modesty, and in reality he was perfectly fluent in the first three languages, and had a good reading knowledge of Italian. -- Vmenkov (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

November 25

Musing about nonconsecutive terms

As a resident of California, I was struck by Jerry Brown's election to a third term as governor, following his first two terms that ended before I was born. I wonder, how many politicians have been elected to nonconsecutive terms in major executive office (governors, presidents, prime ministers, etc.)? What is the longest interval between terms? Perhaps this topic deserves some kind of list article.

Of course, I know about Grover Cleveland. A quick Google search turned up pages and pages about Cleveland, but nothing else relevant. I then searched Wikipedia and discovered Edwin Edwards, who managed the remarkable feat of serving as governor of Louisiana for sixteen years over a twenty-four-year period. (However, this is still shorter than the twenty-eight years that have elapsed since Brown's most recent term ended.) So, what other major politicians have done repeat performances?

--Smack (talk) 05:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

In Canada, this has happened a few times with the Prime Ministers: John A. Macdonald (1867-1873, 1878-1891), Arthur Meighen (1920-1921, 1926), William Lyon Mackenzie King (1921-June 1926, September 1926-1930, 1935-1948) and Pierre Trudeau (1968-1979, 1980-1984). I think it has happened numerous times in the UK as well (Winston Churchill and Harold Wilson, for example). Adam Bishop (talk) 06:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, most notably William Ewart Gladstone, Prime Minister 1868–1874, 1880–1885, February–July 1886 and 1892–1894. Churchill's span as PM only covered 15 years (1940-45, 1951-55), although he was Home Secretary as early as 1910. Harold Wilson was first a Cabinet member in 1947, and PM 1964-70 and 1974-76. List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom gives info on all the others. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

George Wallace comes to mind, although his was a special case, to put it mildly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The lists of rulers at www.rulers.org conveniently tag non-consecutive terms with "1st time", "2nd time", etc. (a person reelected to the same office is not counted as a separate time). Of course, these "times" don't necessarily mean a new election each time; in parliamentary systems, for example, the leadership can easily change in between elections.

Anyway, the highest "time" number shown in this way on that site is the "12th time", and that honor belongs to Domenico Fattori of San Marino. Now, that country uses a rotating-dual-leadership system, where the Grand and General Council elects two people (from different parties) to serve jointly as captain-regent for a 6-month term. So although Fattori held the position 12 times, non-consecutively, over the period 1857-1914, all those times added up to only 6 years in total; and he was only a joint leader.

If that's not considered to count, then the next highest number is "10th time", achieved by two people. The site shows ex-king Norodom Sihanouk as prime minister of Cambodia 10 times over the period 1945-62, as well as holding several other leadership titles over the years. And Alexandros Koumoundouros is shown as prime minister of Greece 10 times over the period 1865-82. In both cases, Wikipedia does not detail all these terms of office.

The next highest is "8th time". This is given for 8 additional people on the site, from four countries and one colony, and I have not looked them up except to see if they have Wikipedia entries. (The ones not linked don't, unless they're under alternate forms of their names.)

• Iran: Mirza Hassan Khan
• Iraq: Nuri Pasha as-Said
• Lebanon: Bashir ibn al-Qasim ibn Umar; Rashid Karami
• Netherlands: François Ermerins; van Haersolte, heer van Staverden
• Pitcairn Island: Thursday October Christian II; Charles Richard Parkin Christian

--Anonymous, 08:05 UTC, November 25, 2010.

Thursday October Christian II. Now, that's a name to reckon with! He's already my all-time favourite politician. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

He was a son of Thursday October Christian I, who married his girl Friday. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh. But read the article! Thursday October Christian I was known for a while as Friday October Christian I, before resuming his original name! --Anonymous, 05:18 UTC, November 26, 2010.

It's a lot easier to go in and out of office in a parliamentary system than in a presidential system like that of the U.S. In a parliamentary system, you can lose the prime minister's title but remain the leader of your party and be recalled to office if the new governing coalition breaks up. In the U.S., you actually have to be re-elected personally by the public to the office you lost. In addition to the above-mentioned people, Bill Clinton was elected, un-elected and re-elected governor of Arkansas before becoming president. Edwin L. Mechem served three non-consecutive terms as governor of New Mexico. A. Harry Moore was governor of New Jersey three times. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

would someone take being cheated on any better if the person their spouse cheated with was ALSO married?

would someone take being cheated on by their spouse any better if the person they cheated with was ALSO married? (my reasoning is that it would make it more credible if the spouse makes the argument that it was just sexual, they had no deeper feelings or long-term plans for each other... this is harder to believe if the person they cheat with does not have someone else in their life that they are emotionally and long-term attached to.) thanks for any insight you may have in this matter. 188.174.80.195 (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It would depend entirely on the individual, so it's not really an answerable question. If you go to Google, you might be able to find some surveys on the matter, to see what the probability of various reactions would be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Here in Italy this is usually the case, as regards the cheating husbands, seeing as most single girls are interested in finding a husband of their own so rarely go out with a married man. Married women, on the other hand, will cheat equally with married men (in many cases the spouses of their best friends) as well as single guys (usually much younger than themselves).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The same sort of question is sometimes posed in relation to married guys who have a fling with another man, and whether this is better or worse than if it had been with another woman. I've known cuckolded wives in this situation who've gone both ways:

• from - Well, at least it wasn't another woman; I couldn't have dealt with that
• to - If only it had been another woman; I could at least have dealt with that.

So, there's no way of knowing how people are going to react to that sort of thing. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, better keep infidelity a secret from one's spouse at all costs. See: Anne Boleyn, Catherine Howard, Laura Lanza.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Except that in Anne Boleyn's case, she was not the one who was being unfaithful (and particularly not with her own brother, as claimed!) - Henry himself was the guilty party here, having an affair with Jane Seymour (not the actress) while married to Anne, yet she got the chop for it. What hypocrisy! Of such tawdrinesses are churches built on. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I know Anne was not guilty. It was a clever nasty ploy on the part of Thomas Cromwell to paint her as an infamous whore giving Henry the means to get rid of her yet sparing his manhood.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Korea - UK's obligations?

With all the sabre-rattling in Korea, no-one in the British media has mentioned whether the UK has any obligations to help defend the South. Does anyone know if the UK made any commitments under the terms of the Armistice? Alansplodge (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The full text of the armistice is available at wikisource:Korean Armistice Agreement. A quick glance through doesn't show any section under which the UK could make any such commitment, although I may have missed something. Warofdreams talk 12:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Was the UK involvement covered as part of United Nations Security Council Resolution 83 which was to provide assistance as part of the UN forces? MilborneOne (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I think the UK voluntarily sent 12,000 troops and about a dozen ships to help the UN forces in Korea.[12] There was and is no formal obligation. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Phew! Alansplodge (talk) 11:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

A similar issue came up in Canada (missing words: "Korea, according to"?), one of your Commonwealth countries. However, in the currently-unlikely event of an all-out war (warning: pure speculation), NATO countries may be on the alliance against North Korea. See Conscription in the United Kingdom. ~AH1^(TCU) 21:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Longest gap in service

Following on from the question above, what it the longest gap in service someone has had in an elected office? For example, Simpson Gibson recently returned to the Northern Ireland Assembly, having previously served in the 1982-86 assembly, a gap of 24 years. The O'Gorman Mahon (an interesting character) was a UK MP in 1830, then from 1847 to 1852, 1879 to 1885 and 1887 to 1891 - a 27 year gap in there, and 57 years from the end of his first period of office to the start of the final one. Can anyone beat these? Warofdreams talk 12:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe the U.S. record is Cecil H. Underwood, who had a 36 year gap between his terms as West Virginia governor. The current Governor-elect of California, Jerry Brown, will, when he takes office, have a 28 year gap between his terms. --Jayron32 14:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The longest I found was only 23 years for William Cutten who resigned both times. [13] says it's the longest for the Parliament of New Zealand. Alexander Dubček is a famous comeback case with special circumstances. He was out for around 20 years depending on what you count him out of. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Lewis Nott had a break of 21 years (1928-1949), a record for the Australian parliament. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There is also Simeon_II_of_Bulgaria who abdicated as Tsar of Bulgaria in 1946 and came back 55 years later as democratically elected prime minister. 86.162.106.18 (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

That goes nicely with Norodom Sihanouk, who I mentioned in answering the earlier question. --Anonymous, 05:20 UTC, November 26, 2010.

Interesting, thanks. Looks like Underwood holds the record. Warofdreams talk 12:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If you suffer from dislexy

do you believe in dog? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.188.173 (talk) 12:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, most people believe both in dogs and bad jokes. Warofdreams talk 12:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

What if you are a dyslexic atheist? TomorrowTime (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Woof. Is the inability to spell "dyslexia" one of the signs of dyslexia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

eh, a dyslexic atheist is just a titeash... --Ludwigs2 15:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

(Partly serious comment)Is this a reference to "I'm that dog who saw a rainbow" in Kate & Leopold? ~AH1^(TCU) 21:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanksgiving

Well it's that time of year again! Except it isn't because in Canada it was celebrated over a month ago which is frankly ridiculous. The holiday has the same purpose and has already been moved in the past so why doesn't Canada stop making this an issue and just share the date with the US. 300 million people already accept the established date so why take something so simple and make it a big cultural debate? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Quite so, it really is appalling that people who aren't American don't celebrate American holidays, and do you know, they don't pledge their allegiance to the American flag either? Goddam pinko liberal foreigners, nuke 'em all! DuncanHill (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Bloody colonials arguing amongst themselves again? Time to send the redcoats back... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Good, that will make them easy targets. Did you know Canada has a Fourth of July? Except they celebrate it on the 1st. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Good God. I hope they at least celebrate Cinco de Mayo like every true American! —Kevin Myers 14:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Every day's a holiday somewhere. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, what we should do is Franksgiving-plus, i.e. move the date to the Canadian date. Thanksgiving is too close to Christmas, and in fact it's a lot like Christmas (being a family gathering), minus the tree and the deficit spending. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

We also celebrate Flag Day in February! Except no one actually celebrates it. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Festivus. For the rest of us. Rimush (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I celebrate Holiday myself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Winterval. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I'm going to be BOLD by suggesting that Bastille Day should be made an American holiday in recognition of the help the French gave the American colonists during the Revolutionary War. Vive la France--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't it King Louis XVI of France who helped you out? The Revolution gave him a pain in the neck. Alansplodge (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

A capital idea. Maybe we should honor the French Revolution by dispensing with lethal injection, the noose, the chair, etc., and replacing them all with the guillotine. A nice bit of historical nostalgia. ("This execution has been brought to you by Gillette...") ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey BB, don't you mean "brought to you by Jeanne boleyn?" After all, it's my idea not Gilette's--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"Today's decapitation sponsored by Gillette, makers of the new Jeanne Boleyn razor; and by Pepsi, makers of Diet Slice." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

hey, a whole new world of 'theme' executions. veterans day with military-style rifle corps executions, Thanksgiving would be good old Puritan 'burnings-at-the-stake', the anniversary of 1920's stock market crash with defenestrations, etc... Easter should be fun. --Ludwigs2 03:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Canadian Flag Day, if you really don't want to celebrate a holiday in Canada, scheduling it for February is a good choice. Our Flag Day is June 14, but it doesn't get a lot of attention, especially with July 4th coming up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanksgiving, of course, is a harvest festival, and the last week of November is more appropriate for an snow festival in much of Canada. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, we do have an actual get-a-day off holiday in February now, called Family Day (at least in Ontario), and which happens to coincide with Flag Day anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it coincides with Presidents Day — deliberately, I'm sure, since it was first adopted in Alberta. Since National Flag of Canada Day is not a holiday, it's not constrained to Mondays. --Anonymous, 05:26 UTC, November 26, 2010.

Agreed. I suggest you call up Barack Obama and the US Congress and tell them to stop beings so silly and change the date to October. I could try myself but I don't think they'll care about the views of a Malaysian/Kiwi. As others have pointed out, this makes it further away from Christmas and also has the advantage that the black whateverday sales are earlier. Nil Einne (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I just saw The Matrix!

Wow, what a film! I just saw the Matrix, but I just have one question. How come when they awake from the simulation, the person who wakes up looks EXACTLY like the simulation?? If these people have been raised in a pod from birth, it doesn't make sense that the robots would program exactly that "look" into a simulation. I would expect the pod-body to have no resemblance to the simulation-body. It would have been a better film if it were true. Like in Avatar. Also, why didn't they go in deeper, like in Inception, with a matrix in the matrix, and a totem to see if you're in a matrix or not? It would have been more interesting. 84.153.212.127 (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think part of the justfiication is that one's self-image in matrix needs to have some connection to one's actual self outside of the Matrix so that the mind-body connection is preserved somehow; if not the body would basically die which would make humans useless as batteries for the machines. (this is in the Matrix universe, its not supposed to make sense in the real world, I know that) Not to give too many spoilers, but if you watch the sequels (Matrix Reloaded and Matrix Revolutions) and the sideproject the Animatrix, you get additional information regarding the Matrix and its history; I don't know that they cover this directly, but they do go into some important details which you do not get in the first movie. --Jayron32 14:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It's important to keep in mind that (1) the film came out 11 years ago, and a lot of stuff has happened since then; and (2) it's fictional, and we weren't its authors, so "why didn't they" as pertains to a movie can be hard to pin down. The most important aspect of that movie might well be technical, as it pushed the envelope on concepts of fast and slow motion in cinema. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a good storytelling reason that the people looked exactly the same: it would be really confusing for the viewers to have to match up two different actors and identify them as the same person. (The TV series Dollhouse involved mind-transplantation, and so it was pretty confusing that way, even though typically only a couple people were involved per episode.) Regarding recursive matrices, there was some speculation that that was going to be revealed to be happening in the third Matrix movie. Unfortunately, that wasn't what happened; the third movie made no sense and was terrible. I suspect that they thought that it would've been too "obvious". Paul (Stansifer) 15:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It was confusing enough in Oklahoma! when they had a dream/ballet sequence with dancers that looked kind of like the main players but not exactly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

TVtropes.org has an article on this trope: "Inside a Computer System", which supports some of the comments made above in that much is done "to make things easier for the audience". WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I once saw an episode of The Simpsons on a streaming site. The episode included quite some reminiscing, so the story unfolded in three time lines: when Marge and Homer first met, when Bart was a toddler and Lisa had just been born, and in present time. It was all pretty straightforward, run-of-the-mill stuff, you just had to look at hairstyles and/or the size of the kids to figure out which timeline you were in. And yet, about half of the comments under the video were about how terribly confusing the ep was and how it was hard to follow. I wouldn't believe it if I didn't see it, and I have to chime in with Socrates: the youth nowadays is terrible, the world is screwed. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The third movie of the Matrix made perfect sense, though getting that sense might not be easy. Ask yourself: in the first Matrix, how would Neo's ascension look to the people who stayed behind? Then consider the opening sequence, showing worlds within worlds within worlds, even using recognizable fractals for artwork. In the third Matrix Neo ascends another level, but you see it from the perspective of those left behind. Wnt (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't ever compare that movie to Avatar. The Matrix was an interesting breakout movie by a pair of brilliant brother-directors after an amazing film noir film Bound, full of philosophy and amazing special effects, weaved into an interesting story. I [obviously] don't like Avatar, but the comparison between the two is insulting. The Matrix series, no matter how bad the third one was, is so much better than anything in the Cameron / Spielberg sci-psy after that movie. Shadowjams (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It's likely that movies made after the Matrix were at least partly influenced by its concept, in which a semi-simulated reality is entered. However, in Avatar the humans enter their 'avatars' in the same dimension as their real selves, so that the two can interact although one's consciousness can only remain in one of these domains. Avatar contains many philosophical references as well, and the list would simply go on forever had I had to describe them all (sorry, Shadow, but we all have our own opinions). ~AH1^(TCU) 21:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

British Monarchy

I can't seem 2 find WHY, when the Prince marries, his wife will Bcum Queen when he Bcums King, yet the Queen's husband is NOT titled King!

