Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:40, 17 January 2013

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/H

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.

January 12

Sunni and Shia majority provinces of Iraq

Which provinces of Iraq are Sunni majority and which are Shia majority?--Donmust90 (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

There's information at Religion in Iraq, Islam in Iraq, and a nice map at Demographics of Iraq. Before we go down this well-trodden road, there are similarly-named articles for every country in the world, just about, so just replace the word Iraq with whatever country you seek, and there you go. --Jayron32 02:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maps. --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 10:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SOE rogue op

Given the command structure of the SOE during World War 2, how hard would it have been to run an unauthorized small-scale "rogue" operation without Headquarters finding out (by "small-scale" I mean that no more than 5-6 people in England know about it, including the person actually running it, and maybe 10-15 on the Continent)? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might get more response here if you spelt out what SOE stands for. You have linked it to our disambiguation page listing, among others, Stella One Eleven, an Australian pop/rock band formed in 1997, and Society of Operations Engineers, a British professional organization. HiLo48 (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It stands for this. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to the OP, the context provided of operations in World War II was a fairly strong clue that it wasn't a pop group. I don't have enough knowledge of SOE to answer your question directly, but there are a couple of results on Google Books that have substantial previews, which may help. Special Operations Executive: A New Instrument of War By Mark Seaman and S.O.E.: An outline history of the special operations executive 1940 - 46by M R D Foot. Alansplodge (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Burnham

I have been reading the book Burnham, King of Scouts by Peter van Wyk, (September 2003. He states that Burnham never worked as a scout for the U.S. Army. I am going to try to find Burnham autobiography to see if that is true. Just thought I would pass this along. Thanks always for the info you provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.211.242 (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant Wikipedia article is Frederick Russell Burnham, which also says nothing about the US Army. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had a good look through Google, but couldn't find anything except the van Wyk book that you have already read. Alansplodge (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Major Burnham worked as a scout in the Geronimo campaign, but he was never a soldier for the U.S. Army. He also left the Klondike to join Teddy Roosevelt and his Rough Riders on their way to Cuba, but he arrived in Washington too late to participate. In WWI, Roosevelt selected Burnham to raise a division of U.S. volunteers to fight in France, but President Wilson refused to use the volunteers and the unit was disbanded. Ctatkinson (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is being a homosexual punishable by the sword in Saudi Arabia as well?

I read of an execution recently in Saudi Arabia and wondered if the homosexual, the Baha'i and others were under the same sword. Kyxx (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article titled LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia. I'm not sure what the Baha'i have to do with homosexuality, but Freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia may have some general information on the attitude of the Saudi authorities. --Jayron32 13:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Kyxx has been booted for being yet another sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gender ratio in biblical studies and theology?

What is the gender ratio of men and women in biblical studies, religious studies, and theological seminaries in various countries? There seems to be an overwhelming number of men than women in these fields. How many female biblical scholars, female religious studies majors, and female theologians are there in various religions in various countries? For one thing, nearly every book in the library that I checked out is written by a man. Only one book is actually written by a woman, and that is Conversations with God: Fifty Dramatic Dialogues To Bring The Old Testament Alive, by Sharon Swain. It sometimes makes me wonder if men are just attracted to this field or something or completely dominate this field as much as how some women used to dominate the fields of social work and nursing, or I'm just not looking in the right place. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One reason is of course that many students of theology and of the Bible are looking to become pastors, and that is restricted to men in conservative churches. - Lindert (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK... so I guess it's not a perception then, but reality. I still wonder what is the gender ratio, though. Not sure if I should trust this website: [1]75.185.79.52 (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in some conservative churches. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can check the entries in the lists in Category:Lists of theologians and religious studies scholars.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are almost certainly more women among present-day students than among established scholars. Try looking in the higher education statistics. For the UK www.hesa.ac.uk; equivalents in other developed countries, or try OECD. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just looked at the website you linked to. Seems OK, why not go to the actual survey they link to. Also, the proportion of women among undergraduates might be quite different. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Fiebig and his Kallifthongon

Something I happened to stumble upon: This print, supposedly from c. 1829, advertises a concert with an somewhat piano-like instrument called a Kallifthongon:

“

Argyll Rooms. The Kallifthongon. The Lovers of Music are respectfully informed, that Mr Fiebig from Germany, the Inventor and Constructor of this novel and harmonious Instrument, has the honor of displaying its musical powers at the above Rooms every day at 2 o'Clock..... This Isntrument is palyed upon in the same manner as the Pianoforte,....but any person who heard it....would imagine he was listeningt o a Quartet........ Admittance 1s/-.

”

(I can't read the text in the image of the print, so I can't make out if the typos are in the original or only in the seller's webpage)

So what else is known about this instrument and its maker?

Google has a few more hits, such as this one from The Literary Gazette, but little of use in answering this question.

There appears to have been a maker of musical instruments called Johann Christoph Fiebig in a place called Berngrund near Dresden[1], but he would seem to be a generation or so earlier and a maker of brass instruments. (A digression, but Berngrund, supposedly a small town on the small river Müglitz, is another mystery, as all hits appear to mention J. C. Fiebig. Google Maps gives no hit for a place of this name. I guess it could be a tiny hamlet, now abandoned or renamed, or even the former name of a street somewhere. Either way, it may not be relevant for identifying the Mr Fiebig with the Kallifthongon.) --Hegvald (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(To be quite honest, I don't actually expect anybody to be able to add much more about the "Kallifthongon", but the question may serve someone as an inspiration to write about other and similarly forgotten musical contraptions. Assuming sources are to be found somewhere, that is. And it may serve as an illustration of the limits of easily-found on-line "knowledge". --Hegvald (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC) )[reply]

When will I be able to upload it?

A picture of a Japanese boy who locks himself up in his bedroom and refuses to leave. I am from Japan and it's a well-known social disease, I don't know if you Westerners know what I'm talking about and if you indeed have an article on it. If you have it, when will I upload the pic? Thank. Kotjap (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you you own this image, or it's under an acceptable license, you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons. It sounds like this is may be a type of agoraphobia. However, if it's brief, it may just be teenage rebellion or something else. Superm401 - Talk 21:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No no, two things, first, it's a social disease only in my country and has its specific name and there's an article on the Japanese Wikipedia about it, and secondly, I am not allowed to upload the pic and don't know why. Kotjap (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC) The Japanese name for the disease is ひきこもり — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotjap (talk • contribs) 21:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article is Hikikomori. Rmhermen (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this behavior isn't unique to Japan, they just assigned a name to it. StuRat (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay and why can't I upload the picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotjap (talk • contribs) 21:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be autoconfirmed to upload an image. To get that, you generally have to be around for 4 days and make 10 edits (changes to Wikipedia). These can be as simple as spelling and grammar fixes. Superm401 - Talk 22:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 13

God, the Devil, and Gender

God and the Devil are not equal and opposites just as the two genders, male and female, are equal and opposites, are they? Republicanism (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what? --Jayron32 00:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on your religion, now wouldn't it (both God/Devil equality and male/female equality)? StuRat (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Now, what was the question? HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't he ask the same question a week or two ago? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gender is a (deeply rooted) social construct. Biological sex is extremely complicated. Neither is intrinsically polar, although we often view them that way for convenience. Neither has anything to do with metaphysics, and most Christians are not Manicheans. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Environmentalism and the Fall of Communism