This question was asked a few days ago. Basically the present Queen Elizabeth II is the queen regnant, i.e. the monarch. In order of precedence, the title King takes precedence over Queen, so her husband could not be the King, as he would then be the monarch himself. Is this clearer? --TammyMoet (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems like they could invent a title such as "King consort" that would rank below "Queen regnant". But presumably the Brits like things the way they are. During the 1950s, when ERII was expecting, if the press then were as cheeky as they are now, they might have headlined it, "Queen Regnant Pregnant!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The Queen's first pregnancy was in the 1940s, and her last in the 60s. Only the middle two were in the 50s, and those only partly. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The wife of a reigning king, such as Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, becomes Queen consort. The husband of a reigning queen, such as Philip Mountbatten, is a Prince consort. Ain't no sense in it - that's just the way it is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It's even more senseless than that, because in 1952 the powers-that-be wouldn't give poor old Philip the title of Prince Consort - he was understandably annoyed. He may be a prince consort but he's not The Prince Consort. There's only ever been one; Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Alansplodge (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Mary, Queen of Scots was foolish enough to make her husband, Lord Darnley king. It didn't go down too well with her Scottish subjects, so they first took him down; then Mary, herself was brought down. Far better to keep the husband a Prince consort and stick him in the stud farm, like Victoria's Albert and George of Denmark.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think the word you're looking for is usually spelled "become", not "Bcum". 87.114.101.69 (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he was dictatin'! 84.153.212.127 (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the way things work throughout the British honours system: when a man is knighted, he becomes Sir Bob and his wife becomes Lady Wilma. But when a woman is knighted, she is Dame Gladys while her hubby remains plain old Steve.
Equally, the wife of Lord Smith is Lady Smith, but the husband of Baroness Jones is Mr Jones. Seems sexist, but I can't quite get my head around how: just odd, basically. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 18:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely sexist. Men are rated higher than women -- any explanation that leaves that aspect unclear is inadequate. Another sexist aspect is that any son takes precedence over any daughter, even if the daughter is older. Until the reign of Mary it was unclear whether women could become monarchs at all -- in France they couldn't, because of the so-called Salic law. Looie496 (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The Empress Matilda was never allowed to become Queen Regnant, though her son wound up as King. Corvus cornix_talk 20:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Technically, Sir Bob Smith's wife is plain Lady Smith, not Lady Wilma Smith or Lady Wilma. But the point remains: a knight's wife is a lady, but a dame's husband is still a nobody. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I find it amusing that all this fuss over a royal wedding, no doubt much of it from folks who adore the system of royalty, is bringing to the surface again all those things that are wrong, unfair and illogical about it. HiLo48 (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's far better than it was in the days when the monarchy really counted for something. If Brits want to spend all that money to maintain their theme park for tourists, I suppose that's OK. It does irritate me a little that the Canadians are still officially part of it, though. That sort of thing should stay on the old continent. --Trovatore (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Not the place, folks, for a debate on the merits of the monarchy. That wasn't what the question was about; and it's been answered. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There was talk of changing the succession rules to the throne a couple of years ago. Did any of that ever go through? I'm finding several news articles where people are saying it's going to change, but none about whether it did or not. Buddy431 (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing came of that, and I can't see that anything will in a hurry. The Statute of Westminster 1931 requires all the realms to change the law of succession unanimously. There are currently sixteen of them. This would require a feat of international co-operation beside which the Olympics begin to look like a kick-about in the park. Marnanel (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

And it gets worse. An English High Court Judge is automatically knighted by HMQ so he becomes Sir John (off the Bench - with his wife becoming Lady Jane), but on the Bench he is addressed as My Lord or Your Lordship, but his wife stays as Lady Jane. But in Scotland, a High Court Judge is NOT knighted by HMQ, though he is appointed by her, and thus he cannot call himself Sir John, on or off the Bench. But he automatically assumes the honorific title of Lord, both on and off the Bench, with his wife becoming Lady Jane. And yes, it's true that the husband of a lady High Court Judge gets nothing. Confused? It's designed to keep the masses in the dark.92.30.10.122 (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

There actually has been a sort of exception. When King Philip II of Spain married Queen Mary I of England in 1554, he was declared king of England as well. However, they were joint rulers (like King William III and Queen Mary II in a later century); she didn't remain as the sole monarch. On the other hand, his equal status was not permanent; when she died, his claim to the English throne expired automatically. --Anonymous, 05:35 UTC, November 26, 2010.

And he's since been written out of most history books as if he he were never a king of England at all. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You've never been to Belfast or Glasgow, have you[14]? He's held in high regard there (more's the pity, some say). Alansplodge (talk) 09:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we were talking about King Philip II of Spain (who married Queen Mary I of England). That photo is of King William III. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The one known in some circles as "Philip the sap". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - wrong end of the stick! Alansplodge (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it may be only Will Cuppy that called him that. But it seems to fit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that Philip II was extremely unpopular in England and spent precious little time in the realm. I believe he only returned periodically in an attempt to impregnate Mary; his efforts were of course, futile.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Chinese

In China I know schoolchildren traditionally memorize a variety of ancient Chinese poems. About how many does the average Chinese child memorize ? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't know about China, but in my 1960s childhood in the UK, memorising large chunks of poetry was part of most people's primary education. I can still quote many of them. Of course, it was anathema to the educationalists of the 1970s, but "it never did me any harm"! Alansplodge (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Very much depends on the school and the parent and the child - poetry contained in text books do not necessarily need to be memorised, and conversely many poems outside of text books are often memorised.

According to this answer on Baidu, which reproduces each poem, there are 73 classical poems in primary school text books. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

November 26

Are gov. bonds traded through the stock exchange?

--212.169.184.210 (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Which stock exchange? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

A general answer can be found here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

In the NYSE, you certainly can buy funds comprised of bonds (of all kinds). I don't know if gov. bonds (do you mind US or something else?) are presently traded there. Quest09 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC).

The NYSE or LSE. I tried to find them, but no luck. So far, I could only found the funds composed of bonds (also mentioned above). If it is possible to trade them, can anyone find the symbol of any European or US bond? 212.169.184.210 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC).

Our bond market article gives an overview of how bonds are bought and sold. Looie496 (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

UK government bonds (or gilts) are traded on the LSE - see here. There is a list of US Treasury bonds traded on the NYSE here. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The simple answer is that, yes, they can be, but they don't have to be traded on the stock exchange, you can buy and sell them OTC too. some bond are not interesting enough (not liquid enough, I mean) so no stock exchange is actually listing them. --Lgriot (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The bonds the Fed buys for quantitative easing are purchased by bids in response to a published request for quotations. They don't change hands via typical OTC contracts; instead, they are assigned by special contracts with non-standard provisions. There are different reasons for this, e.g., to prevent the major players from front running the Fed's trades, but apparently that particular mechanism doesn't work very well. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

James Cook R.N.

I'm a bit confused and would appreciate some help. I am British and know that in the Royal Navy, the commander of a naval vessel, irrespective of his official rank, is addressed as Captain by his crew. Cook made 3 voyages before being killed; the first when he was a Lieutenant when he circumnavigated and mapped New Zealand; the second when he had been promoted to the rank of Commander and charted the Eastern seaboard of Australia; and the third after he had been promoted to the rank of Captain. So who really "discovered" Australia? Was it Captain Cook as the history books tell us. Or was it more accurately Commander Cook? Thanks. I did explain I was confused. And is it known whether any of his descendants are still with us? 92.30.10.122 (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Cook had six children: James, Nathaniel, Elizabeth, Joseph, George, and Hugh. Elizabeth, Joseph, and George died in infancy. James and Nathaniel were lost at sea with no issue. Hugh died of scarlet fever while a student at Cambridge, again without issue. So: no, his descendants are not still with us. Reference. Marnanel (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

He landed in Australia on the first voyage, so really, the eastern coast was first charted by Lieutenant Cook (he did not discover it, Australia had been discovered in the seventeenth century by the Dutch). But as you say, the commander of a naval vessel is the captain, so it is still accurate to say "Captain Cook", even though Cook did not yet have that official rank.

For further details, see European exploration of Australia. The Dutch got here in March 1606, and they're generally agreed to be the first Europeans to reach Australia. There's evidence the Portuguese were here almost a century earlier, but whether that's compelling evidence or not is up to you. Historians generally are not compelled by it. Then there are the Australian aborigines, who arrived here from overseas parts 40-80,000 years ago, besides which the achievements of the Europeans look positively tardy. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

James Cook. This is a personal bugbear of mine.
Sleigh (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Well don't leave us in suspense man; pray tell us what it is that bugs your bear so much. Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this is what Sleigh is talking about, but it's always seemed odd to me that, out of all the famous mariners throughout history, the only ones that get called "Captain" are pirates and Captain Cook. When was the last time you heard of Captain Columbus or Captain Magellan or Captain Frobisher, etc. etc.? Only Bligh sometimes gets a "Captain" and that's a complicated case. You'd think Cook was born with the name "Captain". Matt Deres (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It's alliterative! Admirals get to use their titles too, usually. Admiral Nelson, Admiral Halsey... Adam Bishop (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Cook was an officer; Columbus, Magellan and Frobisher were civilians. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

My grandfather earned his master's ticket in 1905 on a sailing ship, and always signed his name with the title "Captain". Although he was a first officer on a number of ships, he never commanded one - there were far too many highly qualified merchant navy officers in the 1920s and 1930s and not enough ships. I suppose that "Captain" came with being qualified as the master of a ship, or maybe he wasn't entitled to the title; he died in 1974 so I'm afraid I can't ask him. Alansplodge (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Architectural History

There has been in recent years an increased emphasis on the development of complex and integrated systems to maintain suitable levels of daylighting, temperature, fresh air and so on in buildings, with opposition to the use of mechanics to make up for shortcomings. I am hoping to prove that older buildings, from before the development of such things as air conditioning and efficient artificial lighting, have been particularly well designed for this for centuries, perhaps in some ways surpassing the majority of modern attempts at this sustainable natural architecture. If anyone here can supply me with any more specific examples of this, I will be very grateful.

148.197.121.205 (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

So far as ventilation is concerned, this article provides many examples of the use of a windcatcher or malqaf in traditional buildings. Some more information here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The thermal mass of adobe is classic, of course.--Wetman (talk) 13:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The Earthship idea may be of interest. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

For a long time, dwellings were designed with breezeways to allow wind to cool the building. --Jayron32 15:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It's always a bit dodgy to start with your conclusion and hunt for supporting evidence. At best you get confirmation bias; at worst, the conslusions you draw are bunk. Of course there are many examples of excellent design in the past, such as those examples above, and such simple things as light wells and larger windows in sewing factories, for instance. I don't thnink any of that amounts to confirmation of a a "past is better" conclusion. And, of course, if you exclude the very many archtecturally rotten buildings, what then does that do to your conclusion? --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

As Tagishsimon points out, you may have the cart before the horse. It's better to look at broad vernacular styles and common building practices rather than focusing on individual buildings for clues about local adaptations to environmental conditions. It will always be possible to find abundant counter-examples - cheaply-built housing is affected more by first cost than by appropriate use, and many structures - Scottish tower houses come to mind - are more affected by considerations other than livability. Mechanical and electrical systems allow otherwise unlivable places to be inhabitable, but other factors, such as fashion, material availability, sanitation codes, fire regulations and market expectations will have a powerful effect as well. You can, however, develop a thesis by looking at a broad overview of regional construction practices. Acroterion _(talk) 15:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

All very useful advice, I am sure. I am working on that, of course, but right now all I am hoping for here is someone to point me towards a couple of case studies that show these earlier buildings at their best. Then, perhaps I can look into what is wrong with my hypothesis with a little more information from both sides. Is that allowed? I am not attempting to claim the past is better than now, just that with our increasing relience on mechanical solutions to our problems, which are now losing popularity, there is much we can learn from earlier ideas.I have a suspicion there may be some particularly remarkable old buildings around, and would be interested in studying them in much more detail.148.197.121.205 (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The Colosseum originally had a retractable roof to shade spectators, if that counts. Roman architecture was pretty sophisticated, they even had heating systems in the floors and walls. Only for rich people, of course. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Mediterranean architecture in general is a well of resources for pre-modern climate control ideas, many of which were adapted to the New World -- see below.

Wikipedia has no references for Vernacular_architecture#Climate -- check the key terms "vernacular architecture" and "climate" on Google Scholar at http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=vernacular+architecture+climate -- lots of good research out there

For a "particularly remarkable old building" that you may study in great detail, albeit not vernacular architecture but pedigreed architecture, one of my favorites is the French Quarter residence of 19th-century New Orleans architect James Gallier, Jr. -- his Gallier House (1857) is now open as a museum, and is a frequent study of students at Tulane University's School of Architecture, whose librarian may further help your researches in their archives. Full of his own innovations and experiments, such as ceiling ventilators. Thick walls, transoms, symmetric fenestration and an interior courtyard helped keep it comfortable in New Orleans' hot and humid summers. I lived one year on the second story of such a 19th-century French Quarter townhouse -- without any air conditioning at all -- and can attest to its comfort: the patio (with cooling fountain), usually shaded by three-story buildings on three sides, naturally drew warmer air from the heat sink of the sunlit street through the shaded balcony's floor-to-ceiling walk-through windows, perfectly aligned with the windows facing the shaded patio. Through the forty feet intervening between the two, papers were blown off the fireplace mantel on even a breeze-less day. Twelve-foot ceilings and adjustable louvered shutters on both sides also helped keep oppressive heat away from human concern, as did the deeply-shaded six-foot wide balcony, long enough to stretch a hammock, well off to the side of a dining table. How I miss that cool apartment! -- Paulscrawl (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The Soane Museum is like a labyrinth inside, with clever use of skylights and internal balconies and so on. I have not found anything that illustrates its insides to any extent - the photos at the bottom of this web page http://intranet.arc.miami.edu/rjohn/ARC%20268%20-%202003/Soane.htm comes closest. If I was a billionaire I would build a replica of it as an annexe to my house. 92.15.11.45 (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Question for sword makers

A book on Tang exotics by Edward H. Schafer mentions a rather evil-sounding sword brought from Laos for the Emperor of China. Chinese records state the maker folded poison into the blade and quenched it in horse blood. It seems only natural that the hot temperatures from the furnace would burn the poison off (even if it was derived from metal), but is there anything in the horse blood that would effect the blade? I know blades are usually quenched in water. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

A discussion here[15] on the subject. Apparently in 11th Century Germany it was believed that "Iron instruments are also tempered in the urine of a young red-headed boy harder than in simple water". Another discussion about quenching Japanese blades here[16]. Alansplodge (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

In her book Greek Fire, Poison Arrows, and Scorpion Bombs (a great read, by the way), Adrienne Mayor lists several examples of poisoning or otherwise adulterating weapons and notes that those actions were performed, not only to hurt/maim the enemy directly but to inspire disgust and fear at the mere thought of getting pricked with something containing such hideous compounds. Details regarding what poisons were used were actually widely disseminated (rather than kept as a state secret) to increase the horror. Frankly, horse blood doesn't sound too bad versus arrows tipped with poison derived from the rotting carcasses of snakes that have been allowed to ferment in their own venom. She also notes that some instances of increasing the disgust may have worked as propaganda but actually lessened the physical effect. For example, she mentions that bowmen would sometimes specifically urinate on the ground where they stuck their arrows for easy firing. Though the acidic urine probably killed off some of the bacteria in the dirt, the idea of getting a arrow tipped with piss did the job just as well. Matt Deres (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

how well do celebrities with new names or stage names wall off the same?

I very often hear of celebrities (who frequently have different names -- they've changed it as part of becoming a celebrity, or stage names) whose families and closest friends alone call them by their original names. Or perhaps by their "true" names. The question is then: how well, and in what ways, do they separate these names, if at all? (They must, in the case of stage names, continue using their normal name for legal processes, for example). Any otehr information you'd have on this for me is much appreciated. 92.224.204.151 (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I imagine they cope pretty much the same as anyone with a nickname. I have one which is not used all that often, but several of my friends are known more frequently by their nicknames than their real names, which, as you point out, they still have to use for official purposes. HiLo48 (talk)

It is worth noting that in many places, it is perfectly legal to change one's name simply by starting to use the new name (as long as the change is not made with fraudulent intent). If John Doe wakes up tomorrow and decides that he'd like to be Johnny Stagename, he can go right ahead and do that. (See our article on name change for more details.) In common law jurisdictions, one may generally enter into binding legal contracts under an assumed name. Marilyn Monroe could sign a contract as Marilyn Monroe, Norma Jeane Mortenson (name at birth), or Norma Jeane Baker (baptismal name) with equal validity. That said, governments, higher courts of law, and financial institutions can get a bit stickier about formal ways in which you identify yourself, and may insist upon certain paperwork to formally register your new name (deeds poll, court orders, and government-specific change-of-name declarations are all used in various places). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This varies a lot from person to person. There are no legal requirements, because a name isn't a unique identifier. John Smith might want to take a more unique name professionally, but John Ozymandias might want something easier to spell. As long as there's no fraud and the bank lets you deposit your checks, there's little actual difficulty with using whatever name you want. Not sure about TSA regulations, though. That might be the hardest part these days. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

What does "wall off the same" mean? I understand the question as presented, but these words in the header have me stumped. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Presumably it means to "separate" (ie "wall off") in a metaphoric, rather than physical, sense. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It varies a LOT between celebrities. I believe that Jon Stewart has officially changed his name from "Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz"; his children have the surname "Stewart". However, the Sheen/Esteven family never has. Martin Sheen uses "Ramón Estévez" on official documents, and Charlie Sheen uses "Carlos Estévez", I have seen interviews with Martin where he pulls out his drivers license to prove it. I have seen occasional interviews with Emilio Estevez where he calls his brother "Carlos", especially when the two are interviewed together, and in less formal settings; it would appear that, at least within the family, they don't use the professional name there. --Jayron32 13:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Many celebrities (and even some ordinary folks I've known) call themselves something different in their professional life but retain their familiar name in their private life, perhaps as a way of keeping the two separate. There are endless examples. The Sheen/Estevez situation is an excellent example. Another obvious one is the actor Stewart Granger, whose birth name was James Stewart, and his friends called him "Jimmy". Sometimes it's just nicknames. Babe Ruth was known as George to his friends, whereas Oliver Hardy and Curly Howard were known as "Babe" offscreen. Curly called himself "Jerry", or "Jerome" formally, and the latter appeared on-screen once, in the writing credits of an early film. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Then there are knighted actors, whose knighthoods apply to their legal names, not to their stage names. E.g. Rex Harrison and Michael Caine were knighted, but they never changed their legal names, so they became Sir Reginald Harrison and Sir Maurice Micklewhite for formal purposes. Their stage names are still plain Rex Harrison and Michael Caine, and it would be wrong to apply the Sir to their stage names (e.g. Sir Michael Caine), but lots of people do this. Even our article calls him "Sir Michael Caine" in the lede, despite making it clear in the Honours section that he was knighted as "Sir Maurice Micklewhite". Exactly the same thing would have applied had George Orwell ever been knighted - he'd have become Sir Eric Blair who continued to use the pseudonym George Orwell; he would NOT have become "Sir George Orwell". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Which makes me think that (1) this is a bit of a pet peeve for you; and (2) the articles' leads need to be changed, as they are putting out incorrect information, yes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I have only one peef. I think I may be overfeeding it.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

November 27

Katyn

Why did the Russians massacre the Poles if they were on the same side in WWII 24.92.78.167 (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

WOW. Dude -- Russia invaded Poland in 1939, just like Germany. 63.17.78.65 (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

They weren't at the start: see Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, and other articles on WWII. I suspect that some (most?) Poles might say the Soviets were never really 'on their side'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

They had a common enemy, like the Finnish. 212.169.188.173 (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Pardon? Who did? When? You'll have to be more specific... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that the OP should obtain a copy of William Shirer's Rise and Fall of The Third Reich. It goes into great detail about the Polish issue and the pact Hitler made with Stalin (which was later broken as we all know). It's a lengthy book, but well worth the read.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Stalin was much more interested in destroying than preserving Poles who had strong nationalist sentiments (which in 1939 meant hating both Russians and Germans), and who might have become influential leaders. In 1944, he deliberately and intentionally refused to aid the Warsaw uprising in any way, and the red army watched from front-row seats right across the river as the Nazis destroyed Warsaw... AnonMoos (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I have the impression than in 2010, Poles still have "strong nationalist sentiments (which mean hating both Russians and Germans)". Quest09 (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course, after the massacre the Nazis used propaganda posters this one to take over France, before overrunning Poland and commiting their own Khatyn massacre against Byelorussian civillians. ~AH1^(TCU) 21:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Which queen is Elizabeth II?

When Queen Elizabeth II decides to honour someone with a knighthood, and the person is not a citizen of a Commonwealth realm, they get an honorary knighthood. They get to use whatever postnominal letters come with the knighthood (typically KBE) but they can't call themselves Sir. This much I understand.

My question is: who is bestowing the knighthood? The Queen is monarch of 16 different but equal realms, so which crown does she wear? I can see that where the honouree's achievements have been particularly associated with one of the 16 realms, she would wear that realm's crown, e.g. Bob Geldof has had much to do with the UK and precious little to do with Jamaica, Kenya, Tuvalu, New Zealand etc, so it's obvious the Queen of the UK was the one handing out his knighthood. But what if she wanted to knight, say, Nelson Mandela, who is considered a citizen of the world but not associated with any particular country more than any other, outside of South Africa. Why would it be the Queen of the UK doing the honours, rather than the Queen of Canada, or the Queen of Papua New Guinea, or ....  ? Some of the realms, such as Australia, no longer participate in the Imperial Honours system at all; but the Queen still has awards in her personal gift at her disposal, which don't require the acquiescence of any of her governments. When she, personally, is deciding to honour someone with such an award, is she always necessarily the Queen of the UK when doing so? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This is strictly a personal view, but I would say that unless there is a significant precedent for her acting as Queen of XXX rather than Queen of England for an investiture, her default 'mode' would be Queen of England as that's her primary role/title, all others are secondary. Exxolon (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That's completely untrue about her other titles being secondary. See Statute of Westminster 1931. (I'll let "Queen of England" go through to the keeper, for now.) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, but that's a law passed by the UK Parliament, which in principle could just as easily repeal it. Seems as though one of the realms is a little more equal than the others.... --Trovatore (talk) 08:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It would have been interesting to see how the UK public would have reacted if William had picked a bride from, say, Tuvalu. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Exxolon's comments are also untrue in that the title "Queen of England" has not been in official use since 1707. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Trovatore, the Statute of Westminster applies to all 16 Commonwealth realms equally. It would require their unanimous agreement for it to be repealed, just as it required their unanimous agreement to permit Edward VIII to abdicate, and it would require their unanimous agreement to change any of the rules about the succession to the throne (e.g. permitting Catholics or spouses of Catholics to accede, or first-borns regardless of sex). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

How does that work? It's a law of the UK. It was passed in the parliament of the UK. It's not a treaty. If the UK parliament repeals it, in what venue would you challenge that action?

Now, I'm not saying that means you would then start paying attention to UK laws that claimed to apply to Australia; your own courts would presumably declare them null, and I don't see Britain going to war to enforce them. But for the Queen specifically? Face it, the Brits own her. She does what David Cameron tells her to do. If you don't like that (and I certainly wouldn't) you might take another look at republicanism. --Trovatore (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942. DuncanHill (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Don't see how that helps. If the British Parliament, just for example, repeals the 1931 law and then unilaterally changes the order of succession, what are the Aussies going to do about it? Certainly, they could decline to recognize the successor as their Sovereign (which, of course, is what I personally think they ought to do anyway). But they couldn't prevent Britain from doing so. It's just a statute; it doesn't even require a (purely British) supermajority to repeal. --Trovatore (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

As Australian law has been fully patriated, repeal of the Statute of Westminster by the UK parliament would not and could not effect the independence of Australia. You're suggesting a unilateral annexation - frankly, I'm not convinced that you're not trolling. Any change to the order of succession cannot come into effect without the consent of the other Commonwealth realms. DuncanHill (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe I'm being a little provocative. I don't like the monarchy much. It's a lot more tolerable now that it's all symbolic, but it still strikes me as less than ideal.

But no one has answered my point here. If the UK parliament decides to repeal the 1931 act, in order to change the order of succession, what stops them? That that might logically comport the "annexation of Australia" would presumably simply be ignored; to accomplish that in practice would require military force that I don't see the UK wanting to exercise, nor the world permitting. But if they decided to just skip over Charlie, or award the Kingship to Elton John, what are you going to do about it Down Under? Of course you don't have to recognize Elton I yourselves, but I can't see how you can stop Britain from doing so. --Trovatore (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Any of the 16 realms that attempt to go it alone in relation to the succession laws, without regard to the other 15, is breaking the compact. Such an attempt would not get past first base. If they persisted, they would be asking to be expelled from the Commonwealth, which could happen surprisingly quickly. They would be seen a rogue state by the international community. That's if their own people were on side, which is a huge ask in the first place. Why would the general UK populace countenance their nation becoming a pariah, just to satisfy the caprices of some nitwit in Whitehall? No, their respect for tradition and history and the monarchy and the status quo and all that would have the people up in arms against their own government if they ever tried anything so stupid as what you're suggesting. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

And let's suppose, that instead of privileging a decent but hardly revolutionary pop musician, they decided to do what I think they actually should do, and abolish the monarchy altogether? That you must allow they have the right to do (there was little question that Australia had the right a while back. But once it was no longer their monarch, presumably they would no longer want to pay the bills. What happens then? Do you invite Liz or Charlie to set up shop in Canberra? --Trovatore (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

What Australia did was to have a referendum on whether or not we wanted to become a republic. It had nothing to do with abolishing anything. It had to do with us severing ourselves from the monarchy and establishing the office of President of Australia as our head of state. Had we gone that way, the remaining 15 realms would have continued to have the monarchy, unaffected by Australia's decision.

But no, I do not allow that the UK has the right to unilaterally abolish their own monarchy. They could do it only if the 16 Commonwealth realms unanimously decided to go this way, all at the same time. The UK is just as much subject to the Statue of Westminster as any of the other realms are. But if a rogue UK PM decided to test the waters and started talking about abolishing the monarchy, he or she would be quickly silenced by their own party, and if they persisted, they'd be unceremoniously and swiftly deposed by their party. For that not to happen, the party platform would have to include the abolition of the monarchy, and they wouldn't have been elected to power in the first place unless the general populace were in favour of abolition, which they're not. But even if they were, the UK still cannot go it alone, because they "own" only 1/16th of the crown. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your point here. You say that Australia held a referendum on severing itself from the Australian monarchy, and then you say that the UK cannot become a republic without the consent of all other Commonwealth realms. Is there really anything (in theory) preventing the UK from becoming a republic while (say) Canada continues as a monarchy, which doesn't prevent Canada becoming a republic while the UK remains a monarchy? (And by the way, the UK doesn't "own" 1/16th of the crown: there are sixteen The Crowns, one for each realm. That's a large part of the point of the Statute of Westminster.) Marnanel (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you've twisted my words. I never said the UK cannot decide to become a republic - of course it could, that's entirely their business, just as it was Australia's business to consider such a move in 1999. Should the UK do so, they would sever themselves from the joint monarchy and the Queen would continue to reign over the remaining realms. As Trovatore alluded earlier, the Royal Family would probably need to relocate to somewhere where the Queen is still recognised as head of state. What I said was, was that the UK cannot unilaterally abolish the monarchy. Nor could any of the 16 realms unilaterally abolish the monarchy. Any changes to how the monarchy works must be agreed unanimously by all 16 realms, but any realm can opt out of the club completely. It's a bit like, any country that's currently a member of the UN could decide to cancel its own membership but it could not unilaterally change the rules about how the UN is organised and run. (I know there are 16 crowns, I was just trying to explain a point using an analogy.)-- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Have to ask: can't abolish which monarchy? I think the argument here is confusion of terms. I think we can all agree that the UK has full rights to abolish the British monarchy whenever they want, without consultation of other Commonwealth members, however unlikely that may be. However, regardless of what happens to the British monarchy, the Australian, Canadian, Bahamian, etc. monarchies continue unperturbed. (Assuming, of course, that newly-republic UK doesn't have James Bond track down and assassinate all of Sophia of Hannover's descendants.) -- 174.24.198.158 (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. I do not agree that the UK has a right to unilaterally abolish the British monarchy, as explained above. It's not even a question of right - it's actually impossible. The Statue of Westminster prevents them from doing so, because any so-called action taken without the concurrence of all the other realms is inherently null and void. The action/change has to apply to all the realms, and simultaneously, or to none of them. Doing something to the monarchy (such as abolishing it) is not the same as divorcing the nation from it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Jack, this whole thread started when you asked *which Queen* bestows the honour. From this I can surmise that you understand that "The Queen of Britain" and "The Queen of Australia" are distinct, despite the fact that they're both the same person (per the Statute of Westminster). My question to you: which monarchy does the Queen of Australia belong to? - I'm presenting the perspective that "the British Monarchy" and "the Australian Monarchy" are distinct (although, per the Statute of Westminster, the same). If the UK becomes a republic, the British Monarchy will no longer exist, by definition: republics don't have monarchs. In other words, by voting to become a republic, the UK parliament will have "abolished" the British monarchy. However, the UK parliament is powerless to unilaterally alter the other 15 monarchies of the Commonwealth realms, and regardless of what happens to the British Monarchy, the Windsors will retain their standing as the hereditary heirs to the Australian Monarchy, the Canadian Monarchy, etc. -- 174.24.198.158 (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Scenario A: The UK chooses to become a republic, which also means that it has just chosen to abandon its monarchy.

Scenario B: The UK chooses to abolish its monarchy, which also means that it has just chosen to become a republic.

These look like the same thing, just expressed slightly differently. You can't have a republic that's a monarchy, because a republic is defined as a nation without a monarchy. But are they the same thing? I appreciate the distinction between the British Monarchy and the Australian Monarchy and the St Kitts and Nevis Monarchy and all the rest. They are distinct entities at law; but not so distinct that any change to one of them doesn't affect all the others. And not only affect all the others, but the change is exactly duplicated in all the others. The Statute of Westminster forces all the separate monarchies to be identical at all times. In the case of most monarchies (Denmark, Netherlands, Thailand, Tonga, Swaziland ...), abandoning the monarchy and abolishing the monarchy are the same thing. But in the UK/Commonwealth case, they're not. Any of the 16 realms can abandon its monarchy: Australia would have done so had our 1999 referendum passed. And an abandoned monarchy ceases to exist because a king without a country cannot be. But none of them can abolish the monarchy outright, not unless all 16 realms choose to do so. As far as Joe Bloggs on the street is concerned, does this distinction between abandoning and abolishing matter a tinker's cuss? Probably not. But it's not just semantics for its own sake either. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

[17] Nil Einne (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Trovatore, the PM of the UK advises (= commands) the Queen of the UK in relation to UK affairs and UK affairs alone. The PM of Australia advises (= commands) the Queen of Australia in relation to Australian affairs and Australian affairs alone. The PM of Canada advises (= commands) the Queen of Canada in relation to Canadian affairs and Canadian affairs alone. Get the picture? This was the whole point of the Statute. The 16 realms are separate and equal, none subservient to any other. There was talk back in the Thatcher era of the UK being expelled from the Commonwealth, which is no more constitutionally unbelievable than the expulsion of Zimbabwe, Fiji or Pakistan. The Queen herself is usually seen as most associated with the UK realm, as she resides there (well, she has to live somewhere) and the Commonwealth evolved out of UK history. But that has nothing to do with the equality of the realms. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

And if the UK parliament repeals the statute, I ask again, in what venue is Australia going to challenge that action? --Trovatore (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

We're now in the realm of the hyper-hypothetical, but that could be seen as an act of aggression. Repealing the Statute would have the effect of the British Parliament re-asserting its authority over the "Dominion" parliaments, effectively purporting to re-colonise the realms all over again. Wars have started over less. How would the USA feel if the UK Parliament reasserted it still owned the 13 American colonies, tore up its peace treaty, and resumes taxing them? Hmm? Same with us. It's never going to happen. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you'd go to war to prevent the British parliament from imposing British law in Australia. But over, for example, changing the order of succession? I frankly doubt it. But in any case the situations are not really parallel, because the American War of Independence ended with an actual treaty, binding under international law, the Treaty of Paris (1783). It was not a simple statute, passed by a majority in the House of Commons. --Trovatore (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

But it's all part and parcel of the same thing. Repeal of the Statute would purport to have the effect of the UK reasserting its right to impose British law on Australia, just as it would purport to remove our right to have a say about any changes to the succession laws. Also, it would be in conflict with the Australia Act 1986. Like Duncan above, I can't see what point you're trying to make here, Trovatore, but it's going nowhere fast. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

A UK repeal of the Statute of Westminster would have no effect on Australia. The Statute of Westminster, once it was received by each of the realms, became part of the law of each individual jurisdiction. So there are as many different and separate Statutes of Westminster as there are realms that received it. Each of them can then deal with that piece of law at will so that, as a matter of law, there could be a dozen different versions of the Statute of Westminster in force in different realms.

It is only out of convention that the realms cooperate on constitutional matters. There is no legal impediment to their choosing not to do so. Australia has amended its Constitution several times since it was passed as legislation by the Imperial parliament. This has only changed the version of the Constitution as in force in Australia, it does not change the version on the statute books of the UK. Likewise, if the UK parliament were to amend the Constitution of Australia, it would be perfectly competent to do so, but only with respect to the UK statute. There would be no effect on the version in force in Australia.

That, more or less, was the point of the Statute of Westminster (and suplementary legislation like the Australia Acts). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The article on Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia says: "The Queen does still confer honours upon Australians that emanate from her personally rather than through the government, in particular the Order of the Garter..., The Order of the Thistle..., the Order of Merit..., the Royal Victorian Order..., and the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem...." The same principle would apply in other Commonwealth countries, although the way that the Royal Prerogative operates apparently varies between the different realms. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, but I'm talking about honours and awards beng bestowed upon people who are not citizens of any of her realms. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I remember going online trying to find the New Year Honours List a couple of years ago, and finding that it was published by the UK government rather than by some office of the royal court. Also, for example New Zealand has its own New Year Honours list, for the knighthoods and postnominals handed out by the Queen as Queen of New Zealand. Presumably, when honorary knighthoods are announced they are one one of the lists, and that should reveal which crown that particular KBE is associated with. Or, are the honorary titles announced completely separately, directly from the court? (Geldof's honour seems to be too long ago for me to be able to find a proper source of how it was announced) /Coffeeshivers (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy's KBE was certainly recommended by the Government of the UK; the one which has davalued everything. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, I think it's rather clever to get a prominent IRA fundraiser to accept a KBE. DuncanHill (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Coffeeshivers, I was somewhat diverted. I think you're right - the relevant government would promulgate the honorary awards. Honorary Imperial knighthoods would only ever occur with the agreement of a Commonwealth realm government that was still participating in the Imperial Honours system, which cuts out a few. I'd be interested to find a live case of an honorary knighthood in one of the British orders such the Order of the British Empire, the Order of the Bath or the Order of St Michael and St George, that was awarded by Elizabeth II as Queen of somewhere other than the UK. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There *is* the official position of Head of the Commonwealth, which is part of her official style. For example, the charter for the Venerable Order of Saint John, as linked in that article, uses her style as the British sovereign, including the Head of the Commonwealth bit. That said, if the honor is a personal gift, it might not technically be granted by "The Queen of X" (for any X) at all, but by the person of Elizabeth II herself, and is simply recognized as being official by country X, simply because Elizabeth II is "The Queen of X". (That is, Australia recognized the granting of an OM as valid because Elizabeth II is Queen of Australia, but Canada recognizes the same award as valid because she's Queen of Canada.) Sort of in the same sense that Crown Estate is property owned by the Queen-as-position, but Elizabeth II also owns property personally (e.g. Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle). -- 174.24.198.158 (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I can see what you're getting at. When the Queen makes an award in her personal gift, she is still doing so as the Queen of one of her realms. She is not acting as a private citizen (that's if she even is a citizen), because it's only monarchs who are the fount of honour, not private citizens. I even wonder if she can ever do anything as a private person, divorced from her queen-ness. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean she goes to the toilet as a queen rather then a private person? Nil Einne (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't really thinking that she was doing it as a private citizen, but more-so as a generalized royal. That is, acting as Elizabeth II Regina herself, rather than the person exercising the position "The Queen of X". Another option is that she's acting as all monarchs simultaneously. That is, to an Australian, she gives the OM as the Queen of Australia, but to a Canadian, she's acting, at the very same moment, as the Queen of Canada. If I had to guess, though, I would imagine she would be acting under the role through which the honour was chartered. For example, the Venerable Order of Saint John is chartered under the name of "Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Our other Realms and Territories Queen ... ", so when she appoints someone to the Order of Saint John, she does so as "Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Our other Realms and Territories Queen ... " (e.g. as the British Queen, rather than the Canadian Queen or the Australian Queen. -- 174.24.198.158 (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been coming to the same conclusion. Australia no longer has the level of Knight/Dame of the Order of Australia, but if we did, and we wanted to honour Barack Obama, for example, it would be the Queen of Australia bestowing it. New Zealand has restored its knighthoods recently, and an honorary NZ knighthood would be bestowed by the Queen of New Zealand. So, it comes down to which country established the award itself as to which queen awards it. Seems pretty sensible, really, wheh I think about it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Royal Surnames