What do environmentalists think about the fall of communism and the triumph of capitalism and America in the end of the Cold War? Republicanism (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that environmentalists were a monolithic group that thought with one mind, especially about politico-economic systems. I would imagine you could find at least one person who called themselves an environmentalist who thinks anything. SO the answer to your question is that environmentalists think everything about it. Whatever opinion it is technically possible to have, environmentalists have that one too. --Jayron32 02:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You might want to be a little more specific in your question. After all, "environmentalists" are not a homogeneous group with a defined and unchanging set of universal beliefs and opinions, so the answer you get is going to vary widely dependign on which environmentalist you ask, natch. It's a bit like asking "What do Americans think about Indian food?". To expect there to be a simple answer that applies across the board is absurd. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's implying you can't be a capitalist and also care about the environment. Very sad. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question is basically trolling, but others reading this, on the off-chance they will still learn something, might like to check out Liberals for Forests. In Australia, the Liberal Party is the conservative party, but the Libs for Forests are openly big on the environment. As people are saying, it depends on the person, and here is something that confirms it. IBE (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mixed bag. In industrialized communist nations, like the Warsaw pact countries, a lack of any concern for the environment led to vast areas of severe pollution. A lack of safety standards also resulted in ecological disasters like Chernobyl (although evacuating all the people eventually allowed wildlife to flourish there). In more agrarian communist nations, like Cuba, the lack of development of resorts, golf courses, and such has preserved many areas that otherwise would have been destroyed. China is a unique case of an officially communist government with capitalism at it's core. Unfortunately, this combines the capitalist tendency to view the environment as just a resource to be exploited with a lack of control and oversight, which would otherwise occur in a democracy, where the people won't stand for extreme pollution. So, the environment in China could be a serious problem. StuRat (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you by 'environmentalists' mean followers of Green Parties, then the answer is quite straightforward. They celebrated the implosion of the Socialist Bloc (notably the German Greens, then the only really prominent Green Party, had counterpart in East Germany during Der Wende), and they tend to refuse to see the Cold War as a zero-sum realpolitik game (thus, in spite that some Greens oppose US foreign policy, they do not 'blame' it on the fall of the Socialist Bloc). --Soman (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically enough, wise use of natural resources used to be called "conservation", whereas the typical "conservative" seems to take the attitude of exploitation rather than "wise use" of natural resources. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has seen a number of (environmental) disasters due to a lack of equipment, safety checks and infrastructure." [2] Alansplodge (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Context, is why we usually don't like questions that are obviously going to become opinion forum fodder. Shadowjams (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jurisdiction of Hawaiian courts

Section #3 of Yamashita's gold (and the related Rogelio Roxas article) surprised me — how can Hawaiian courts have jurisdiction over a foreign head of state in a dispute arising from that head of state's country? Why wasn't the lawsuit thrown out of court as soon as the judge(s) realised that it didn't involve anything that happened in Hawaii? Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, this is called universal jurisdiction. Many countries have it under some circumstances, but the laws and practices vary widely. Superm401 - Talk 04:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this is a universal jurisdiction issue. Shadowjams (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since Japan surrendered to the Allies, any war loot (or court cases regarding said loot) would be handled by the Allies. The US, being the major power in the war against Japan, makes sense as the one to handle it, and Hawaii, being the closest state, makes sense as the place to try it. StuRat (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside questions of universal jurisdiction, and I don't know enough after looking at that article to know if that's the case, courts (in the U.S., the states, and other countries too) may exercise jurisdiction over cases that don't have obvious links to the court if they meet personal jurisdiction requirements. There are a lot of other issues though in that instance, including Forum non conveniens and venue. Universal jurisdiction is a very specific kind of jurisdiction, one currently the subject of some debate. I doubt, but am by no means sure, that this case involves that. As Stu says, U.S. occupation of Japan (and their territories) after WW2 might have something to do with it, although I suspect (again, no means sure) that this isn't about that. You should read the personal jurisdiction article and see if that helps at all. Shadowjams (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B?

see What the letter B after those numbers stands for (in the "begin views column"? I know M stands for a million and K stands for thousands.65.128.142.118 (talk) 06:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Billion.
Sleigh (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trajan's column

Despite making the illustrations slightly larger at the top, I'd still expect it to be quite difficult to read the top from ground level. So, was there some type of superstructure, perhaps wooden, built around it in Roman times, to allow everyone to read the top ? StuRat (talk) 08:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it's hollow and has a staircase inside, so you could climb to the top. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although dangling yourself over the side to see the images would be quite an adventurous method of viewing. Alansplodge (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the images would be upside down, IBE (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some archaeologists think the column was brightly painted, rendering it much easier to make out at a distance[3]. But others don't know if that's true, and doubt that if it were it would be sufficient to make it fully discernible from the ground.[4] (Those two sources differ as to whether there is vestigial evidence of paint). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 15:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It has been proposed that the roofs of the two flanking libraries could have been used as viewing platforms (the height of these may have been about equivalent to the current street level from which visitors now peer at the column). Even if this was the case, however, it would have only allowed the spectator to view a few more spirals and it would have been impossible to follow the circular narrative of the relief." Experiencing Trajan's Column. Alansplodge (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the point was not to make the images visible, but to create a big-ass ornate column. It didn't matter if you could see everything, just that you knew Trajan was responsible for it, and that he could afford to make it look like that. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. A similar conundrum exists with the illustrations in the stained glass in medieval cathedrals, so high from the floor that it's impossible to see what is being represented.[5] Perhaps only God (or in Trajan's case, the gods) was supposed to see the whole work. Alansplodge (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. StuRat (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Indian Judiciary

Here's an extract from my political science textbook-

"... The Judiciary of India is also one of the most powerful in the world. The Supreme Court and the High Court have the power to interpret the Constitution of the country. They can declare invalid any law of the legislature or the actions of the executive, whether at the union of the state level, if they find such a law or action against the Constitution. Thus they can determine the Constitutional validity of any legislation or action of the executive in the country, when it is challenged before them."

I didn't get the last sentence properly. Help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashowardhani (talk • contribs) 14:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It means that if a new law is brought before the higher courts, a judge can decide that the law is unconstitional and therefore not valid. Similarly, an action by the government can be given the same treatment. Alansplodge (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that it doesn't have to be a 'new' law; there are a lot of laws and regulations that sit on the books for a long time before being subject to a constitutional challenge. There are notable examples from various countries' histories where a supreme court's opinion on the constitionality of a particular law or legal principle changes over time, as well. The canonical example of this in U.S. jurisprudence is the court's change of heart over racial segregation: endorsed in 1896's Plessy v. Ferguson, and overturned in 1954's Brown v. Board of Education.)

As well, one should be cautious in how one reads the textbook author's chosen wording. Saying "one of the most powerful" might mistakenly lead the reader to infer that there is something particular or special about India's judiciary with regard to its authority to evaluate the constitutional validity of laws or executive actions. In fact a great many nations give either their supreme court(s) or a separate constitutional court explicit or implicit authority to repeal unconstitutional legislation and bar unconstitutional acts: the power of judicial review. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course nothing any of the previous commentators have said is about Indian law. Shadowjams (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question was about the meaning of a sentence written in English, which required explanation of vocabulary and grammer but not law (Indian or otherwise) per se, as given in Alansplodge's answer. TOAT was giving some general context to the question, which seems to me unexceptionable. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steam clock

I remember hearing (from many), that the first clock in Gastown was financed by merchants that didn't like steam coming out of a grate in the sidewalk. 1977 was before the internet so it is hard to source, I am sure this is the main reason for funding the project by merchants. The other clocks around the world may have been built for similar reasons. Should this be added to the article after sourcing? I don't even know where to look. It seems other editors on the talk page had trouble sourcing info as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found a source for the Vancouver clock buried in an external link.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Land of Punt

Hello,

the Land of Punt did have a script, how does it look like (is the script ostensibly influenced by Egyptian hieroglyphs as it could be deciphered or is it a script totally unrelated to the Egyptian)? If the Land of Punt had contact to Egypt, why aren't there any translations?