Why does it seem that a lot of people believe that royalty can't have surnames? The nobilities of Italy and the imperial families of the Byzantine, Russian and Chinese empires used surnames. Also there were the Stuarts, the Tudors, and the Plantagenet. But are the "de Bourbon", "de France", and "de Borbon y de (mother's house name" considered surnames?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe Bourbon was considered a surname as Marie Antoinette was called Madame Capet at her trial.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The Emperors of Japan famously don't have surnames or dynastic names even though in the pasr there have been two claiments for the throne with different lines of descent. Alansplodge (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose royalty could have surnames. They historically did not have them, however. The use of "Louis Capet" for "Louis XVI" was an intentional attempt to make Louis equal to all other French citizens, in the use of a surname. What the French Revolutionaries were doing was pointing out that the Royals don't use surnames by forcing Louis to have one. It was an act of deliberate insubordination. There are a variety of ways to disambiguate royalty, from ordinal roman numerals, to nicknames or appelations like "Henry Bolingbroke" or "Edward Longshanks" or "Charles the Fat", to use of house or dynasty names, like "de Bourbon" or "of Lancaster", but these are not surnames, just descriptive names of their royal house. --Jayron32 13:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Our own Royal Family certainly use "Windsor" as a surname. Descendants who don't have ducal titles end up with "Windsor" as their last name, such as Lord Nicholas Windsor. Alansplodge (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Prince Charles' surname Mountbatten? I also read that William and Harry's surnames were Wales.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

See House of Windsor and Mountbatten-Windsor for further confusion explanation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

When he ascends the throne, the House will be likely changed to Mountbatten or whatever he chooses. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you have to be just a little careful how you use the term surname. In contemporary English, we use that term as a synonym of family name, but that's not the original meaning, esp when talking about royalty. One of the Henrys was surnamed Plantagenet, for example, but it wasn't (at least originally) a family name. It was more like a nickname. --Trovatore (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Since this seems to be done by royal proclamation, I reckon he could retitle it the House of Fish and Chips if he felt like it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

But what about the way the Spanish and Portuguese royal families use there Royal House names in there name which is just like Hispanic surnames. Like Juan Carlos Alfonso Víctor María de Borbón y Borbón-Dos Sicilias.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the British royal family really Guelph? Corvus cornix_talk 04:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

From House of Welf: [George I] inherited the British throne in 1714 as a result of the Act of Settlement 1701. Members of the Welf dynasty continued to rule Great Britain until the death of Queen Victoria in 1901; in Britain they were known as the House of Hanover.

Victoria’s successor Edward VII was the first king of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, which was changed in 1917 to the House of Windsor.

So, no, the British Royal Family is not really Guelph and has not been for the past 109 years. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The Russian royals did not have surnames. They were officially known by their first name and patronimic. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Most sexually conservative Europeans

Which European people would be considered the most sexually conservative today or at least within the last 50 years? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess Silvio Berlusconi would be one of those least likley to gain the title. How about Mary Whitehouse? Daicaregos (talk) 08:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Just guessing, but I think Jeanne may have meant nationalities rather than specific individuals.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. The reason I didn't say nations was that many countries such as Italy is made up of regions that vary greatly from one another such as Sicily and Lombardy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

....not to mention the Vatican people.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we have a winner. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The inhabitants of the Vatican seem tolerant of some very extreme sexual behaviours. DuncanHill (talk) 12:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. No Sex Please, We're British. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we'd need to know what was meant by 'conservative'. Position? Location? Duration? To me, the phrase brings to mind the affair between John Major and Edwina Currie. Not a happy thought.

Seriously though, I think that Jeanne needs to phrase the question in more precise terms. In any case, what is considered 'conservative' in one part of Europe may not be in another. I'm sure I've seen statistics somewhere comparing e.g. number of sexual partners amongst populations in different parts of the world, though the data may be somewhat suspect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Its not the British, as we have the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in Europe. Besides, the populations to fill the colonies didnt come from nowhere. You might be able to estimate this from the proportion of unmarried mothers as well as pregnancy rates. Italy, with the lowest birth rate in the world (?) could be the most conservative. I'm not sure if the amount of sexual activity has a positive or negative correlation with the amount of pornography consumed. The liberal laws of the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries would rule them out. Depends if you mean by activity or by attitude. 92.15.11.45 (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

What I meant by conservative is not the nudity shown on tv, in which case Italy would be easily be the most permissive; but rather the attitude towards unmarried mothers, divorce, women's sexuality in general, and gay marriage. Italy (especially the south), which is strongly against gay marriage, condemns infidelity in women, regards divorced women as puttane (sluts), would probably be the most conservative IMO. In fact, last year there was a spate of vicious homophobic attacks on gays, and this occurred in Rome!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Such attacks also happen in Eastern Europe from time to time. Moscow, Belgrade, etc Flamarande (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm how about Turkey? Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

[18] may be of interest here although over 10 years old. While I've only had a glance at it, it looks to me like Northern Ireland may be our 'winner' for the European countries surveyed (which does include Italy but doesn't include Turkey).Nil Einne (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's be honest here. Turkey isn't an European country in this aspect ('European' as in cultural values). Its culture is strongly influenced by Islam unlike all European countries (with the possible exception of Albania). I do know that the Istambul holds a substantial portion of the Turkish population and that they have been influenced by European culture in many aspects but there are irregular honor killings where the male relatives kill the woman found "guilty" of shaming the "family's honour" (some of those happen in Germany where a substantial Turkish population exists). Such murders may also happen in exceptional circumstances in European cultures but there they are more the exceptions which prove the rule. Flamarande (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Besides, the populations to fill the colonies didnt come from nowhere - the subdued native populace needed something to do on a Saturday night too. It's not as if the British happened to find lands that were devoid of human life (terra nullius) and just populated them with pink British babies. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Honour killings still take palce in Sicily and Calabria. Recently a brother in Calabria killed his sister for having a kid outside matrimony. I live in Sicily and many of the men will beat up their sisters and sisters-in-law if they catch them cheating on their husbands. Ironically, abortion is very high in Italy. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That isn't irony but simple and common results of hipocrisy (couples are too ashamed to buy condoms or the pill fearing the censoring and gossip of their neighbors - especially in more rural and poorer areas. Abortions are the sad result). I also knew that women have been murdered in the south of Italy (but AFAIK these are true exceptions - I may be honestly mistaken). However I believe that as a rule honour killings are far more common among Turks than Italians. "Oldfashioned wife-beating", while horrendous to the majority, is de facto uncommon but not unknown in southern Latin Europe (things are changing but all too slowly). AFAIK most of Europe is more or less liberal about sex of unmarried ppl (unlike Turkey). Either way I think that we can and should agree that Turkey with a diffrent religious background and a diffrent historical approach (Christianity vs Islam) is simply diffrent from European countries. Flamarande (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC) PS: You could improve the article Honor killing if you wish.

Turkey cannot be "[different] from European countries", as a significant part of it is in Europe. Please don't misuse the reference desk to push an irrelevant POV on a sensitive subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote above: ('European' as in cultural values). You seem to be seeing this issue only in pure geographical terms (and the "significant" European part of Turkey is more or less 3% of the whole country). However you seem to be ignoring that, like or not, the overwhelming majority of the Turkish population has a diffrent religion than the "rest" of Europe (with the exception of Albania). AFAIK the religious background of a country affects the culture of the people of a country. So forgive me for not exactly buying your statement that: "Turkey cannot be different from [the other] European countries." The overwhelming majority of Turks have a muslim background, while the overwhelming majority of Europeans aren't. Like it or not, the religion of a people affects the way they deal with issues like sex (creating some important diffrences). You might not like to deal with this sensitive issue, but this isn't an irrelevant POV. Flamarande (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't write Turkey cannot be different from [the other] European countries. this would be stupid, as each European country is different. I Wrote Turkey cannot be "[different] from European countries", as a significant part of it is in Europe, which is a statement of fact. And Turkey's 'cultural values' are likewise partly European, because Turkey is partly in Europe: again, a statement of fact. Turkey may not be predominantly Christian (though note that politically it is a secular constitutional republic), but the question was about Europe, not about Christian countries in Europe. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Flamarande, do you actually have some statistics on Turkish attitudes towards sex between unamrried people in particular so we can compare them to places like Northern Ireland? While I was the one who suggested Turkey, this was just a suggestion, from the way you are talking it sounds like you actually have some better evidence showing Turkey is definitely more conservative (on average) when it comes to sex between unmarried people. Also from Religion in Bosnia and Herzegovina Muslims are 45% of the population (although the level of religious observence in Bosnias for all religions is generally low) so I don't know if it's accurate to say the rest of Europe except Albania follows a different religion. Nil Einne (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

If they're practicing celibacy (which they're supposed to be)? Vatican residents are the least sexually active. Ya can't get more conservative then that. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that last statement is questionable. For example, if we have a person who's celibate for whatever reason but thinks there's nothing wrong with people having sex with whoever and whenever they want at any age and regardless of marital status of any parties involved and that women can or even should want to be part of that. Vs a married (for life as all marriages should be as far as they are concerned) man who has sex (as most married people do), but without concern for what their wife wants (she's a woman so it doesn't matter) but considers any sex outside marriage, sex between people of the same sex etc all horrible, horrible crimes and any perpetrators should be put to death (particularly the any women and gay men). I would consider the later person to be more sexually conservative. From what the OP has said, my feeling is they would agree with me. Nil Einne (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The idea that most married people have sex without concern for the wife's desires is a bit depressing. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've rearranged my wording for clarification. Nil Einne (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Albanians? 92.24.189.188 (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Selves that argue within oneself - illusion or not?

I have some long dreary work to do that I can easily put off. My Bossy-Self says that I ought to march off and do it as soon as possible, working twelve hours a day on it until finished. My Lazy-Self dosnt want to do it, keeps putting it off. I only make progress by promising myself a treat after doing some work, or that I'll only do it for an hour or two and then stop work for today.

Why do I appear to have two selves that are in conflict - Bossy-Self and Lazy-Self? Surely I should only have one self? Thanks 92.15.11.45 (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't have two selves. From one moment to the next, you exist, and your existence involves all the things you do and think, plus all the things your body does autonomically. There is no "elsewhere" where "you" exist independently of the things you and your body do. To say you have two "selves" is to ignore the fact that you exist in time in the physical universe, and that any other definition of "existence" is illusory (where and when would it be?). As for why you "appear" to "have two selves that are in conflict," it is because you are confusing mental deliberation with being. Anyone can deliberate endlessly, from any number of perspectives -- but the deliberations all occur in the moment of time, in the physical place, when and where you are acting/thinking/being, which is where and when you exist and THE ONLY "where and when" you exist. See Sartre. 63.17.78.65 (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

All of us have various-often conflicting-personality traits. We tend to argue with our inner-voices which usually represent our conscience telling what we should do rather than what we would prefer to do.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Why should what we should do be any different from what we prefer to do, if there is only one locus of control within us? 92.15.11.45 (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That's called an "inner conflict": Knowing what you need to do, but wanting to do something else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

In Laveyan Satanism there is what is called a demonic self which is a person's hidden, inner personality of the opposite gender. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You may find Dualism (philosophy of mind) and Mind–body problem interesting reads. schyler (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not my physical body that is arguing. On the other hand, Lazy-Self may just be the tiredness that I habitually overlook. Perhaps I will work better in the long run if I take a rest now. Or perhaps not. 92.15.11.45 (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not complicated. It's a normal human trait to put things off that we don't want to do, possibly in the hope that it will go away. Sometimes that actually works, but usually not. Another thing is that as a deadline approaches, you might be energized to do the work, hence making it more interesting in some way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I don't think this is what is going on with you, but the Split-brain syndrome may be of interest in this regard.

What Jeanne was saying reminds me of the Jungian Anima/Animus, which are "autonomous complexes" within the individual. If that were the case, you may then be interested in the process of individuation. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

A reasonable analogy is what Jerry Seinfeld referred to as two personalities within us that he called "Evening Guy" and "Morning Guy". Evening Guy likes to stay up late, party, have fun, etc., whereas Morning Guy has to get up and go to work. And the core problem, Seinfeld said, is that, "Evening Guy doesn't care about Morning Guy." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

See outline of self and imagined interaction. Although "arguing voices" phenomena are particularly pronounced in some mental disorders, I'm fairly confident that decisional conflict is nearly universal. ~AH1^(TCU) 21:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

My Lazy-Self may have been just tiredness, since after resting yesterday evening and going to bed early, Lazy-Self had almost disapeared and I got a lot of work done. 92.15.14.132 (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned Id, ego, and super-ego yet. Perhaps evolution has started to evolve two or more seperate selves within our brains, as I sometimes cross a busy street while thinking of something else and have no memory of it afterwards. People whose brains have been sliced down the middle as a cure for epilepsy can be scientifically proved to have two thinking selves. 92.24.189.188 (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

God Bless Anguilla

Hi, I'm looking for either an electronic (preferably free...) copy of the sheet music of this piece, or a MIDI other than the one on this page – thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 16:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Credit cards

This is a financial question, not a legal question, but in any case, I won't just do whatever people on here say, so don't feel worried that I'm going to take the first advice given and run out and do it. I'm just trying to think my way around this issue.

I have a credit card with a reasonably high APR (18% or so) that has some $7000 on it. (Blah.) That means I get a pretty high finance charge each month. At the moment I can pay about $200 a month on the thing, until my income situation changes, which should be in a year or two.

I've been using Mint.com, and it recommends that I transfer that balance to a new card, one where I'd have 0% APR for 18 months or so. No doubt Mint.com gets a commission if I do this. Now obviously this new card will probably juke the APR up to something high after those 18 months. But 18 months without finance charges would mean a difference of well over $1000 total. But I still won't probably be able to pay it all off after 18 months. And there is probably some kind of balance transfer fee as well.

I'm leaning towards doing what Mint.com recommends, only because it'll give me a bit more time, and I am expecting my income situation to improve within the next year or so.

How much would it theoretically hurt my credit rating to pull this off? Is there anything I should be aware of that I'm not considering? I'm not the most adept when it comes to financial things, though I'm not a fool in general. Any thoughts/suggestions/worries/considerations? Thanks in advance. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm probably going to be tarred and feathered for not saying this first: You should see a qualified financial expert. There. Done. Now for the OR of my response. I've done what you're thinking about a couple times and my credit rating has always been excellent. The fact that you have even more credit (with a second card now) and that you're paying your bills on time raises your credit score. Any decrease that your score gets due to transferring a balance (I don't know if there actually is a decrease for this) is, in my experience, outweighed by the first two items in my previous sentence. Many people do exactly as you're planning. Dismas|^(talk) 16:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. And yes, qualified financial advisor, etc. etc. I'm not going to take anything on here as gospel. I hereby promise not to hold anyone on here responsible for my own financial mishaps. :-) --Mr.98 (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Nobody knows for sure how credit scores work. Credit rating agencies won't publish anything about how they do it. Therefore, follow what makes financial sense to you and your creditors and act as if there were no credit rating somewhere. Reducing your debt, paying less APR makes perfectly sense. Creditors like people like you, who take a huge amount of credit and are at the brink of not being able to pay, but pay the bill at the end. Quest09 (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the main think with credit scores is never missing a payment and never making them late. Even if there is a transfer fee, 0% for eighteen months is very good. I would transfer your debt to the new 0% card, and continue paying it off. Do not use the new card for any other purpose (dont use any credit card in fact) but just paying off the debt. 92.15.11.45 (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There might be a one-time balance transfer fee from the card issuer as well. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Even so, all the fees combined won't be anywhere near the ~$1000 that he'll be saving in interest. Dismas|^(talk) 00:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This and this agree you'll suffer only a small short-term dip in your credit rating. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The articles above don't say one thing: if you change the credit card, and are saving money by that, you can repay your debt earlies, which also could improve your credit rating. Is that enough to balance this short-term dip? Who knows? Knowing how credit scores exactly work is impossible. Just act in the most possible reasonable way and your credit score will rise. Quest09 (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Even though this is probably out of date I still think it's worth your 60 min to take a look at some of the past tips and tricks of credit card companies. This and this also outline some of the traps and pitfalls of a 0% APR credit card. Read the terms and agreements, consult a financial expert and pursue all other options (short term loan from bank, etc) before making any commitment to anything. This is strictly my personally opinion but I would worry more about hidden fees, traps in the terms and agreements (voiding the 0% APR if you missed a payment to ANOTHER financial institution, etc) then the drop in credit score. Royor (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I remember one such 0% offer I had myself in the past, which stopped and returned to the normal high interest rate when I forgot to make a payment on time. So my advice is make the payments by direct debit or the equivalent in your country, and never use that card apart from paying off the debt. 92.15.14.132 (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

In Judaism, were Adam and Eve Jewish?

Is there a Rabbi in the house? A serious theological question regarding Adam and Eve (or rather their equivalent in the Torah: I'm more familiar with the Christian Old Testament). Were they Jewish? Given that we are all assumed (in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) to be descended from them, aren't we all ultimately of Jewish descent, according to Jewish faith? And if not, why not?

Given current debates going on within Wikipedia, it seems worth asking this, and it seemed safer to ask it here than to disrupt talk pages etc. Please note I'm asking the question specifically in relation to Judaism, and that other faiths (or non-faiths) aren't relevant at this point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Our Jews article says: "In Jewish tradition, Jewish ancestry is traced to the Biblical patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the second millennium BCE." I'm not sure what that would make Adam and Eve, though. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

By Jewish tradition, Abraham is the first Jew. However, the word 'Jew' was only used to refer to people after the Ten Lost Tribes had got lost, and it derives from the name of Judah.
Even as 'late' as Noah, the whole of humanity was regarded as one race, and the post-flood Noachide Code applied (applies!) to everybody, not just the Jews. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 17:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Given that Abraham would be considered the father of Judaism, no, Adam and Eve were not Jewish. Everything prior to Abraham's appearance is basically "background", presumably mankind's early relationship with God. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I should have paid more attention at my C of E primary school: thinking about it, I was probably told that the Jews were Abraham's descendants, though of course this was the Christian version anyway (or at least the C of E version, which always seemed to be vague on details). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Were they literally Abraham's descendants, or the descendants of Abraham's "disciples"? Or is that the same list? My Biblical history is a bit rusty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Jews are directly descended from Abraham's son Isaac, and through his son Jacob who became Israel after wrestling with an angel. Also, Isaac's son Esau narrowly missed out on being the ancestor of all Jews by Jacob's duplicity. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Roger. So Judaism was initially kind of like a family-run business (as with Islam, yes?) and branched out from there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, Jacob had twelve sons, each of which then had a tribe:

WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

A small correction to this is that there were actually 13 tribes, not 12 (although only 12 of the tribes, not including the Levites, received an allocation of land after the conquest of Canaan by Joshua). The descendants of Joseph formed not one, but two tribes: Manasseh and Ephraim. Marco polo (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There is some dispute over the exact counting of the tribes as well. When the land is allocated, the "Half-tribe of Manasseh" is allocated land on the east bank of the Jordan (though, they also had to participate in the clearing of the land for the rest of the tribes). It is unclear if this meant 1/2 of the tribe of Manasseh, with the other half receiving a different allocation of land, or if it meant that Manasseh itself was considered 1/2 of a tribe (being 1/2 of Joseph). Just as in numbering the ten commandments (there is disagreement on how to divide the passages to come up with 10), there is also some ambiguity on how to count through the 12 (13) tribes to get The Twelve Tribes. As a side note, strictly speaking there are only Jews after the Babylonian Captivity. Jews derives from "(of the tribe of) Judah". Prior to that, the people are usually referred to as "Hebrews" or "Israelites" (from "the descendants of Israel (Jacob)"). --Jayron32 01:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You get "10 lost tribes" only if you count Ephraim and Manasseh separately, and also allocate Levi exclusively to the northern kingdom. If you base it on the original 12, then there were only "8½ lost tribes" — since Judah, Benjamin, the remnants of Simeon, and substantial numbers of Levites remained in the southern kingdom... AnonMoos (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Abraham is not definitively considered Jewish, the consensus is that Abraham himself did not know if he was Jewish. The first definitive Jews were at the giving of the Torah. A Jew is defined as "being obligated in the mitzvot (commandments)", so you can see why there were no Jews before the Torah was given. Ariel. (talk) 10:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

For the same reason, Jesus was the founder of Christianity but was not himself a Christian, but a Jew. Jew-hating Christians ought to remember that. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

World Leaders

Which world leaders have professions other than "professional politician", i.e., they are trained or certified or specialize in a different field (for example, the CHinese president Jintao Hu is an engineer). I specifically exclude the legal and military professions as being too close to the politician's profession, and I'm especially interested in leaders who, like Hu, are educated in the (non-political or historical) sciences. 24.92.78.167 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC).

Angela Merkel trained as a chemist. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

No, she didn't. She trained as a physicist.Quest09 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC).

Well, our article says she did her doctorate in "quantum chemistry" so I suppose you could call her either a chemist or a physicist; I don't know which she prefers and/or is most apt given what she actually did outside of being a politician. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Call her a physicist, if you meet her by accident. Incidentally, her first degree is in physics, she might call herself 'Diplom Physik' in her own country and use her Dr. before her name. The title 'chemist' (without the Diplom) is not protected, so everyone can claim to be one). Quest09 (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You should realize that the vast majority of world leaders had a profession before becoming full-time politicians (even if only for a relativly short time). It's easier to ask for world leaders which were formerly military officers, lawyers, or "only" professional politicians instead. Flamarande (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't Hitler supposedly at one time a wallpaper hanger? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about wallpaper hanger, but when he lived in Vienna he made a living by selling postcards of his drawings. They were usually of buildings.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The "wallpaper" thing is discussed in Paper hanger (Mundelein's speech). I've seen some of his drawings. They weren't bad. Better than I could have done. But he got savaged by critics. If Castro had had a curve ball, and if Hitler had had a patron, world history might have been vastly different. I'm guessing that when Hitler started sending folks to the death camps, the art critics were at the top of his list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he believed that people who painted what he sweepingly termed degenerate art merited elimination.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Prince William of Wales, the future King, appears to have gotten his degrees in the areas of Geography (which is somewhat political) and Art (which pretty much isn't). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

And he's a graduate of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst but now earns his living as a Royal Air Force Air-Sea Rescue helicopter pilot. Alansplodge (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Which would seem to be excluded by the OP's 'no military professions' dictum. As William isn't likely to say become a professional artist when he finishes his military career I don't think he really fits in to the OP's concept of people who have had a profession before becoming a 'politician' (presuming you think him a politician, you could also ask whether he's ever not been a politician) Nil Einne (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Silvio_Berlusconi was a successful businessman before becoming a politician. Certainly there seems to be a relatively strong link between becoming leaders of governments and being either a Lawyer/in the legal profession or having a military background. ny156uk (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

What constitutes a 'world leader' for the purposes of this question? You might just have to run down the List of current heads of state and government and click through each leader listed to check their biography. I've also left out professors of law, economics, and political science. From the top (I made it as far as Cape Verde):

• Bamir Topi, President of Albania, has a PhD in veterinary studies.
• Sali Berisha, Prime Minister of Albania, was a cardiologist and university professor.
• Serzh Sargsyan, President of Armenia, was a metalworker or machinist for a few years before he assumed a role with the Young Communist Union. (His biographical sketch is a bit unclear on the nature of the work, and he appears to have graduated from university during the same period; I don't know if he was doing part-time studies, or part-time work, or both.)
• Alexander Lukashenko, President of Belarus, graduated from the Belarussian Agricultural Academy and spent a few years as deputy chairman of a collective farm. (I'm not sure whether you'd count that as a agricultural job or a political one, however.)
• Sergei Sidorsky, Prime Minister of Belarus, was trained and worked as an electrical fitter and electrician.
• Bakir Izetbegović, a member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, was an architect.
• Pierre Nkurunziza, President of Burundi, studied education, and was working as a university lecturer prior to the civil war.
• Norodom Sihamoni, King of Cambodia, was a classical dance instructor.

Note that several biographies of heads of state lack full details on their educational history or pre-political careers, so there may be more that I'm missing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Lech Walesa was an electrician by trade. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama was a community organizer. Corvus cornix_talk 04:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Tony Blair was a singer in a punk band called Ugly Rumours; ironically, Mick Jagger had wished to become a politician prior to becoming lead singer of the Rolling Stones.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ugly Rumours were not a punk band; their existence pre-dates punk by several years – the gesture seen here [19] may be superficially punkish in spirit, but the haircut and clothes certainly are not. Besides, Blair was a student at the time, so this is not a case of him being a professional musician. 87.114.101.69 (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Former Czech president Václav Havel was a notable playwright and essayist before becoming president.

If we're going there, the current Croatian president Ivo Josipović is a pianist and composer (on the side, otherwise he's a lawyer). TomorrowTime (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

And Ignacy Jan Paderewski was a world-famous concert pianist before becoming the Prime Minister of Poland. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher studied chemistry, and worked as an industrial chemist, but later also did a degree in law. Leonid Brezhnev was a metallurgist. Benito Mussolini was a schoolteacher, and had qualified as such. Leopoldo Galtieri of Argentina studied engineering, but was a military engineer. --Colapeninsula (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Did the earliest Carved Stone Balls have knobs on?

There's a theory at the moment (down to Andrew Young of the University of Exeter and a NOVA documentary) that the objects are ball bearings, for transporting the gigantic stones of stone circles, but a ball bearing with six protruding knobs on is not a very good ball bearing, is it? Unless the ones from the neolithic are perfectly round? 81.131.34.141 (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Mathematically, a "roller" doesn't have to be a circle at all (see http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CurveofConstantWidth.html ; not sure we have much about it on Wikipedia). Only a wheel rotating around a fixed axis has to be a circle... AnonMoos (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that the Carved Stone Balls illustrated in the Wikipedia article are unlikely candidates for ball bearings, but are these the ones referred to by Young?

It's worth noting that if you use any approximately-round rock as a hammer, you tend to knock the high spots off, and make it progressively more spherical. The first stone balls may not have been intentionally carved at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm asking about a particular kind of artifact, which is late Neolithic / early Bronze Age, nearly always comes from north-east Scotland, and (the fact that inspired the latest theory) has a very distinct size, being nearly always two and three quarter inches across. They were really rather good at making stone things by the late Neolithic, you know, and wouldn't just randomly carve stone balls by mistake. They did however make a lot of them on purpose for unknown reasons. I'm asking about the earliest of that set of artifacts. 81.131.61.94 (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, missed your question. Yes, that is the general type of thing referred to, but as I say, the knobs confound me, so I don't know if there are smooth spherical varieties of the same thing, and that's what I'm asking. It's particularly interesting if all the earliest ones are plain spheres... or if none of them are, which would seem to throw the theory right out. 81.131.61.94 (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I did actually know that (the rolling 50p coin effect), and I wondered if these might be spherical versions of the same thing, but it seemed unlikely since I think the effect depends on the object having a constant width in any orientation, and I can't see how that can be achieved with six knobs. Four, now, arranged tetrahedrally, I could just about believe might work as a strange kind of bearing. Six is the usual number on a carved stone ball, though. 81.131.61.94 (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we need a link to the article/documentary here. Or at least a better description of the artefacts: to be clear, the objects in question aren't spherical? Do they resemble the ones shown in the Wikipedia article? If they do, what is the difficulty with assuming their purpose is 'non-functional' in an engineering sense (they clearly have a social/cultural "function" if they are mass producing them) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, they're decorated (incised with patterns at least - I don't know it they were painted); that tends to preclude a purely functional use. why take days to decorate something that's going to get used as a roller? That tends to lean towards ceremonial objects or weaponry. Given the size and shape I might have guessed an agricultural tool (the things look to be about perfect for grinding-stones - hold it in your hand and roll the curved protrusions over grain to make flour), but farm tools don't generally get symbolically decorated. very odd. --Ludwigs2 06:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about the ones in the Wikipedia article, Ludwigs? I think there is still some confusion about what it is we are actually discussing. Not that this is unusual for Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It might be that early ones are plain and functional, and late ones are produced as part of a tradition, and become impractically shaped and decorated. There must be various modern examples of this ... clogs, maybe (consider the picture of the cat in the giant painted ones). 213.122.4.215 (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's local news site with an overview, [20] the guy's profile on his university website, [21] and a transcript of the documentary [22] (which doesn't give much information). 213.122.4.215 (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Found the Wikipedia article: Curve of constant width (I didn't find it before because it didn't contain the string "roll" at all, until I added something just now...) AnonMoos (talk) 08:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw the NOVA program. What's interesting is that people making the balls at that time seem to have had such exact standardization of size over the entire period of ball-making: "Of the 387 known carved stone balls, 375 are about 70 mm in diameter, but twelve are known with diameters of 90 to 114 mm." WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this question is about the Stone spheres of Costa Rica? Many crazy (and otherwise) theories have been put forth about them. APL (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

OP linked to this article, mentioned the NOVA program (on Stonehenge), and already clarified: "Well, I'm asking about a particular kind of artifact, which is late Neolithic / early Bronze Age, nearly always comes from north-east Scotland". WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Christian Art history, Protestant Reformation

I'm a Christian artist and I teach on creativity. I'm looking for more information on the cause and effect on the arts during the Protestant Reformation. Where can I look ? Books that include information on the topic ?

Kevin Moffatt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.125.65 (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

We have an article The Reformation and art, and it looks as though some of the works listed in the "References" and "Further reading" sections may be helpful. Deor (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

November 28

why do latin americans like spain so much?

It's confusing. I hear a lot about the leyenda negra and all the hatred towards the colonizers and imperialists, but most latinos I know admire Spain. This seems to be a common thread, for example, the President of CONMEBOL called Spain a "mother country" ([23]). So why do is there admiration towards Spain vs. resentment? That is, what are the cultural and political reasons? hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 00:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe some of those of strong Indian cultural background are not so enamored of Spain, but they are not usually the ones running the governments or the universities. To analogize, there have been two wars between the U.K. and the U.S., and lots of Anglophobia among certain groups in the U.S. at various times (a notorious Anglophobe, Joseph Kennedy, was even appointed ambassador to the U.K. in the 1930s), but we still have Masterpiece Theatre running on PBS... AnonMoos (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Just as the American Indians are likely not all that crazy about the white man even now. But as you suggest, Americans and Brits have a strong cultural tie, just as Brazil and Portugal do, and the rest of Latin America has with Spain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

For some thoughts on the changing Mexican attitudes to their indigenous heritage, and thus by implication the other, Spanish conquistador side, see La Malinche. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, Spain is (it must be said) politically and economically impotent, and has been for ages, so there's very little to plausibly resent. In modern parlance, the Spaniards fucked up their own shit so badly that they became impossible to hate. Their glories lie in the foggy past, like those of Greece. Add to that that they have a tiny population (there are more Spanish-speakers in the USA than in Spain) and a political culture that is introspective, unambitious, and Balkanized. They're about as far as you can get from the politics of grandeur. This reduced stature allows hispanophones to invoke "Spain" as a metonym for a shared language and culture, a nostalgic gesture, more condescension than cringe. English-speakers can't do that with Britain because Britain, relatively speaking, still has loads of money and power, a respectable share of the language's population, and lots of fresh grudges. Britain is too visible and actually relevant to fade away into a vague touchstone of Anglo-Saxon culture. LANTZY^TALK 23:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Identity according to Palahniuk (Fight Club)

If "...you're not how much money you've got in the bank. You're not your job. You're not your family, and you're not who you tell yourself.... You're not your name.... You're not your problems.... You're not your age.... You are not your hopes." Then what the hell are we? (according to Palahniuk) Quest09 (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

For who we (and here I am assuming you mean humans, and in general) are, see Human biology. Anything else is opinion, and not appropriate to the Ref Desk. Bielle (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

He's asking relative to a book and film. It's totally appropriate. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Tyler Durden was something of a nihilist, in my reading (and according to our article). You aren't much in his worldview. Note that one should not conflate Durden with Palahniuk himself — I'm sure there are some differences then. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Palahniuk is not Durden, but everything inside the novel Fight Club are views of Palahniuk. I suppose, if his view is nihilist, we (or the character in question) are nothing. But, who is this nothing fighting with himself for the control of himself? Is that a contradiction? Quest09 (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, I would not speak of Durden's views are if they are verbatim the same as the author. In my reading of it (which is some years old now, so I might be remembering things wrong), Durden, the character, is an expression of extreme nihilism and anti-social anarchism. "Bob" or whatever the protagonists' name is, is an "everyman" who is exposed to the seductions of nihilism but is eventually repulsed by its dangers and its callous disregard for human society and life. The fact that Tyler's views are actually latent within the everyman in a literal sense makes it for me an argument about the contradictions within all men — something like the H.L. Mencken quote, "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats." In the end, or one of the ends (I remember the movie ending more vividly than the book, but remember that they differ significantly), Tyler "loses out" to Bob, if I recall. Unstructured nihilism, though tempting, is ultimately empty and unfulfilling. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I asked the question in a rather confusing manner. I should have asked: "what the hell is 'Joe' according to Palhniuk? If he is not all of the above, then what? What does he become in his fight?" Note: the narrator of the book, the equivalent of Edward Norton in the film, has no name. Some call him Joe. Bob is a different character; he is the big fat guy in the film. Quest09 (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

All the things in your original question are things you have, not things that you are, so that you are not those things is true of everyone. Except for "what you tell yourself you are", which may in a sense actually be who you are according to our Identity article. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The philosophical movement Existentialism may be relevant here. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hearing the Virgin Mary

This is a serious question: how does the Vatican deal with people claiming to hear Virgin Mary's voice? How do they tell apart the lunatics from the real apparitions of her? I mean, being Catholics implies that she (or whatever other deity) could show up to some believers. Quest09 (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

They have miracle investigators and exorcism investigators whose job it is it to try and separate the "genuinely supernatural" from mental illness, etc. Here's an article relative to how they do it for canonizing saints. Here's a recent New York Times article regarding their re-embrace of exorcism. Note in the latter that belief that you are encountering supernatural phenomena seems to be correlated with modernity and education: "But he said that there could eventually be a rising demand for exorcism because of the influx of Hispanic and African Catholics to the United States. People from those cultures, he said, are more attuned to the experience of the supernatural." As you may infer, I take a rather cynical view of all of this, but that's the procedure. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

When someone sees the face of Mary in the patterns of a grilled cheese sandwich, that voice cries out, "Eat me!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The Vatican conspicuously endorses some apparitions, such as Lourdes and Fatima, and refrains from endorsing or supporting others, such as Medugorje. Not sure what leads the Vatican to officially ignore some apparitions and actively condemn and suppress others. The main article is Marian apparition... AnonMoos (talk) 07:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

she (or whatever other deity) — it is certainly a long way from RC doctrine to claim that Mary (or anyone else other than the Almighty) is a deity. Marnanel (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It bears mentioning that in the case of Our Lady of Fatima, thousands of eye-witnesses were involved, and yet still the endorsement from the Church is only "[a]fter a canonical enquiry the visions of Fatima were officially declared "worthy of belief" in October 1930 by the Bishop of Leiria-Fátima". In the case of Our Lady of Lourdes, the position is "we remain convinced that the Apparitions are supernatural and divine, and that by consequence, what Bernadette saw was the Most Blessed Virgin.", but that is (again) not actually declaring it necessarily 'true' or a required Catholic belief, and that statement came after several verified miracles. The Church doesn't actually consider belief in any of these apparitions or miracles to be a necessary part of being a Catholic. 86.161.109.130 (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the Queen Greek?