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there isn't even agreement as to where the land of Punt was, we probably can't know if they had writing. If those scholars who locate it in Southern Arabia are right, then it may be that they used the old Arabian script. If, as is more commonly held, they were in Africa, we have not found any writing and so we do not know if they even had writing.

I'm afraid I don't understand your last question: translations of what into what? We know of Punt only from Egyptian records. --ColinFine (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer, but this History_of_Somalia#Ancient article refers to Punt as well, proposing them to have pyramids and a writing system? And I have another question, did Punt persist till 325 BC?

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but it is hard to tell; if it had persisted as an organized state that long, it would have most certainly shown up in other writings. What makes Punt so ephermeral is that it is only attested in the writings of Egypt, and only as late as the Twentieth Dynasty of Egypt, which would be about 700 years earlier than your date. So, Punt would have had to existed with no one knowing it for 700 years. It's possible it existed in the Horn of Africa, but no one really knows if the civilization noted in the "History of Somalia" article was Punt or some other country. --Jayron32 06:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Land of Punt, it's always fourth down. --Trovatore (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Women's breasts

The nude photography workshop I recently attended got me thinking. There are some cultures in the world where women having their breasts bared is nothing special. These are mainly indigenous tribes in Africa and Oceania, not developed countries in Europe or North America. I haven't been to any of these places, but from what I've seen in pictures, the women seem to be rather small-breasted. Is this just a coincidence, or is there a correlation between breast size and cultural opinion about breasts? JIP | Talk 19:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The women may be undernourished, at any rate do not suffer from Western problems of obesity, have not had boob jobs and are not a specially selected sample of big-breasted women a la Health and Efficiency. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the size, I don't know. But western cultures used to expose breasts sometimes too (well, more often than they do now). In fact, at certain times in history it was a sign of being royalty or an aristocrat. See this Slate summary. Superm401 - Talk 20:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. The picture in that Slate column rather neatly deflates the premise of the OP's question. Matt Deres (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well-put. And it reminds me of something a black comic said many years ago: "National Geographic was our Playboy." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"National Geographic ? I hate those bastards. They used to come to my village and pay the women to take off their shirts and bras, then they would take pictures !" - Fez from That '70s Show. StuRat (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

January 14

What was her full name and the year of death?

What was the full name of Madame de Gourbillon, and the year of her birth and death? Does any one know? Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find her name at birth, but her married name was Marguerite de Gourbillon and her dates are 1737-1817 (source: this page and some other Googling). --Cam (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. By google of "Marguerite de Gourbillon" I have managed to find her full name! As well as her birth year. However, her death year needs better references: from a book, not a forum. Perhaps it can be added, but it must still be given a better reference - is there one? --Aciram (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see that is taken care of as well now. Then it is settled! Of course, one must also ad the year when she was employed, which is vital to the article. --Aciram (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ranking of US presidents - background?

The USPC Rankings of US presidents include "Background" as first category. But what does this mean? Education, especially higher education? If not: Is there a ranking of US presidents by academic degrees / certifications...? --KnightMove (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The table was recently added to our article but is a mistake which I've partially corrected. Those are Siena College rankings not USPC ones. USPC only includes 5 categories. The meaning of background is described by Siena College [6] and [7] as 'family, education and experience', you'd need to look at what they published for more detail although since it was a survey of scholars opinions, it may not have had any more details then that. Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for information about a person in the 17th century

I am trying to find background information about a person called Laurence Clarke , a 17th century engraver who made prints by such artists as Hogarth. I have searched the web using Google and Yahoo with no luck. Anyone know anything about him?

Hugh Dent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.60.1 (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Hogarth was born in 1697, and was presumably still in short trousers (or the equivalent) at the end of the 17th century, I rather think you mean the 18th century. I have just used Ancestry.co.uk to check the Register of Duties Paid for Apprentices' Indentures (1710-1811), Freedom of the City of London Admission Papers, and Articles of Clerkship, and have not come up with a single Laurence Clarke. Do you know where he worked, and what was the earliest date for one of his engravings that you're aware of? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Tooley's and a couple of other sources, I've only been able to find one Laurence Clark from that time period and the only information I can find on them is that they wrote a book called A Compleat history of the Holy Bible in 1737. For what it's worth, that's the only name with that spelling or any variant (i.e. Lawrence instead of Laurence, Clark instead of Clarke) in CERL, and it's the only VIAF heading anywhere close to that time period. eldamorie (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth (which certainly isn't much...) Here's the WorldCat Identities link for the one guy with that name I was able to find, but it doesn't seem likely that they are the same person: [8]. eldamorie (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A compleat exposition of the Book of Common-Prayer: and administration of Lords's Supper according to the use of the Church of England compiled by Laurence Clarke A.M. 1737, can be read online here. A.M. apparently stands for Master of Arts. Alansplodge (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that William Hogarth served an apprenticeship as an engraver;[9] I haven't found any references to anyone doing the job for him. Alansplodge (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no entries in Benezit or Bryan's dictionary of engravers, so it would appear that this printmaker probably wasn't very successful. eldamorie (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is not clear is whether this person was a printmaker or a printer. Roger (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

613 Commandments

This is looking more and more like an excuse to debate religion as it grows, so let's leave it here. The OP has already been answered by several people. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

According the article's list of 613 commandments, it looks like whoever has written it some serious issues with the people of Canaan, Moab, and other nations. One commandment is to destroy the nations of Canaan. Do modern-day Jews really keep these commandments? 140.254.226.247 (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't around anymore. When have you last met a Moabite or a Philistine? - Lindert (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)So, what happened to the Moabites or Philistines? Were they destroyed, or were they assimilated and became part of the greater Jewish community? 140.254.226.247 (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For many of these peoples their later history is vague and unknown. They have ceased to exist as an identifiable group, but some may have assimilated into other cultures. - Lindert (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, which group of biblical people do modern-day Jews identify with? Did the biblical people's culture passed down their traditions, beliefs, and practices to their offspring? 140.254.226.247 (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lindert's claim that "their later history is vague and unknown" is only partially correct. We have articles on the Moabites and Philistines, and they describe what we know about their demise. The Moabites' territory was overrun by northern Arab tribes somewhere around the 6th century BC, but they seem to have disappeared from the historical record before this. The Philistines were conquered by the Assyrians (a Mesopotamian empire), just like Israel itself. Judah, the other Jewish kingdom, was eventually conquered by the neo-Babylonians (also a Mesopotamian empire). The Philistines lost their identity as a group in the 5th century BC. --140.180.240.178 (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the vast majority of Jews treat the commandments in the same way as the vast majority of Christians treat all the commandments in the new testament. They stick to some, ignore some and follow adapted versions of some. The ones about destroying other nations are some of the less popular ones. 81.159.112.136 (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there was a list of commandments in the New Testament. It's basically a series of gospels and then a series of letters. 140.254.226.247 (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few. The Beatitudes, the Great Commandment, etc. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Council of Jerusalem in 50 AD exempted non-Jewish converts to Christianity from much of the Mosaic law, including circumcision. See also Split of early Christianity and Judaism. Alansplodge (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't really a list of commandments in the Old Testament either: people create lists by extracting the commandments from the longer texts. In the same way, Jesus gave many commandments in the Gospels, and the Church decided additional commandments recorded in Acts and the Epistles. Why did you think Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments."? 86.140.54.211 (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maimonides law #596 is the one you're referring to, "Destroy the seven Canaanite nations". This is based on Deut 20:17. It's fairly harsh: "but thou shalt utterly destroy them: the Hittite, and the Amorite, the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee" (note, the Moabites aren't listed. Moabites weren't Canaanites, they're descendants of Lot.) However, you don't need a degree in biblical analysis or even to consult Rashi to ensure that you at least read the verse in context... by reading the preceding verses. It's a command to destroy the warrior-age males of cities that don't surrender, in order to ensure that idolatory is eradicated. That's rather more limited than you thought.