Carrying on a thread above, the History of British nationality law is very complicated, but the Queen certainly qualifies for U. K. citizenship. As she doesn't need to exercise any of the attributes of it (she doesn't vote, she doesn't need to carry a passport, and so on) it's rather an academic point. Here's another thought which may be more meaningful, as the Duke of Edinburgh was born in Greece, is he a Greek citizen and is the Queen entitled to the same rights? Moonraker2 (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Although it's usually claimed that Philip renounced his Greek citizenship before he married Elizabeth, this discussion thread (which I confess I haven't read right through) seems to suggest that the picture is not as clear-cut as that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

From [24] it seems that as she doesn't live in Greece she can't gain citizenship by virtue of marriage as although it was before 1984 it wasn't I presume a "Greek Orthodox Marriage" Nil Einne (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hans Christian Andersen

I have a plaque commerating Andersen. It shows a cameo of him surrounded by his name and the dates 1805 (his birth) to 1930. What significance is 1930. I believe the plaque came from Odense as this also was the birth place of a close family member. Any help would be appreciated in gaining knowledge. Thank you2.121.62.170 (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Does the plaque itself actually date from 1930? That would have been the 125th anniversary of his birth year. Baseball Bugs (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

UK Law

In UK Law, is it prohibited for a person to issue verbal threats of violence against another person, or intimidate them in other ways? I am not seeking legal advice here, I'm just curious about this area of law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.213.51.219 (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Why should it be allowed? Quest09 (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Quite apart from the matter at hand, do you think it's a good idea to begin by asking whether something should be allowed, rather than whether it should be forbidden? Marnanel (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Quest09: your mother probably had you when she was 14 or 15, so that's why you never had the opportunity to become a better human being: I'm sorry. Ive just purposefully tried to offend you with something I know is false. Why should that be allowed? There is NO reason that "should be allowed". Lucky for me, laws dont work based on a list of things that are allowed. Laws consist of crimes, not allowances. The qustion is not: What? How could he do that?? Under what allowance??? Its either: thats illegal. Or: that oughta be illegal. Or: what a douche. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.153.230.216 (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The crime of assault (not battery, which with it is often confused) is normally described like "any act by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful and personal violence" or similar. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 15:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• You may also be interested in the offences of affray, violent disorder and harassment, alarm or distress. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 15:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) A person is guilty of an offence if he (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.[25] Public Order Act 1986. Standard warnings about this not being legal advice. Marnanel (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Or in old-fashioned terminology, "Fightin' words." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

History

Who is Annie Christmas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skbauer (talk • contribs) 16:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

She is a character in African-American folklore, there is some information here. DuncanHill (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

...and here. However, the figure has been described as "fakelore". Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

If you stop and think about it, all folklore started as "fakelore". Apparently the difference between the two is how long they've been around. For example, the current American "traditional" image of Santa Claus is only vaguely related to St. Nicholas, and derives largely from 19th-century imagery. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

when does the trololo guy say "trololo"?

Can someone give me a link with the youtube video of the trololo guy, right before he actually says "trololo"? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.153.230.216 (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, Edward Khil, the trololo guy, doesn't actually say anything like it. The viral video is of him doing a vocalise, which by definition doesn't include any lyrics of any kind. TomorrowTime (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It sure as hell includes the vocalization la and ye (as well as ho), so where does it include the vocalization tro, wise guy? 84.153.230.216 (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read over our policy on personal attacks and bear in mind that this Desk is staffed by volunteers. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 20:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I withdrew my brash, unwarranted personal attack. I apologize to both TomorrowTime and any bystanders. Sorry. 84.153.230.216 (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

King of England

How exactly — and by whom — is it decided as to whether Prince Charles or Prince William will become the next King of England? Is this a decision that Queen Elizabeth makes on her own? Or Parliament? Or what? The only way that I see Prince William "leap frogging" over Prince Charles (to become King) is if both Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles agree to this arrangement (along with Prince William). Is that correct? Thanks for any insights. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC))

Two answers: 1) There are no Kings of England any more. There are Kings of the United Kingdom. 2) The monarch's personal decision has nothing at all to do with the law of succession. It's defined by an act of Parliament (specifically, the Act of Settlement 1701). Even when Edward VIII wanted to abdicate, it took Parliament saying he wasn't the king any more to make it so. Marnanel (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. So how does that Act address the potential issue of William leap-frogging over Charles? Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC))

The Act of Settlement says (in effect) that Charles will become king upon the Queen's death. There is no provision for skipping him, even if the Queen or Charles themselves would want it— and I haven't heard anything to indicate that they do. As far as I can see, there are only two ways in which Charles, assuming he didn't want to be king, could disqualify himself. Firstly, similarly to what was done for Edward VIII, he could try to get a separate act passed in the parliaments of all sixteen Commonwealth realms saying that William was the next in line. (It would need to be all sixteen: the Statute of Westminster requires this for any legislation touching the succession.) Secondly, he has an easy get-out: he could become a Roman Catholic, thus disqualifying himself from the succession under the Act of Settlement. But I don't see that happening any time soon. Marnanel (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Well another slightly more difficult option is to divorce his current wife and then marry a catholic (this could be his current wife if she converts before their next marriage). Note that the Act of Settlement only talks about marrying a Catholic so even if his wife converts now, he's probably? (see Katharine, Duchess of Kent#Catholicism) not disqualified although it's likely to be controversial. On the other hand, he could convert to Islam and then enter into an open civil partnership with his atheist gay partner and he'll still technically qualify AFAIK. Nil Einne (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The trivial way is the Prince of Wales could predecease the second in line.
Sleigh (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It's often remarked that a Catholic cannot become king, but a Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, atheist or voodoo witch doctor can. My reading of the succession rules is that, while Catholics and their spouses are indeed excluded, it's not enough to simply not be a Catholic. The monarch must be a Protestant, that is, a member of one of the Christian churches other than Catholicism - and if not Anglican, must come into communion with the Church of England. Is this not so? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That definition of Protestant is surely problematic, in any case. To me a Protestant is an adherent of some Christian tradition that traces back to the Protestant Reformation. For example, Eastern Orthodox and Copts are definitely not Protestant, no matter how you slice it. I would probably not include Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, or Seventh-day Adventists. Borderline cases are Anabaptists (i.e. Amish, Mennonites), Quakers, and Anglicans themselves.

The only completely clear "Protestants" are Lutherans and Calvinists. --Trovatore (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely all those denominations which descend from English Dissenters would count as Protestants? BrainyBabe (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I am definitely not an expert on this subject matter, but I looked at the Act of Settlement's text and didn't see anything that lays out that the eldest son becomes king upon the death of the monarch. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not mentioned in that act, but comes from common law. See Succession to the British throne. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Queen of England

There has been some discussion about the royal title that Camilla Parker Bowles will take if Prince Charles becomes the King of England. There is some debate as to whether she will be called "Queen" or "Queen Consort". What is the difference? Who cares? Why is this a matter of controversy? Thanks for any insights. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC))

There was this idea of Camilla being addressed as the Duchess of Cornwall, or some other title other than as Queen whilst Charles was on the throne, because it appeased people who were concerned about the fact it was a second marriage; and possibly also that Diana was being replaced (being rather more popular with the public than with Charles). The abdication crisis was not altogether dissimilar. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 19:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any similarities with the abdication crisis, Jarry. Edward only ever had one wife, and it was it his desire to marry her that caused the crisis. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't the perceived unsuitability of Camilla at the time one of the reasons he married Diana instead only for that to fall down? So while the current situation may not be the same, perhaps we arrived here partly for similar reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I didn't mean to say very similar, but just that the monarchy itself could be under threat when the validity of the monarch (in this case the monarch's wife) is questioned (as in our article "religious, legal, political, and moral objections were raised"). We're not in the same place over Camilla, but we know there will be objections if she becomes "Queen" in name. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 19:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense to me. The wife of a king is a queen consort; calling her "Princess Consort" or the Tooth Fairy or Fairy Godmother doesn't alter that fact. Surely any objections would not be to whatever title they decide to call her once they're married and he becomes king, but to her marrying Charles at all. But that horse bolted 5 years ago, so ... As for the monarchy being under threat, that's just so much over-dramatised journalistic twaddle. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Although it will be interesting to see public reaction if he tries to insist on her being called Queen - especially if he himself becomes any more unpopular, for any reason, between now and then. Actually, it's remarkably easy to think of scenarios under which the monarchy manages to self-destruct. If there comes a time when the family has no popular members, the public simply won't accept it. At the moment it has Elizabeth, William, and..... umm..... Anne? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think any such discussions would be held behind very tightly closed doors, not in public. Kings don't like it when they're widely seen not be getting their way, so they'd never risk such a perception being created in the first place. But what do you mean by "the public simply won't accept it"? If some catastrophe occurred and Anne became the Queen, what could anyone do about it? Seriously. If they didn't like it, they could go and live in Timbuktoo. Do you envisage huge crowds carrying torches, storming Buckingham Palace, crying "Down with Anne!"? That seems extraordinarily un-British to me. And there's the not-so-trivial matter of the other 15 Commonwealth realms, whose opinion is of equal weight with that of the UK in succession matters. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ultimately, the Commons, and thus the people, are in charge. If the monarchy becomes unpopular enough that a manifesto promising a republic will get Labour back in power, you can bet your life that Labour will make the promise. Marnanel (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If that were to happen, that still doesn't mean the monarchy is under threat. It wasn't under threat when we Australians had a vote in 1999 about whether or not we wanted to remain subjects of the Queen, because there would have been 15 other realms that continued to have the monarchy. Same would apply if the UK became a republic. The only way the monarchy itself could be under threat is if all 16 realms unanimously agreed to dispense with it. It's not just a British institution anymore, it's owned equally and collectively by 16 separate and independent nations. People keep on seeming to forget that. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Do the rest of you pay her salary? If the Brits sack her, who's going to pay her? Not that she'll be on the street, I'm sure. --Trovatore (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Got nothing to do with the constitutional position. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"It's not just a British institution anymore, it's owned equally and collectively by 16 separate and independent nations." Dream on. If there's a constitutional crisis in the UK, it would be disingenuous in the extreme to think that it would not have knock-on effects in other realms. Or, the family could just up sticks and move to Australia. So far as "discussions in public" are concerned, I suspect you may be greatly underestimating the power of the UK press. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"If there's a constitutional crisis in the UK, it would be disingenuous in the extreme to think that it would not have knock-on effects in other realms." - how is this at odds with what I said before? It seems to confirm it. Btw, I'm not concerning myself with the trappings of the monarchy, which are undeniably and thoroughly British in character and history, but the monarchy itself, which is now just as much Papua New Guinean, Solomon Islander or Belizean it is British. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You seemed to be suggesting that, if there was a crisis in the UK, the monarchy could continue elsewhere. Technically true, but unlikely in my opinion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This whole discussion is about technicalities. People often bandy about the word "crisis" as if it were synonymous with "catastrophe". It doesn't mean that and never has. It means "opportunity". The abdication "crisis" was never even remotely going to result in the end of the monarchy. Baldwin was always going to get his way if Edward persisted in his desire to marry Wallis; that's how the system is set up to operate, the PM has more power than the monarch. Nor would Camilla the queen being called "Queen Camilla" lead to such an outcome. Can you give me an example of events or circumstances that could realistically spell the end of the UK monarchy? And I'm not talking about the people gradually becoming disillusioned and disenchanted to the point that they just don't care for it anymore, I'm talking about something in the nature of what people might describe as a "crisis". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Plausible scenario: (1) All leading members of the royal family become personally unpopular, for whatever reason - sexual scandal, political scandal, arrogance, etc. etc. - all sorts of possibilities. The next in line to succeed becomes particularly unpopular, again for whatever reason - creating the point of "crisis". (3) There starts to be widespread public discussion along the lines of "We don't want that one to be king/queen.... We should decide, we're a democracy - it should be someone else". (4) One or other major UK political parties takes up the thread with a manifesto commitment - not to elect a "head of state" / "president" with any substantial powers, but someone who commands national respect, to be the representative of the whole country. (5) A commission is set up to explore possibilities for the UK - leading to a recommendation for an elected non-political head of state (or, possibly, one appointed for a fixed term by an elected body). (6) Referendum in the UK (all the while assuming that the royal family and incumbent themselves remain personally unpopular). (7) "Yes" vote to establish a new system and pension off the royals. (8) In the meantime, the other realms do whatever they want to do. It would take a few years, but it could happen. The "crisis" would set off the process. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I would think a true "crisis" would arise if, for example, the king or queen were discovered to have been engaging in activity of some kind that was harmful to the nation, such as being a secret agent for SMERSH or something. But even then, wouldn't that merely result in the monarch being forced to abdicate, and the (hopefully honest) successor brought in? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, monarchs may be above the law in many ways, but the monarchy itself is more precious (for those who believe) than any particular monarch. Not sure if your example is particularly realistic, but I agree with the outcome. The monarchy would survive that case. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

My example is in the realm of James Bond, but there have been rumors that the abdicated king was a little too friendly with Hitler. Whether that was true and/or whether it influenced the process of his abdication, I have no idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

She will necessarily be the queen consort; she will be known as the Princess Consort, according to Clarence House. They haven't explained why they're doing this. It may well be connected with the similar decision that she be known as the Duchess of Cornwall, a lesser title of hers, rather than the Princess of Wales (although she is in fact the Princess of Wales). This in turn may be connected with the public's perception of the late Diana Spencer as Princess of Wales. I have not heard that it is a matter of any controversy. Marnanel (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, sections of the press tried to make a controversy out of it last week when Prince Charles was asked about it in an interview. To many of us in Britain, it doesn't matter a damn. --ColinFine (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I meant by a (potential) controversy brewing. As Jarry1250 stated above: "we know there will be objections if she becomes "Queen" in name." Thanks for all of the information! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC))

This article gives a sense of the state of public opinion in the UK. Apparently, "a poll commissioned by the Daily Mail last week revealed only 14 per cent support the idea of Queen Camilla, while more than half oppose it." Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Fail is hardly a reliable source for such things. They're not quite as virulently anti-Charles as the Excess, but they aren't far behind. DuncanHill (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting it was a "reliable source". I was suggesting that, as one of the most popular papers in the UK, it provided readers outside the UK with a guide to one strand of public opinion. Like it or not, several million more people buy the Mail than actively support republicanism. Sad, but true. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

But what has "actively supporting republicanism" got to do with people's opinions as to the title Camilla should use when Charles succeeds to the throne? DuncanHill (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I was just commenting that personal opposition to the Mail's policies shouldn't lead to you discounting the fact that it represents a significant strand of public opinion in the UK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a republican. It's the Fail's combination of xenophobia and homophobia that really get my goat. That and the "Will the housing market recover before you die of cancer?" articles. DuncanHill (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with second marriages. The problem is both the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall were divorced.
Sleigh (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Side question about the Queen

Resolved

In Helen Mirren's film, there is a scene in which ERII drives out into the countryside, alone, and observes a deer at close range while pondering things. Presumably that intriguing scene is fictionalized. What I'm curious about is, how likely is it that the Queen would go driving by herself out into the countryside? No bodyguard, no nothin'. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with this, she owns vast tracts of the countryside in her own right, especially around Sandringham and apparently (I can't remember where I saw this one) drives a Range Rover around quite frequently. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Even now, in her 80s? That's excellent. So while that particular scene may have been fictional, it wasn't unrealistic. I guess I'm also curious what Brits thought of that film. I was impressed. Mirren's performance evoked some empathy, whether it was deserved or not. The picture I got was that while the Queen may be old and set in her ways (and the ways of her ancestors), she's not a robot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

My concern, though, is what if she were to head out on one of her solo jaunts and was never seen again? What happens then? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

A Regency until such time as she turns-up again or her fate became known. I suspect that a fair amount of police time and effort would be expended on the case. Back to the question - the scene was, IIRC, supposed to be on her Balmoral estate, which at 26,000 hectares, has plenty of room to drive around in. For obvious reasons, they don't tell us how the boundary of the estate is secured, but I don't think HM could just drive out of the gate without anyone noticing. Alansplodge (talk) 12:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Or more to the point, abductors or assassins going in through the gate. I just find it interesting that the Queen would actually go out solo, on her own personal version of "walkabout", to relax and think about things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I remember a TV documentary in the 1960s[26] that showed HM driving alone around one of her estates, in an old Rover P5 saloon (except for the film crew obviously). Alansplodge (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Royal family once had a bungalow on the north Norfolk coast, apparantly. 92.24.176.72 (talk) 14:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Muslim marriage

How do you get married at a mosque? Is it a legal marriage? ScienceApe (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe that that largely depends upon the laws of the country where the marriage is performed. The article Islamic marital practices seems to be the proper place to look. Flamarande (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

As to the second part of your question, Nowadays "legal marriage" isn't really about the ceremony and the vows. (In USA at least) It's really about filling out the proper government forms. (Brief discussion from Cecil Adams on the topic here : [27]) APL (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

In many parts of the Muslim world, you don't get married at a mosque anyway -- it's more of a contract between two families than a religious sacrament as such... AnonMoos (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There are two facets of marriage, regardless of religion (or lack thereof). There is the spiritual aspect, and the legal aspect. They are often bound together, as with a normal church-style wedding, or a civil ceremony conducted by a judge. There have also been same-sex "marriages" and polygamous "marriages" for a long time in the US. Those are of the "spiritual" variety, and in general have (or had) no legal standing. The current debate about same-sex marriage concerns strictly the legal aspect of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

According to this[28], you can in England and Wales (Scotland has a seperate legal system), provided that the mosque is "registered for the solemnisation of marriages" and it is your usual place of worship. Alansplodge (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sartre wanted prize money anyway?

I remember reading on Wikipedia a while ago that even though Sartre refused to accept the 1964 Nobel prize, he still asked for the prize money later. I looked today and couldn't find that statement; is it true? I couldn't find anything on google about it. Thanks!  ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 18:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Some websites suggest Lars Gyllensten made this allegation in his autobiography, but there are a little few and far between to even confirm Gyllensten even made the accusation. [In every case, Sartre is refused the money; if he had got it, I am confident people would know.] - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 19:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiLeaks

How has Julian Assange committed any crimes? Doesn't one have to owe allegiance to the US to commit treason against it? --75.33.217.61 (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you give us a reference to somewhere where someone is making this allegation? His article doesn't mention it. Marnanel (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

What jurisdiction? In the United States, it is extremely hard to prevent the publication of classified information. See Prior restraint, as well as Near v. Minnesota and New York Times Co. v. United States. However, it may be possible for the government to prosecute press agencies that publish classified information, but to my knowledge this is still a pretty untested area of the law. As a practical matter, Wikileaks is hosted in Sweden, and Assange doesn't live in the United States, so it's hard for the U.S. to prosecute either. However, the government has little trouble charging Bradley Manning (a member of the U.S. military) with "misconduct" charges, including "transferring classified data onto his personal computer and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system" and "communicating, transmitting and delivering national defense information to an unauthorized source". Buddy431 (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

75.33.217.61 -- Treason is defined very narrowly according to the Constitution of the United States, but espionage is quite another matter... AnonMoos (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Whoever leaked the info, if they're within the reach of the US government they would almost certainly be tried for espionage. The constitutional test for treason is very narrow and specific, and hence is seldom used. But there are other illegal activities that are effectively treated as equivalent to treason but without using that word. A charge of treason would open too big a can of worms. Not so with activities such as espionage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the Brian Manning article that I linked? He was perfectly within his rights to access the data; he wasn't doing any "spying". Rather he was charged with several counts of "misconduct" for transferring the information to someone who wasn't supposed to have the data. Buddy431 (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought it had already be established here, more than once, that US courts prosecute anyone anywhere for any reason they choose even if the person involved has never been to the US and is not a US citizen. 92.24.176.72 (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Most US classification regulations are concerned with "supplier side" enforcement — they are meant to be a deterrent to giving away secrets by people who have legal access to them. There are only a handful of laws that actually affect what the government can do to people who get access to secrets illegally and then try to publish them or give them away (the main ones are the Espionage Act, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and the Patriot Act). "Treason" and "espionage" are hard charges because you have to prove intent to damage the United States or to enrich the position of an enemy, neither of which are clear in the Wikileaks case. The easy thing to do would be to prosecute (harshly) the people who leaked the information in the first place, because in order to get access to their "secrets," they had to sign away all of their rights to free speech, more or less. But for people and publications that have not done this, it becomes quite difficult to overcome the First Amendment, even in times of war, if you can't prove specific espionage as the intent. This is my understanding of it, anyway, and is certainly not legal advice for would-be leakers! --Mr.98 (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The right doesn't seem to know what "treason" even means. Sarah Palin, for one, is calling it a "treasonous act", no matter that Assange is not an American, and WikiLeaks is not an American website. Corvus cornix_talk 20:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, we all know that Sarah Palin is not well known for her knowledge of geography. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Any Human Heart vs. Earthly Powers

Reading the article Any Human Heart, about the book by William Boyd, it struck me that the book appears to be rather similar to Earthly Powers, by Anthony Burgess. Have any critics commented on this? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean pretty similar like plagiarism or just same structure and topic? Quest09 (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Same structure and topic. DuncanHill (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You're probably correct that they have a similar topic. The fact that the topic is a pretty big one mitigates it somewhat. Blakk and ekka 13:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps conceit would be more in line with what I mean. Writer, life spans defining moments of the 20th century, interactions with real historical figures, that sort of thing. DuncanHill (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

November 29

website to calculate inflation adjustment

looking for website to calculate price adjusted for inflation. for example, S$10,000 at 1998 prices, is worth how much now after inflation adjustment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.216.172 (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This page [29] has a list of them. 213.122.68.179 (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an excellent site. Dalliance (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Saving the Euro

Who's chipping in to save the Euro? Only those countries with the Euro as currency or all EU countries? Quest09 (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Your question appears to rest on an assumption that the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) and efforts such as the recent one to rescue the Irish financial system are only about saving the euro. This is certainly an important part of their purpose. However, these efforts are also made because they aim to prevent European governments and banks from defaulting on their debt. Such defaults could imperil the financial systems not only of countries that use the euro but also of the United Kingdom, which has lent a great deal of money to the euro zone. So the United Kingdom, or at least financial interests in the City of London, have a strong interest in the success of these efforts. That said, funding for the EFSF comes from debt it issues, which is backed only by countries using the euro as currency. Marco polo (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The loan to Ireland AIUI, is a combined one from the EFSF (described above) which is funded by the Eurozone members, the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism which is funded by all the EU member states, and by the International Monetary Fund which is funded by almost all the members of the United Nations. In addition, the UK has offered a seperate GBP7billion loan, because our economies are inter-dependant especially in respect of Northern Ireland. So the answer is everybody - but I suspect Germany will be paying the most, as it is the largest contributor to the first 2 funds mentioned and third largest to the IMF (after the US and Japan; the UK is fourth). Alansplodge (talk) 09:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Argentine peso

The Argentine peso is pretty unstable, so I'm not surprised that Wikipedia disagrees with itself a little bit. But I think we should get this fixed.

The article Argentine peso says the Argentine peso oro sellado (ISO 4217: ARG) was the currency in place from 1881-1969, but the article Argentine peso moneda nacional says that peso moneda nacional (ISO 4217: ARM) was the currency from 1881-1969. The strange part is I can find neither ARM or ARG in the table of codes in the Wikipedia article for ISO 4217. This leads to three questions.

• Which was the actual currency in place at that time? (I have a 1957 coin and it simply says "peso")
• What is the correct ISO 4217 code for that currency?
• Why isn't that code in the various tables on the Wikipedia article for ISO 4217?

Thank you very much for your help. JamaUtil (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The article on the Argentine peso, or at least its history section, looks quite unreliable to me. To begin with, ISO 4217 codes were not created until the 1970s, after the earlier versions of the Argentine peso had ceased to circulate. I doubt that codes would have been created for defunct currencies. I suspect that the codes in the peso article are somebody's invention. Certainly, a citation is needed. Second, oro sellado simply means "gold coin" in Spanish. It is virtually inconceivable to me that Argentina remained on the gold standard without any revaluation from 1881 to 1969, as the article states, given that stronger and more stable economies such as those of the United States, Britain, and Switzerland (!) were forced to devalue relative to gold during the 1930s. During the nearly 90-year period referenced by the article, Argentina's economy went through a number of financial crises, and it is just unimaginable that the currency retained a steady value in terms of gold. Again, citation needed. Marco polo (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, though there do appear to be some obsolete currencies from before the 70s on that ISO page, such as the Austro-Hungarian krone. Does someone here know of/can find a nice reference that I could use to improve the article? JamaUtil (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not completely implausible that there would be ISO codes for obsolete currencies, though the ISO 4217 article doesn't cite any sources. Meanwhile, our article Argentine peso moneda nacional looks much more reliable than Argentine peso, though the former is likewise lacking in sources. If you want to research this, a starting point might by The Crisis of Argentine Capitalism by Paul Lewis. Though its focus isn't monetary history, it is likely to refer to sources on that topic. Marco polo (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ten Commandments <=> Book of the Dead

Greetings! In the article Ten Commandments "The Egyptian Book of the Dead" is mentioned in the literature, however, not cited in the text. In "The Egyptian Book of the Dead" the "inverse confession" ist found (I did not..., I did not... I did not ... etc.). In the Book of the Dead no "connection" is made to the 10 commandments.

Are there recent references (books, serious papers; not Eso-Stuff) of Old Testamentarians or Egyptologysts, who proove (disprove, discuss) a "connection" or "analogy" or "parallelism" or "relevance" or "non-relevance" of the 10 Commandments and the Inverse Confession in the Book of Dead? Thanks for your time. 62.241.105.149 (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There may have been serious Egyptologists in the 19th and early 20th centuries who argued for a connection between the two, but I haven't seen anything about it in recent Egyptological literature (and I've read a lot of it over the past couple of years). I tend to suspect Egyptologists don't put much stock in the idea nowadays. Jan Assmann published a book several years ago called Moses the Egyptian which examines the connections between Egypt and Judaism, and the way that people have viewed those connections over the centuries. I haven't read it, but it may say something about the Book of the Dead/Ten Commandments relationship. A. Parrot (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want to read the Negative Confession (inverse confession), somebody listed the whole thing here. A. Parrot (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've read them before. I know one voice (Theol. Prof. 'Old Testament', still alive) who rejects the parallelism due to difference in context. And - as you say - Lit. from the 1920ies that draw parallels. So the question remains: Why is the Book of Dead listet in the 10 Commandment article, when it is not put in context? Greetings 62.241.105.149 (talk) 08:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

A lot of people insert things in articles without proper context, unfortunately. But where is the mention of the Book of the Dead in that article? I don't see it. A. Parrot (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Vatican and democracy

Considering the difficult relationship between the Catholic Church and virtually all democratic political movements before 1945, has the Vatican ever explicitly condoned democracy, or does it still consider it to be a facet of "modernism"? I know from personal experience that the church still officially bemoans the separation of church and state, but I suppose this can theoretically be reconciled with democracy. Obviously the Vatican threw in the towel on democracy after WWII, but did they ever make it official, say with an encyclical? If not, why not? It would seem to me that today many of their worst antagonists are non-democratic (the People's Republic of China, for instance), whereas in democracies the worst they have to put up with is the occasional gay kiss-in. LANTZY^TALK 23:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Vatican is actually surprisingly closely aligned with democratic ideals, especially since the Second Vatican Council in the 1960's. Inter Mirifica is essentially a defense of freedom of the press; and of the responsibility of Catholics to remain well informed, another essential democratic ideal. That document, and several others from Vatican II, also use the phrasology "the dignity of the individual", which is as core a principle to democracy as there is. Nostra Aetate is another document which presents an interesting balance between the core Christian goal of making believers of all people, and of the core democratic ideal of freedom of religion. Though I myself am no longer Catholic (but am a Christian), I have found this document to present an interesting way to consider the problem of being an evangelical Christian in a pluralistic world. The quote from Part V, "No foundation therefore remains for any theory or practice that leads to discrimination between man and man or people and people, so far as their human dignity and the rights flowing from it are concerned. The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion." source. (bold mine). I'm not sure the Roman Catholic Church has come out, in the positive or negative, for any specific governmental system, but at least since Vatican II, they have been expressly supportive of western liberal ideals of liberty and freedom which are core values to most democratic systems. --Jayron32 04:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Some more relevent catholic documents' from Gaudium et Spes, source

• chapter II, item 26: "Therefore, there must be made available to all men everything necessary for leading a life truly human, such as food, clothing, and shelter; the right to choose a state of life freely and to found a family, the right to education, to employment, to a good reputation, to respect, to appropriate information, to activity in accord with the upright norm of one's own conscience, to protection of privacy and rightful freedom even in matters religious." (bold mine)
• Chapter II, item 28: "Respect and love ought to be extended also to those who think or act differently than we do in social, political and even religious matters."
• Chapter II, item 29: "Human institutions, both private and public, must labor to minister to the dignity and purpose of man. At the same time let them put up a stubborn fight against any kind of slavery, whether social or political, and safeguard the basic rights of man under every political system." (again, as I noted above, respecting liberal ideals of freedom and liberty, without commitment to one political system)
• Chapter III, section 2, item 71 is in general a defense of private ownership and of western democratic economic systems, especially social democracy and capitalism to some degrees, "Private property or some ownership of external goods confers on everyone a sphere wholly necessary for the autonomy of the person and the family, and it should be regarded as an extension of human freedom."
• Chapter IV of that document is basically an attack on totalitarianism, and a demand for basic political freedoms. Without expressly defining democracy, it does a pretty good job of attacking antidemocratic systems. In light of the OP's question, this entire section is probably important, but a few choice quotes:

• from Item 73: "The protection of the rights of a person is indeed a necessary condition so that citizens, individually or collectively, can take an active part in the life and government of the state."
• later in Item 73: "However, those political systems, prevailing in some parts of the world are to be reproved which hamper civic or religious freedom, victimize large numbers through avarice and political crimes, and divert the exercise of authority from the service of the common good to the interests of one or another faction or of the rulers themselves."
• Item 74: "It is clear, therefore, that the political community and public authority are founded on human nature and hence belong to the order designed by God, even though the choice of a political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free will of citizens." There we have it. If that bolded clause is not a defense of democracy, I don't know what is.

I'll let the OP read the rest of the relevent documents. --Jayron32 04:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It is also useful to remember that JPII was as zealously anti-communist as Reagan or Thatcher, if not moreso. However, he (and surely other recent popes) was not very fond of unrestrained capitalism, which is sometimes a product of democracy. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, the document I cited directly above, in Chapter III, does seem to come out more on the side of Scandanavian-style social democracy rather than laissez-faire capitalism. While defending private ownership, it does note that of greater importance is economic responsibility towards the underprivileged, and again while avoiding naming any one economic system, it does make clear that responsible economics works towards socioeconomic equality. They are clearly on the side of "wealth redistribution" to some extent. --Jayron32 05:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, excellent responses! LANTZY^TALK 06:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Broad/flattering self-definition

I'm trying to determine if this is an established concept with an accepted nomenclature. Often a partisan of a particular tendency, be it political or philosophical or whatever, will choose to define that tendency very broadly and "rosily", such that it embraces, if not the entire human population, at least a much larger demographic than it actually enjoys. Some examples will illustrate what I mean: Andrew Sullivan's conception of "conservatism" includes just about everyone except for the American right-wing. Libertarians are also especially prone to this practice, frequently concluding that anyone who falls short of Stalinism is a Libertarian "without realizing it". Generally it's marginal or novel political movements that practice this strategy, but I've seen parallels in religions: Scientology comes to mind, with its one-size-fits-all personality tests. The interesting thing is that many political/religious partisans do not do this, and in fact often go the opposite way. Christians and Communists, for instance, often adopt very narrow, exclusive definitions of their respective creeds. I can think of lots of possible neologisms for this phenomenon, but I was wondering if it already had an established name. It would be convenient to have a term on hand so that when this process occurs, I can point it out. LANTZY^TALK 23:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Big tent and populism are related, though neither is exactly what you're looking for. Also related is what my peers call the "law of social proof", which we have no article on: If you see that many, many people like or dislike something, you are more likely to like or dislike it yourself, or at least, you're more likely to try it out if you see that many, many people like it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It is sort of like the opposite of the no true Scotsman fallacy. Sort of "only Scotsmen do X, therefore if you do X, you are an honourary Scotsman". Using your example of the Libertarian saying everyone is a Libertarian "without realizing it", you might want to look at this page about the World's Smallest Political Quiz, a quiz used by Libertarians in outreach to convince people that they are Libertarians. (That some Libertarians then go on to complain that everyone calls themselves libertarian without really agreeing on much ought to really prompt them into discontinuing said quiz.) The articles linked that are critical of said test might throw up useful phrases to describe the phenomena you are talking about. –Tom Morris (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

First mentions in fiction

Hi. I'm looking for a list of "first mentions" in fiction. First telephone in fiction. First cell phone. First television. Automobiles, airplanes, steam engines, clocks, wristwatch, etc. Does such a list exist? Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Technology in science fiction? Also see Science in science fiction which points to articles with their own timelines, like Weapons in science fiction. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Robert A. Heinlein is often credited with writing about waterbeds before they existed in real life. In fact, it's not the only thing. His article has an entire section devoted to things he presaged. Dismas|^(talk) 00:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Great idea Quiddity. I think your idea is the basis of a great new article. I suspect the information you're after is scattered all over the place. Right now I'm really busy but if anyone wants to start it I will be a contributor. H G Wells and Arthur C Clarke would both be major players I reckon. HiLo48 (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I can see this running into difficulties quite quickly, unless great care was taken in matching the 'real' and 'fictional' with consistency, and defining both. Is Leonardo da Vinci's 'helicopter' drawing 'fiction'? Is it a helicopter at all? Having said that, I'm fairly sure I've seen this subject referred to elsewhere (possibly including academic works), so it should make a good candidate. I'd suggest that those interested do some serious Googleing for books etc on the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Just thought of this: The Dreams Our Stuff Is Made Of. Not directly on-topic, but possibly of relevance (and a brilliant title!). AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

And one really cannot omit Sir Francis Bacon's New Atlantis[30], first published in 1624:

We have also engine-houses, where are prepared engines and instruments for all sorts of motions. There we imitate and practise to make swifter motions than any you have, either out of your muskets or any engine that you have: and to make them and multiply them more easily, and with small force, by wheels and other means: and to make them stronger and more violent than yours are; exceeding your greatest cannons and basilisks. We represent also ordnance and instruments of war, and engines of all kinds: and likewise new mixtures and compositions of gun-powder, wild-fires burning in water, and unquenchable. Also fireworks of all variety both for pleasure and use. We imitate also flights of birds; we have some degrees of flying in the air. We have ships and boats for going under water, and brooking of seas; also swimming-girdles and supporters. We have divers curious clocks, and other like motions of return: and some perpetual motions. We imitate also motions of living creatures, by images, of men, beasts, birds, fishes, and serpents. We have also a great number of other various motions, strange for equality, fineness, and subtilty.