Now, on your other point. Modern day Jews would not be obligated by this command, as, even if they could find some Jebusites somewhere, it's a command given to the Israelites when they entered the land of Israel, following the Exodus, not a general law for all times and all places. --Dweller (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You either didn't read your own link, or are fraudulently misrepresenting the source. The immediately preceding phrase reads: "Howbeit of the cities of these peoples, that the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth". You might be referring to this earlier sentence:

"thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword; but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take for a prey unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee."

which basically says "kill the males and enslave the women and children". Even by the standards of warfare of the time, this would have been exceptionally cruel.

It's interesting, since you mentioned idolatry, to examine what the 613 commandments say about idolatry:

To burn a city that has turned to idol worship — Deut. 13:17

Not to love the idolater — Deut. 13:9

Not to cease hating the idolater — Deut. 13:9

Not to save the idolater — Deut. 13:9

Not to say anything in the idolater's defense — Deut. 13:9

Not to refrain from incriminating the idolater — Deut. 13:9

To destroy idols and their accessories — Deut. 12:2 --140.180.240.178 (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. You need to read more than one preceding verse to get the context. --Dweller (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a common religious strategy to claim "you're taking things out of context!", with either no explanation or a false explanation of what the context should be. Anyone is welcome to read your link and be satisfied that the commandment has not been taken out of context. --140.180.240.178 (talk) 08:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making apologies for the Bible having some harsh laws. The utter destruction of the Amalekites is very puzzling and difficult for us to understand. This particular law mandates the killing of all the fighting age males of a city that's refused to surrender, not the utter destruction of every city encountered, which is how it appears without reading the preceding verses. That's all. --Dweller (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Verse 15 clearly divides the cities into two categories. There are the distant cities, where the purpose is just to stop them worshiping idols. For those, only the adult males should be killed and only if they don't surrender. Then there are the closer cities, where the purpose is for the Jews to settle there (taking back the lands that they were given by God). For those cities, they are supposed to kill everyone so that they can live there themselves. --Tango (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of the 613 commandments and idolatory, that's entirely natural. The entire story of the Jewish people, from Abraham until at least the end of the book(s) of Kings, is about rejection of, and then flirtation with idolatory. Deuteronomy is the book given as the Jews were about to leave their desert wanderings, when they were fairly isolated, and enter a land which would continue to house Canaanites. The temptations were obvious and the laws given at that time reflect this. The Ir nidachat you refer to above (Deut 13:17) for example, is one of the strictest laws in Judaism, and applies to a Jewish city. The warning was successful - it never happened.

All in all, it's very difficult judging a prehistoric society by modern standards. The Bible has a number of perplexing laws that make us raise our eyebrows, while simultaneously including hundreds of palpably just, and for its time, radical laws. We also struggle with it because for most of us, we separate our lives into elements where religion does and does not have a place and a voice, while the Bible does not see life like that.

A good example of these tensions are in some of the elements of the laws of slavery.

Tolerance of a system of slavery makes us frown.

But s/he is released after a maximum of seven years and, it seems, some insisted on remaining slaves, but were forced to leave servitude at the end of every 50 year cycle

Yet, a master could marry off their slaves, which astonishes us.

But still, a slave injured because of his/her owner's negligence is entitled to compensation, which isn't exactly how we'd comprehend a slavery system working.

So, it's very hard for us to enter the mindset of Biblical-style Judaism. It's not existed for a couple of millenia... and, as I've said, some of it hasn't existed for a few millenia longer than that, as they were laws given for one point in time only. If you're really interested in learning more about it, drop me a line at my talk page and I can point you to some reading on the subject. It's fascinating. --Dweller (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You call some Biblical laws "harsh", yet I wonder what you would say if any modern army were to kill every man, woman, child, and domestic animal in an enemy city. Is that "harsh", or is it a barbaric and unforgivable atrocity? Keep in mind that since a significant number of people in modern times use the Bible as a moral guide, it is entirely appropriate to judge the Bible by modern standards. The moral relativism that historians usually embrace is only appropriate for understanding historical societies, not for trying to apply their principles to modern times.

On the subject of slavery, I think people who can't comprehend why an injured slave deserves compensation is thinking of slavery in 19th century America. In Classical Greece, for example, the social norm was that a slave works alongside his master in his workshop or on his farm, doing the same type of work. Female slaves were often treated as part of the family because they did domestic tasks and could have a close relationship with family members. An Athenian writer (whose name I can't remember, unfortunately) laments the fact that slaves could walk on the streets, enter the agora, and do almost everything that a citizen could do. Slavery does not always mean, and usually did not mean, that the master beats his slave to pulp and tries to make him/her cry as much as possible. That's an overly simplistic understanding of slavery that can easily cause people to think the Bible's laws regarding slaves were especially just or unusual when they were not, even compared to contemporaries. --140.180.240.178 (talk) 10:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Average yearly income of a faimly who owns a coastal house

What is the average yearly income of a faimly that owns a coastal home in Connecticut? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.23.48 (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the demographic data for Old Saybrook, Connecticut which is one town on the coast of Connecticut. That page is updated for 2009; the Wikipedia article contains information for 2000. If you use that website, you can get information for any town in Connecticut you wish; similarly all Wikipedia articles on U.S. towns and cities (including Connecticut) contain demographic data, including median incomes. --Jayron32 13:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what is the average price of a one day public beach admission ticket in Connecticut? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.23.48 (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, public beaches in Connecticut don't charge admission, you can just walk onto them. There may be a change to park you car nearby in a parking lot, but that will vary depending on the lot. The beach itself, however, is free of charge. The only U.S. state which regularly charges for beach admission is New Jersey, via their system of beach tags. --Jayron32 13:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is admissions to one particular beach in Connecticut, though it appears to be more than merely a "beach", as there are swimming pools, spray parks, and other attractions covered by the cost of admission. As far as I know, "public beaches", which is just a strip of sand along the shore, don't normally charge admission just to sit on the sand or wade in the Ocean. --Jayron32 13:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, by definition a public beach is public - if you can walk to it, it's no different than any other park. Automobile parking fees are charged for practical reasons, and will depend on the town in which the beach is located (unless there's some overarching CT state beach regulatory bureau). Fee schedules will show lots of variation; This page shows one scheme for charging these fees in a beach town the next state over. You can vastly reduce the per-day parking rate by buying a sticker for the year, season, or week; but if you're just there for a weekend, you're better off eating the fifty bucks. Obviously Dennis, MA, is not in Connecticut; but that's the general idea. Find the town that contains the beach you're going to for specific information. The best thing to do cost-wise is find some place nearby to park for free (know anyone in the neighborhood?) where you won't get towed, and just walk the remaining distance. This isn't always possible, and requires intimate knowledge of the nearby area (and a lot of luck!). ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 18:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In most states, you would be correct: beaches are generally considered truly "public", and thus free to access, land. However, New Jersey works differently, access to many (not all, but many) beaches in New Jersey requires purchasing a pass. See Beach tag. However, as a widespread practice, New Jersey is almost singular in such admissions fees for public beaches, in my experience. I grew up not far from Connecticut, and frequented the beaches in New Hampshire and Massachusetts; I've been to beaches in literally every state from York Beach, Maine to Fort Lauderdale, Florida and New Jersey is the only state I know of where such admissions are charged as a matter of course. However, I have found a few other beaches in Connecticut which do charge admission, so it may be more common than I led on to above: The Town of Clinton has a beach which requires passes. Seaside Park in Bridgeport requires day passes for automobile access; I don't see anything regarding access on foot. On the other end of the spectrum, the Niantic Bay Boardwalk is along a beach in East Lyme, and is free to access and has free parking nearby. So you get a range in Connecticut. If you really want to search out various beaches in Connecticut This website has a full list of public beaches, each link leads to a description of the beach and whether or not it charges fees. That's probably exactly what you are looking for. --Jayron32 19:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Public" doesn't necessarily mean "free". Here in Indiana, state parks are public, but you have to pay to use them — they're fenced off, and it's trespassing to go in them unless you go in the main entrance, where there's a gatehouse. They even charge you if you walk in! Nyttend (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely true, although there is an expectation that such lands and their maintenance is already paid for in the form of taxes... But agreed, many public facilities do charge for use. --Jayron32 02:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 15

Marquess of Reading

Why do the arms of the Marquess of Reading contain a fasces? 216.93.234.239 (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My speculation is that the fasces dates from the 1st Marquess of Reading's appointment as Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales. Unfortunately, we don't have a description of the arms of other officeholders from the time to support my original research here. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proving common sense

Is there a study out there that proves that people who live in coastal towns use the beaches for recreational purposes more often than people who live farther away from them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.23.48 (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It surely depends on the town. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Europe's taxing artists

close soapboxing

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"spending a year dead for tax reasons" seems a little less fanciful these days.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/u2-move-their-rock-empire-out-of-ireland-133364.html

Gérard Depardieu

etc, etc.

So is there an article or category for these European artists (including the Beatles I suppose, ergo Taxman), who tax our patience with their tax exiles or is this simply the camel's sticking out of the tent for a Globalization future where everybody is a tax refugee, with the 1% of the 1% of the 1% living in fortresses on privately owned islands? Hcobb (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't have any articles about people of any sort who tax your patience. μηδείς (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Palmistry of Tokugawa Ieyasu: can it be verified?

In both Chinese and Japanese wikipedia article there is an unreferenced trivia says He had a single transverse palmar crease. Is this ever verifiable?--Inspector (talk) 06:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is unlikely without having photographs, which weren't invented in those days. In the same way we can't verify Julius Caesar had epilepsy. All we can do is just trust writings of the period. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what writings indicate that information?--Inspector (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OCD

You could suffer from OCD to a greater or lesser extent? --109.232.72.49 (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Shadowjams (talk) 07:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mapping of the entire earth

Is it true that the first time the entire earth was mapped was in 1972 by the Landsat-1? Rebel Yeh (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That really depends what you mean by "mapped". There were world maps well before then, but they weren't particularly accurate in some places. The use of satellites made it much easier to get accurate maps. --Tango (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except of course for the huge hole in the Antarctic where the Nazis had hidden themselves and their alien machinery ;-) Landsat had a polar orbit but didn't quite go over the poles so those areas weren't covered. Dmcq (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

London bombings during WW2

Hi something I've been wondering about, reading the British Museum article... why wasn't there some unwritten rule that historical buildings not be bombed? How did the ancient buildings like the Tower of London get saved? Was it just luck? Was there an evil purpose to destroy irreplaceable buildings and artifacts? I'm curious about policy both from the Allies and Axis point of view. We know that Berlin was bombed to smithereens. As an aside... shouldn't there be an initiative to backup all these priceless artifacts using 3D Printing and store them deep underground? Sandman30s (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, part of the Tower of London was demolished by a large bomb, a bastion called Legge's Mount, which had been built by the Duke of Wellington in the 19th century.[10] It was rebuilt to conform to the medieval wall after the war. The high altar at St Paul's Cathedral was destroyed,[11] and the Houses of Parliament were wrecked.[12] Many historic City churches were destroyed including St Mary-le-Bow, the famous "Bow Bells". Later in the war, the Germans specifically targeted historic buildings of no military importance, like Exeter Cathedral in the Baedeker raids. Alansplodge (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As well as repeating what Alan has said about the Baedeker raids, I'd also like to point out that WW2 bombers were hardly precision tools, and trying to hit, or not hit, a specific building even as big as the British Museum would be quite a tall order. In order to be that exact, you'd have to fly so low that you'd risk anti-aircraft fire, and the possibility of flying into a barrage balloon tether. In the Dam Busters raid on the Ruhr dams, the use of very low flight combined with a bomb which would move until it more or less stuck to the designated target was employed. You can't really do that in an urban area. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This did happen a few times; at least one plane is recorded to have deliberately flown low along the Mall to target Buckingham Palace. It was rare, though. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The BM was not specifically targeted, but it was indeed bombed; one gallery was heavily damaged, as was the Newspaper Library in Colindale, and there still items in the British Library catalogue recorded as "destroyed by enemy action" (eg. The BM also adjoins Senate House, which was the wartime home of a government ministry; even if it was exempted, their neighbours would have been a prime target. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many European museums moved their collections into safe storage during the war. Our article states that it was the case for the British Museum as well. --Xuxl (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To a limited degree; the major high-profile items were removed, but a substantial amount of smaller material remained. The bulk of the BM library remained on-site throughout, for example, and I'm sure that most of the stored archaeological material also did even if the grand Egyptian galleries were emptied. There was also a move to bring material back from storage at one point (though I forget the dates), as having the material constantly hidden was felt to be damaging morale. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies... such a shame. Thank goodness Rome's World Wonders were not destroyed - they were marvellous to behold when I visited. Sandman30s (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can use this map http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20637222 to see where all the bombs fell on London. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the flip side, the Allies also destroyed many historic buildings via bombing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As already pointed out above, WW2 bombers, with few exceptions, were atrociously bad at aiming. Often the bombed the wrong city,and sometimes the wrong country. Targeting individual buildings must have been a rare exception. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of such rare exceptions were Operation Jericho, Operation Carthage, and the Oslo Mosquito raid. These were low-level raids with fast two-engined bombers engaging high-value targets, though, and one managed to wipe out a school accidentally in the process. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To give some concrete numbers on accuracy, from Strategic bombing during World War II#US bombing in Europe: the US Army Air Force (who had the greatest emphasis on precision bombing) considered that a "hit" was a bomb that landed within a thousand feet of the aiming point, and by that definition only about 20% of bombs hit their target. --Carnildo (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even worse, the 1941 Butt Report into RAF night raids concluded that only one third of RAF night raids succeeded in getting within five miles of their target. The Germans made more use of electronic aids, but their method of destroying Exeter Cathedral was to flatten the centre of Exeter, and bombs intended for the London docks rained down on London suburbs several miles away. Alansplodge (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The planned destruction of Warsaw carried out by the Germans at the end of their occupation of Poland is a good example of deliberate destruction of a nation's cultural heritage. — Kpalion^(talk) 00:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Unwritten rule"? There was actually a written Treaty on Protection of Artistic and Scientific Institutions and Historic Monuments ("the Roerich Pact"), but neither Germany nor Britain were signatories. You can still see buildings in Europe marked with the Roerich Pact sign. -- Vmenkov (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little strange that the Roerich Pact article is so much bigger than the article on the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (which has probably been more important in international law/diplomacy for the last 50 years)... AnonMoos (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our articles are unclear, but there was some form of "protected building" marking in international law other than Roerich or the 1950s Hague conventions - I believe it was mostly intended for coastal cities being bombarded and effectively predated air attack, and of course was pretty much a dead letter by WWII. I can't remember the details, but I've definitely seen it in a WWII manual of military law. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Forrester