Michael Douglas's use of a cellphone on the beach in the original Wall Street was probably the first time most people ever saw a cellphone. Edward Bellamy's political sci-fi novel Looking Backward, published in 1888, imagines a sort of subscription radio broadcasting service, albeit connected to homes by telephone wires. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

All of you are having trouble spelling Hugo Gernsback. The Bacon reference is quite cool, but Hugo was the one who got modern SF rolling. He invented sex sometime around 1926. PhGustaf (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Er, if Hugo Gernsback (who he) invented sex in 1926, how did people reproduce beforehand? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Pre-sexually, clearly. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The OP says fiction, not just science fiction, btw.

Here's a reference to "telephone" from a 1900 play:

• C. H. CHAMBERS Tyranny of Tears I. 36: (The telephone bell rings.).. There's some one on the telephone forgive me. (Goes to telephone.)

–from the OED, which I am sure will be useful for this purpose (even if its efforts in first-usage tracing are not limited to works of fiction...).

This seems like something someone would have compiled at some point... whether or not, though, yes, we certainly should, good idea! :) or, wait, no -- I forgot about that whole "WP:NOR" thing... :( WikiDao ☯ (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

There are two distinct ways to read this question. The first is, "when did the (existing) technology get mentioned for the first time?", the other is, "when did someone postulate a new technology that later happened to be developed?" The former can be made into a verifiable list without any ambiguity, like the telephone quote above. The latter will end up with tedious arguments about whether the whoosit featured in Amazing Adventures #85 should actually be considered an iPhone or not. (Incidentally, I tend to think the handheld computers in The Mote in God's Eye sound an awful lot like iPhones.) --Mr.98 (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The early version of the wireless telephone was mentioned in a funny 1915 song about someone having to spend a whole month's pay to call his girlfriend overseas. Jumping ahead a bit, the 1951 Superman episode called "The Evil Three" has Perry White driving a vehicle with a car phone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not really the "first mention " of a submarine, helicopter, spaceship, or radio some ancient work contains a vague and unworkable description of something that allowed one to travel under the sea, through the air, or to other planets, or to talk to someone at a distance. This sounds like a goldmine of original research, with Wikipedia editors inserting their version of the "first mention" of something they are familiar with, unless a reliable secondary source has judged that the gadget counts as the modern invention. There is a lot of room for creative reading of some description of "far seeing" as either a telescope or television, before either had been invented, or as the supposed psychic "remote viewing" ability. We might also distinguish a science fiction description without the modern name from an account in fiction after the term has been actually coined, perhaps when some inventor describes, demonstrates, or patents it. Edison (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The Dick Tracy comic strip used wristwatch radios back in the 30s. I don't know if they were the first cell phone type objects, but they were early. Arthur C. Clarke pretty much invented radio satellites and the space elevator. Corvus cornix_talk 19:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The Arthur Clarke thing is a common misconception. Look up Konstantin Tsiolkovsky and Hermann Noordung who were both decades ahead of him. Also, The Machine Stops is a short story from 1909 that sounds eerily like it's describing the Internet and recent social media (but this is going exactly into the direction Mr. 98 foresaw :) TomorrowTime (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Of the two things mentioned, what Clarke actually invented was the concept that geostationary satellites would be useful as comsats, and that was in a nonfiction article. He also wrote at least one story, I Remember Babylon, about possible social/political implications of satellite television (bypassing government control, you see), but I don't know if he was the first to do that.

In general this is the sort of thing that Wikipedia does very badly in comparison to media controlled by a single editor who can enforce standards, so I hope this does not become a Wikipedia article. But having said that, I can't resist throwing in a mention of Murray Leinster's story A Logic Named Joe. This was written in 1946 when the world hadn't even settled on the word for a "computer", let alone a personal computer -- that's what "a logic" in the title is. And yet it describes a network-based information-repository search architecture that is very much like the "web search engines" invented about 50 years later. Remarkable. (We know it is, because I just remarked on it.) --Anonymous, 00:00 UTC, December 1, 2010.

Cables about Chinese diplomats

Do the most recent batch of Wikileaked classified cables mention anything about Chinese diplomats? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks cables reveal China 'ready to abandon North Korea'. This is from 'leaked US Embassy cables' though, rather than Chinese diplomats. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Our article on the "diplomatic cables leak" has a "People's Republic of China" section.

The Wikileaks site itself displays a graph of number-of-cables by each embassy-of-origin. Taiwan and Beijing are shown as the ninth and twelfth, respectively, embassies having sent the most cables (of those obtained by Wikileaks), and Tokyo is ranked fourth – so, yes, it seems likely that mention of Chinese diplomats occurs in this batch of documents. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

CBC News has an article today about China and the recent Wikileaks release, which says eg.:

"In another leaked U.S. document, China's vice-foreign minister He Yafei is quoted as saying North Korea was acting like a 'spoiled child' trying to get the attention of the adult — the United States — by carrying out missile tests in April 2009." (China frustrated with North Korea: WikiLeaks)

WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Conservative vs. Liberal states of United States of America

I was taking the Canadian politics, we learned that Canada is divided into two. The Western Canada is conservative and Eastern Canada, including the Atlantic are liberal. I want to that which states of all 50 states are liberal and which states are conservative? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.32.248 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 30 November 2010

That's extremely simplistic for Canada; actually I could state even more strongly that it is just completely untrue. If you are expecting a similar answer for the US (like, the north is liberal, the south is conservative) it will be just as simplistic and untrue. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

For starters, see red states and blue states. As Adam says, it's an oversimplification. —Kevin Myers 03:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Kevin Meyers) As a first order approximation, look at this map. This is from the 2008 presidential election, and demarcated by county. Obviously it's a gross oversimplification to use the Obama-McCain axis as a proxy for a liberal-conservative axis (whatever that means), but it's better than nothing. It also doesn't take into account population, so that makes it harder to correlate it to number of people. Another visual representation is this map of the 2010 house of representatives results. I'm not sure what the different shades represent, but it's a decent visual representation. In extremely general terms, rural areas are more likely to vote Republican, and urban areas Democrat. Additionally, the Northeast is commonly regarded as more liberal (and indeed, more likely to vote Democrat), while the South (Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama especially) is regarded as more conservative, and indeed, are more likely to vote Republican.

In all cases, though, there are sub-regions (often cities) that vote opposite the way the rest of the immediate surrounding do. And there are also different factors that determine why someone votes Democrat vs. Republican. The Religious right (Jerry Falwell, for example) will vote for Republicans due to their conservative social platform, while proponents of Economic liberalism (like Milton Friedman) will vote for Republicans due to their (comparatively) hands off stance on the economy. Opposite stances apply to the Democrats, and many other factors come into play as well. Buddy431 (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

And there are plenty of right-wing Democrats, especially at the state level. In many cases, southern Democrats are completely indistinguishable from Republicans. However, the opposite, left-wing Republicans, are vanishingly rare even in places like New England. LANTZY^TALK 03:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the Canadian thing is totally wrong. A more accurate generalization is, as in the United States, of a bicoastal liberalism bookending a right-wing interior, which is itself freckled with islands of urban liberalism (e.g. Austin, Texas). In Canada, there's also the complication of Quebec. And in the United States, there are significant cultural, religious, and political differences between the south and the inland west, although both are lumped together as right-wing. Specifically, the western United States is significantly less religious than the east, and therefore less right-wing in the "social" sense. LANTZY^TALK 03:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It isn't really accurate that the western United States is less religious than the east. For example, Utah (in the West) is much more religious than, say, Connecticut (in the East). The Northeast in general is less religious than the interior West or the Great Plains states. A more accurate statement would be that the west coast is less religious than the South or the Midwest. Marco polo (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear here, in U.S. terms, Canada is mostly liberal. Even western Canadians have views that would be considered liberal or moderately liberal in the U.S. political spectrum. For example, the "conservative" Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, supports universal health care and a number of other social programs that no Republican in the United States would support. Marco polo (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of you say that Canada is liberal but it is not true because the reason the person ask the question is because Alberta is most considered as conservative and Ontario is most liberal and recent mayoral elections in Calgary and Toronto made headlines across the country. Calgary is conservative and yet people decided to choose a liberal as a mayor and Toronto is the opposite. I am a Canadian and I also believe that Western Canada is conservative and Eastern Canada is liberal. I have seen that a lot Liberal Party MPs in the house of commons were elected from Eastern Canada and same thing with NDP MPs, while the Conservative Party MPs were elected from Western Canada.

I didn't say that Canada is liberal. I said that in U.S. terms, Canada is liberal. Canadian criteria for what is liberal are different (simplistically, further to the left) than those in the United States. I made this point because the person who asked the question appears to be from the United States, so I thought it made sense to put this in a U.S. perspective. Of course, I agree that from a Canadian perspective, parts of Canada are (relatively) conservative. Marco polo (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

California is considered a blue state, every single statewide office in the 2010 election went to a Democrat. But in fact, California is divided into blue counties and red counties, the blue counties being most (but not all) of the coastal counties, the red counties being most (but not all) of the inland counties. The blue counties are the largest, population-wise, which is why the Democracts dominate politics in the state. Corvus cornix_talk 22:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

'Incoming!' 'To arms!' and other such cries

I need a list of military calls - the sort of things a sentry will shout when suddenly under attack, or the perimeter is breached - US Marine or British Navy would be best, thanks. Adambrowne666 (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The General Orders for Sentries page isn't very helpful on this point. The US Marines' version is here[31]. It seems remarkably similar to the one on the UK Armed Forces website[32]. Surely a typo - "To salute all officers not cased."? In old British war films, they tend to shout "Call out the guard!" if memory serves. Alansplodge (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No typo, the "not cased" refers to colors and standards and means basically "unfurled".--Rallette (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The cliched responce to seeing someone emerging from the fog is to shout: "Halt! Who goes there, friend or foe?" "Friend". "Advance, friend". "Fix bayonets" is another movie cliche prior to an infantry charge. 92.28.247.40 (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Can someone find a better reference?

a previous version of this question is now on the talk page

On Nov. 18 an article at Guardian.co.uk, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange wanted by Interpol over rape case, quotes Julian Assange's lawyer as saying "Both women have declared they had consensual sexual relations with our client and that they continued to instigate friendly contact well after the alleged incidents. Only after the women became aware of each other's relationship with Mr Assange did they make their allegations against him."

What I am asking for here is a better reference saying the same thing: i.e. one not from his lawyer! Does anyone have a reference to official Swedish announcement with the same effect? Or another source confirming that this is the specific charge? Thank you. 82.234.207.120 (talk) 08:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If this is about editing our article(s), then The Guardian is a good-enough source for the news story. The Guardian journalists were at liberty to consult Interpol, the Swedish court documents, and also had the interview with Assange's lawyer. If they didn't include much detail at this stage it was probably because their estimate is that this is very much an open case and could evolve in various ways over the next days or weeks. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a VERY big stretch. If the only reference anyone can dig up to the actual charge the one above by the defendant's lawyer, then so be it. I think we have some very good researchers here, however, and I think someone can find a better reference than the lawyer of the accused. I believe in you guys. 86.212.63.241 (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The Washington Post back in August had more detail, but a link within it has gone dead. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Re. "I believe in you guys" – well we believe in you, too, 86.212.63.241! :)

May I suggest at this point that you read our article on this topic? I think it discusses this question fairly well, and provides many good links to sources. If you can find any better sources, though, please by all means work the information in them into the article yourself! Thanks, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

China blockade

China blocked shipments of rare earth minerals going to Japan because the country had detained one of its citizens. Considering electronics is a major industry in Japan, this could have seriously hurt their economy if it was a long term blockade. Could China do the same thing to us? I'm not just talking about rare earth material either. What could they withhold that would hurt our own economy? Outsourcing? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

By 'us', I take it you mean 'US' in capitals? You might like to take a look at this to see what is traded between the two countries. Electronics appears to be on the top of most of those lists, too. It also mentions that the US is China's top trading partner - I am not sure if the situation is mutual, though. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

China has by far the largest reserves of rare earths in the world. However, the United States has the second-largest mine at Mountain Pass, California, a facility which has been non-operational for many years. Sometime in mid-2011 it should be coming back online, which will ease supply shortages; presumably the capacity of the mine will be sufficient for both the U.S. and other countries affected by any Chinese export restriction. I don't know if there are other strategic materials that only China has. Supply shortages would drive up the price, which of course would make Molycorp Inc.'s mine more profitable when it eventually starts shipping. Antandrus (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course many consumer goods are no longer made in the United States. In a scenario of conflict with China, an export embargo on China's part would lead to shortages of certain consumer goods. For many of these, however, there are alternative suppliers, mainly in other Asian countries. More critically, China may be the sole supplier of certain critical electronic components, a lack of which could cripple a military effort on the part of the United States. I would expect that U.S. military planners are now scrambling to arrange for domestic supplies of any such components. As Antandrus has noted, security planners in the United States are now very focused on the rare-earth issue and are working to support the development of domestic and other reliable supplies. Marco polo (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this likely to be a spur to more recycling of components? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I would expect so -- particularly things like the battery in the Toyota Prius, which used 10 to 15 kg of lanthanum and 1kg of neodymium per vehicle. [33] (I think the current models have gone to a lithium-ion battery.) If the price of rare earths becomes high enough, recycled components become like a high-grade ore in that it's a lot easier, and environmentally less messy, to extract rare earths from cast-off electronics than from strip-mined rocks (where the byproducts include radioactive waste among other things). Antandrus (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Government Grants

I have been trying to find the government grants for businesses and the purchasing of homes. When I do research on the Web I seem to be taken to sites that just want your money. I need help with finding the true source for such grants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berthanna (talk • contribs) 15:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to tell us which country/region you're asking about. Karenjc 15:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Regent Princess Isabel and the scandal of the ball

I once read a novel where I heard that the regent Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil, in connection to her anti-slavery oppinions, made a scandal by dancing with a coloured man - a mulatto - on a ball. It was a way of demonstrating the idea of equality between the races. Of course, this was from a novel, but I wonder if it was taken from a true event? Does anyone know?--85.226.47.79 (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Powerful industries suppress health advice in the US?

Is the final sentance in this excerpt from the Unsaturated fat article true? "Although unsaturated fats are healthier than saturated fats,[3] the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommendation stated that the amount of unsaturated fat consumed should not exceed 30% of one's daily caloric intake (or 67 grams given a 2000 Calorie diet). The new dietary guidelines have eliminated this recommendation at the request of the meat and dairy industries." The recommended upper limit for saturated fat is only 20 grammes per day in the UK. Thanks 92.28.247.40 (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Aaargh, this isn't neutral. We are claiming far too much without any sources. Even the BBC health link has gone dead. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, the sentance I am asking about is "The new dietary guidelines have eliminated this recommendation at the request of the meat and dairy industries". Is that true? Thanks 92.28.247.40 (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's two questions. 1) Has the recommendation of limiting the amount of unsaturated fat gone from the dietary guidelines? 2) (If so) was that at the request of the meat and dairy industries? 1) is easier to address than 2). A new version of dietary guidelines was probably commented on in various mainstream media. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, 35 total fat minus 7 saturated fat = 28 un-saturated fat. So it looks like a bit less than that. See page 4. Remember, the FDA is financed by the companies it regulates, therefore it feels duty bound to look after their financial health, so it is unlikely to suppress it - is it.--Aspro (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean and how that relates to the question asked. 92.28.247.40 (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Calgary and Toronto mayors vs. U.S. cities mayors

When was the last time that any U.S. cities (largest ones I mean) had this type of situation where a liberal city has a conservative mayor like Toronto, Ontario and where a conservative city has a liberal mayor like Calgary, Alberta? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.149.63 (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Check the mayoral history of New York City, for one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

India conservative liberal

Like the U.S. conservative and liberal states question, which indian states are more conservative (meaning BJP) and which states are more liberal (meaning Indian Congress)?

Kerala and West Bengal have communist-led governments... --Wrongfilter (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Sales Tax

Should a business impose a sales atx on the rental of a GYM locker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.63.216.58 (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Sales tax laws vary significantly from state to state. You would have to consult the laws for that particular state. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Your IP address appears to locate to North Carolina. According to that state's Department of Revenue, North Carolina's sales tax applies to the lease or rental of property. So a North Carolina business is legally required to impose a sales tax on rentals. Marco polo (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd caution that the above analysis from Marco polo lacks the subtlety you'd get from an attorney. For example, it may be possible to argue that the locker itself is not being rented, but the use of the locker, or the space that lies within the physical boundaries of the walls of the locker but not the physical material of the locker itself (similar to the way many condominium associations own the walls of the condos but none of the space inside). One of these approaches may not qualify as "property", thus qualifying as a loophole, avoiding the need for a sales tax collection. If you have a serious question about this, contact an attorney who's familiar with this area of North Carolina law. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Prince Michael of Kent – Royal cypher

I am interested in the crowned 'm' cypher seen here and here – does anyone know anything about its history and significance? Anyone know where I could find an enlarged or vector version? Thanks, ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 22:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)