At 1:01 in Finding Forrester, Jamal is walking in the street as a police cruiser drives by and there is an abandoned car on the side of the road engulfed in flames, and yet the police do not stop to investigate, call for the fire department, etc. Isn't this supposed to be staged in NYC? I mean, how is that realistic, that the police would ignore a car on fire in the street? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You want realism in TV shows? Sheesh, don't get me started! How about when someone has to attend court, so they drive up to the courthouse and park their car right out front, where there's a space conveniently available and they don't have to pay or anything. Is that typical of life in NYC and other large cities? I rather think not. Or how in a police drama, two or more cops are discussing the case, inside the police headquarters, when suddenly a voice from stage left enters the conversation and the newly arrived person knows exactly what everybody's been saying and they just carry on as if they'd been part of the conversation all along, and it turns out to be a private citizen with some stake in the case, such as the victim's mother, but they would have no way of being inside the building without some security pass or a police escort, but they're there all by themselves just wandering about inside the secure building, interrupting conversations willy-nilly, and nobody ever asks them what they're doing there or how they got past the security doors but they all act as if she has a perfect right to be there. If the police turn a blind eye when their own secure headquarters are open to just anyone walking in off the street and wandering around unchecked, why would they give a damn about a burning car on the street outside?

I told you not to get me started. :)-- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The unstated backstory is that they are circling the block and have already driven past the burning car thrice and they called it in the first time. μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Milk, bread, sandwich, winter weather?

James Spann retweeted this tweet by @stuffspannsays, a Twitter account that apparently tweets some of the more notable/memorable things James Spann says: "Better get your milk sandwich supplies ready for Thursday." With confusion I moved on and wouldn't have thought any more about it until I saw a Facebook status by someone completely unrelated and outside of Spann's viewing area: "This Southern girl is ready for ice or snow. I have milk and bread!" Is there some cultural connection I'm missing between winter weather, bread, and milk? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After the first time we got snowbound for a week in the great blizzards of the late 1970s, my mother always kept a large supply of powdered milk on hand. Bread you can make from flour and yeast but 3 (and once 4) kids with no milk, unthinkable. Thanks to those anonymous snowmobilers who brought our food resupply the last two miles - even if they did park on the roof of our car, hidden under the snowdrifts. Rmhermen (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

During snowstorms and other harsh weather in the U.S., there is typically a run on grocery stores for certain items. These are almost invariably "milk and bread" or sometimes "milk, bread, and toilet paper" which has become something of a "trope" or "meme" in describing the irrational shopping spree that precedes any bad weather: see this google search which shows how prevalent that exact phrasing is. The answer the the question is that there is no rational reason why there is a run on milk, bread, and toilet paper before a storm: it's part of the panic leading up to the storm, as people stock pile supplies they think they may run short on if the storm shuts down services and transportation. Don't try to analyze it rationally; it is rarely useful to stock up on those specific items in preparation for a storm (bottled water and canned goods would probably be more useful). However, it is what it is, which is a shared cultural trope that most people in the U.S. understand idiomatically. The phrase "milk, bread and toilet paper" (or in some places "milk and bread" is instantly understood to mean "There's a storm coming!" --Jayron32 19:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Milk and bread are items people often need to buy daily or every couple of days. When there is any sort of extreme weather or emergency that makes it more difficult to get to shops or supply shops, these are the things (and toilet paper, i suppose, if you're running low) which you are mostly likely to find run out in the day or two before things return to normal. So you buy extra, hopefully before the shops run out. If you thought you or the shops would be cut off for longer than a day or two, then you'd buy different things (like canned food). 86.140.54.211 (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously disagree with Jayron's assessment of the necessity of the purchases. It depends where you live, how bad the storm is predicted to be and how long you expect to be stranded without access to stores. Rmhermen (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, too. What Jayron didn't consider is that milk and bread are perishable staples, so you normally only have a few days worth on hand, whereas canned goods and bottled water last for months or years, so presumably you already have a stockpile of those. Therefore, when your supply line is about to be cut, it's the perishables you need to stock up on. (There is powdered/evaporated/condensed milk, but those are poor substitutes for fresh milk.) StuRat (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron is simply reporting usage in the south especially. The way I've heard it goes something like this: "If there's even a rumor of a snowflake, the bread and milk disappear from the stores' shelves." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if New Hampshire is the south, South Quebec, maybe. The usage was well known to me growing up, and I'd never left New England for longer than a week in my life at that point. Though your point is somewhat correct: The main point is that the phrase "milk, bread, and toilet paper" is a trope or meme. The validity of actually stockpiling milk, bread, and toilet paper in preparation for a snow storm is entirely irrelevant to my main point, which is that the phrase itself carries idiomatic meaning. --Jayron32 02:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to say they don't stock up in the north too, just that there seems to be more of a panic factor in the south, or at least that's the stereotype, as per what southerners themselves have told me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is absolutely true. Southerners lose their shit when it snows even an insignificant amount. As little as 1/2 - 1 inch of snow has literally paralyzed the city where I live now, Raleigh, North Carolina: This storm received attention on the national news, as the city was so gridlocked from an inch of snow that children literally had to spend the night in school because there was no way for the busses to get them home, and no way for parents to get to schools to pick their children up. I was working in a high school at the time which was 3 miles from my house, it took me three hours to drive home; it would have taken me about 45 minutes had I walked. For comparison, I was back in New Hampshire visiting my family a few weeks ago. We had 9 inches of snow the day after Christmas, and it was like it never happened. No massive traffic, no panicked runs on the store. We shoveled out the driveway and went about our business for the day. Went to the local shopping mall, went home. No troubles at all. --Jayron32 13:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not just in the USA, either - this north-south divide seems to exist in any northern hemisphere country where the north is significantly colder than the south. When I was in Umeå, in northern Sweden, in the winter of 2001-2, the locals took regular -20°C temperatures and constant ice and snow entirely in their stride. When I flew south to Stockholm, the entire city was at a standstill, and the newspaper headline said Snökaoset - 'The snow chaos'. There was less snow, and the cold was less intense, but the level of preparation was minimal. Most Brits would be very surprised to discover that a Scandinavian country could be so ill-prepared. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is to do with levels of preparedness and general kit by the authorities. London, where I live, used to get plenty of snow in the 50s-70s, but it started tailing off. I bought a sledge in the Ukraine in the early 90s and didn't get to use it for some years. During that time, local authorities and transport bodies started reducing their spend on winter preparedness. There was then a largish snowfall in the mid 2000s that came, swiftly, just before rush hour, causing utter confusion and panic. Public transport just stopped - including the tube train I was on at the time. People had to sleep in their offices or got home in the early hours. I vaguely recall someone delivered their baby in their car in the middle of a traffic jam, there were abandoned cars festooning the streets. A couple of years later, there was a repeat and a public outcry. The trend began to reverse. We had our first snow of the winter a few days ago, and it barely made an impact - admittedly, the amount that fell was very very small, it would have caused chaos some years ago - mostly because the main routes were already gritted, unlike during the 2000s. So, places with plenty of snow are geared up for plenty of snow and can handle it. Places where it's more of a rarity are not and chaos can ensue from even a light snowfall. That's just a simple fact of economics - why invest in snowploughs, gritters and the rest of the panoply required (not to mention training the staff to use them) if it snows once every four or five years, and even then, the snow lasts just a day or so? --Dweller (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it only lasts a day or two, then where is the wisdom in stockpiling staples? --Jayron32 14:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say my household normally gets through 2 pints of milk every two days, so I normally buy 2 pints about every other day. Milk actually lasts for several more days than that, but it makes sense for me to keep buying it about every other day, because I go to the shops about that often anyway and it's more flexible because sometimes I use more and sometimes less. But then I see that it's going to snow heavily tomorrow. I might have anywhere between very little milk to 2 pints in the fridge, and I want to make sure I won't run out over the next 2 or 3 days since I might not be able to restock if I run low. So I buy 4 pints instead. And everyone else also makes sure to top up. And in households with multiple adults, probably everyone will pick up milk on the way home that day, in case nobody else in the house did. So the shops run low. And then we have lots of milk, so we use it to make cocoa to warm up after playing in the snow :) 86.140.54.211 (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably wrong, but is it to do with things that people might depend on being delivered to their homes? Here in the UK, people my age will remember the days when a milkman came by every day, dropping off milk, but also eggs, bread and a few other staples. When the snowy weather came, the low-powered milkfloats couldn't get up any kind of serious incline. --Dweller (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Religious schools in Christianity, Hinduism and other religions

In Islam, a religious school is called madrassa and in Judaism, their religious school is called yeshiva. What do Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and other called their religious schools? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.149.27 (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christian schools may simply be called "Christian schools", or sometimes Parochial schools, though that term is used mostly to describe Roman Catholic-run school specifically. --Jayron32 20:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me back up. It depends on what you mean by "religious school". If you mean "a school for general education run by a religious organization", then that is what I named above. If you mean "a school for religious education and indoctrination run by a religious organization", then that's a different thing. While parochial schools have an implicit and real indoctrination element to them, most do not have it as their primary mission. In the U.S. parochial schools must still teach the general education curriculum as determined by the state; ostensibly the same material being taught in public schools. However, religious education specifically takes several forms. Religious study within churches themselves generally occurs in the context of Sunday schools (in non-Catholic churches), usually called "catechism" or "CCD" in Catholic churches. In Christianity, clerics are trained at specialty schools called "seminaries." --Jayron32 20:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the UK, only Catholic clerical training colleges are seminaries; Anglicans (and Methodists, I think) go to theological college. And in the USA, the term 'Bible College' is frequently used to describe the training-places of Protestant clergy. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

London Theological Seminary would like to have a word with you. --Jayron32 00:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point, but (a) I've never heard of them, and (b) this is very much like bringing up the London School of Economics when someone observes that Brits don't say 'school' when they mean 'university' - it doesn't affect the generic term. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many Episcopalian (Anglican) clerical colleges in the U.S. are called seminaries—e.g., General Theological Seminary and Seabury-Western Theological Seminary. Deor (talk) 04:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point on the UK. The ministers of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland are trained at the Reformed Theological College, although the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland (before most of its members left in 1863) operated the "Paisley Seminary" for a similar purpose, while the American portion of the denomination operates the Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary, and our Reformed Theological College article is a seminary supported in part by Australian Reformed Presbyterians. Nyttend (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Malaysia, Sunday school is commonly called Sunday school even in the Catholic church at least for child/teenage education. See e.g. [13], [14], [15], [16]. Cathecism may be sometimes used, but not that much and more commonly in contexts outside Sunday school for children/teens. At least in the church and sunday school I attended. Sunday school may also be used, at least informally in NZ [17] [18] [19]. Incidentally in NZ religious classes aren't allowed during school time in public schools in NZ. However schools are allowed to 'close' during school hours for an hour each week for religious classes provided students/parents can opt out of such classes something which has been in the news recently particularly in relation to how children who have been opted out are treated [20] [21]. Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closed your reference links for you. Astronaut (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, the Jewish equivalent of Sunday School is, in fact, "Sunday School", as the Sabbath is Saturday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., the term Hebrew school is also used for "Jewish Sunday School", and the Wikipedia article notes the connection between the terms. --Jayron32 14:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also Faith school - "a school in the United Kingdom that teaches a general curriculum but with a particular religious character or having formal links with a religious organisation." Alansplodge (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the other terms are:

Islam and madrassas: As noted at top, a religious school is called a "madrassa" (although in Arabic, the word refers to any school).
Sikhism and Sikh school or taksal (Punjabi word) or seminary: The invented Punjabi word is "taksal" but other terms include "Sikh school" or "seminary" or "madrassa". Also, each gurdwara can be used as a school: "A free kitchen and frequently a school for Sikh children are attached to the gurdwara".
Judaism and yeshivot: As noted at top, a religious school is called a "yeshiva" (plural "yeshivot").
Buddhism and Buddhist school: Because Buddhism is often considered a way of thinking, rather than a structured religion, it is not always as organized as others.

Perhaps others know a term for a Hindu schoolroom, beyond "Hindu school" or such. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the reason that we have specific terms for Muslim and Jewish schools but not for others is that those two are strongly tied to Arabic and Hebrew respectively. Hinduism uses lots of Indian languages, Buddhism uses lots of Asian languages, Christianity uses lots of European languages and various others too, and I don't know about Sikhism. Nyttend (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking of fiction in terms of how it was created

For some reason, quite possibly because of a seeming inability to comprehend some things about interpretations, I've been thinking of literary works and movies and such in terms of authorial intent and real life influences, and I'm not talking thematic inspiration or allegories. To give an example of what this is like, take popular media franchises like Final Fantasy or Marvel Comics and fans trying to ascertain canonicity of various sources. In discussing or pondering such things myself I seek to answer questions like were there multiple authors, how much collaboration occurred when these various works were being created, and such. Is there a name for such an approach? I'm thinking positivism, but that doesn't sound right. — Melab±1 ☎ 22:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those who analyze the Bible often use similar methods. The Pentateuch, for example, seems to have been written by multiple authors, based on different styles and content. See mosaic authorship. StuRat (talk) 02:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was the lower-case "m" an intentional reference, ie. mosaic? It's something that never occurred to me before - the word, in another sense, implies some kind of patchwork. Just something I found amusing for a moment. IBE (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, glad you noticed my little pun. Specifically, I'm reminded of mosaic (genetics). StuRat (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Ariticle Capitonym... AnonMoos (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

symbolic gesture at NCAA football game

On December 25, 2012, there was this NCAA football game. It was Virginia Tech for Sandy Hook. (Virginia Tech played against Rutgers University.) On the helmets of the Hokies football players, there were these decals. They were half orange and half green with the initials "VT" and "SH". (That was a nod to Blacksburg and Newtown suffering tragedies.) Plus, the word "PREVAIL" and the number 58 were printed. The number 58 totals the fatalities of the 32 innocent victims of the Virginia Tech shooting rampage and the 26 innocent victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting rampage. I asked someone about the decals in the bookstore at Virginia Tech. He told me those items weren't licensed by the university. (I'm really interested in pictures of the decals.) Who licensed the decals?142.255.103.121 (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean licensed? Someone made some stickers and sold them. That they weren't sanctioned by the University doesn't mean they were officially sanctioned by anyone else either. --Jayron32 00:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't endorsed by Virginia Tech. It would be better if you asked someone at the university bookstore about licensing the decals.142.255.103.121 (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you answering your own question? --Jayron32 03:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. I need help in figuring out who licensed the decals and distributed them.142.255.103.121 (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I ask you: Why would they need to be licensed by anyone? They could have just been printed by someone and distributed without a third party licensing them. --Jayron32 04:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They need to licensed. That way, if anyone requests pictures of them, they won't be sold on the blackmarket, or counterfeited.142.255.103.121 (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm required to get a license before making stickers? That's news to me. --Jayron32 02:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't asking you to make the decals. I was actually asking who created them, that's all.142.255.103.121 (talk) 04:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you asked who licensed them. My suggestion was that nobody licensed them, they were just made. You then objected to that notion repeatedly, which is the source of contention here. You said they needed to be licensed. They don't. --Jayron32 13:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried calling the schools? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 16

Far Spain

Far Spain and Near Spain are referenced in both Caesar and Tacitus, but Search does not yield any result for either. I'm trying to find out where each was located. I can guess that Near Spain refers to the area that is now Spain and Far Spain refers to what we now call The Netherlands, but I would like to know for sure.97.103.15.32 (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin terms are Hispania Citerior (Near Spain) and Hispania Ulterior (Far Spain) -- the articles will probably tell you all you want to know. Looie496 (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the association between Spain and the Netherlands is much later - following the collapse of Burgundy in 1477. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What *is* the association between Spain and the Netherlands? I've never heard of any possible association before and did a double-turn when the OP mentioned the Netherlands - it just seemed like a completely random region to throw in there. 164.71.1.222 (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The association comes through Philip the Handsome, heir (via his mother) to the lands of Burgundy, including the Burgundian Netherlands and the Spanish lands through his wife Joanna the Mad, as well as the Habsburg inheritances through his father Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor. The unique confluence of inheritances resulted in the vast empire inherited by Philip's son Charles. But it is via Philips marriage to Joanna that the Spanish Netherlands specifically became, well, Spanish. Charles ruled the entire Seventeen Provinces, but a few decades after Charles, the northern Netherlands (the Seven Provinces) broke off as the Dutch Republic. The remaining southern ten provinces of the Netherlands remained part of the lands ruled by Habsburg family; either the Spanish or Austrian branch. As noted, this has nothing to do with the Roman-era provinces, as the map above shows. During Roman times, the Netherlands were the provinces of Belgica and Germania Inferior. The extreme northern parts of the Netherlands (Frisia) were never part of the Roman Empire, though I am pretty sure that name (Frisia) dates to Roman times; the local people were called the Frisii. --Jayron32 03:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Wow, I never realized the Habsburg empire was quite that big, I always thought it was just this monolithic central European juggernaut comprising roughly the German sprachenbund and some neighboring countries (mine own being one of them, no less). 164.71.1.222 (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Habsburg Empire of Charles V/I was an unwieldy thing, even he recognized that it would be impossible for a single king to administer. So he made arrangements to divide the Empire while he lived: his brother Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor was given eastern portions (Austria and the HRE) while his eldest son Philip was given the Italian, Spanish, and Netherlands portions, including Spain's overseas empire. The Spanish Hapsburgs were particularly fond of their Netherlands possessions; IIRC many of them used Brussels or Antwerp as their personal capital rather than Madrid, the Spanish Cortes was a bit of a pain in the ass, and the Spanish Hapsburgs preferred to not be bothered, leaving the actual administration of Spain proper to viceroys such as Lerma and Olivares. Plus, being in the Netherlands placed the king in closer proximity to his bankers and financiers, the Fuggers of Antwerp, who basically managed all of the money pouring into the Empire from the Silver mines in the Americas. --Jayron32 04:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Near Spain and Far Spain now created as redirects. Mr. 164.71.1.222, you must be an expatriate, because the Habsburgs never ruled Japan :-) Nyttend (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a recent expat. I actually used to be a regular here, but then went on a longer hiatus and am only recently following these boards again. Haven't bothered to reclaim my username yet, is all. 164.71.1.221 (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles V allegedly boasted that the sun never set in his empire. While this was probably based on the misunderstanding that Columbus had really found the east end of the East Indies, and hence missed half the world, the empire still was quite impressive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the claim was clearly based on having territories such as the colonies in the Americas and the Spanish East Indies as well as the European territories. With the Philippines claimed for Spain as early as the 1520s, they had an actual claim to the sun never setting. Whether it was strictly true may be debatable, but Spain claimed actual sovereignty over actual East Indian territory, and not just because Columbus believed it to be so. The idea that he did is also something which is highly suspicious. There is the possibility that he may have on his first voyage, but by 1500 or so, it was well established that he had discovered new lands, and by the time of Charles V, the general shape and layout of the major landmasses was fairly well established. Spain's claim had validity. --Jayron32 02:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be debateable? You can't put Argentina and the Philippines both in night-time, except in the case of an eclipse. Manila is 120°E of the Prime Meridian, and Argentina includes land at 60°W of the Prime Meridian, exactly on the opposite side of the world. Nyttend (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then it isn't debatable. The issue was not the geometric possibility of the truth behind the statement. I wasn't claiming that it was or wasn't geometrically true. I was merely pointing out that Stephen Schulz was in error in stating that Charles V's claim that the "Sun never set on his empire" was based on some myth that Columbus believed that he had landed in the East Indies. That is wrong on multiple levels, including a) Columbus probably didn't believe that b) Columbus's explorations were two generations before Charles V/I and c) Spain had made colonial claims to territories in the East Indies before and during Charles's reign. I wasn't arguing the "sun never sets" thing was impossible, on the contrary I was fully arguing it was a legitimate claim, though I was hedging my bets against someone getting out their protractors and compasses to "prove" that the Philippines and Latin America and Iberia could all technically be at night at the same time. That they never could be is fine, but your point merely provides futher proof of my point, not refutation of it. --Jayron32 05:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And just to prove Nyttend's point with actual maps, here is a map of day and night time near the summer solstice (when the maximal night would be over the southern hemisphere) at about 9:00 PM GMT, which is very close to sunrise over the Philippines, and large swathes of South and Central America are still in daytime, and will be for some time. So yes, the statement that the "sun never set" on the empire of Charles V/I is actually strictly true. --Jayron32 05:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, you've refuted me; I thought you were debating the idea that the sun never set on it. Thanks for helping me understand better. Nyttend (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the sun never set on the empire is false, no matter how large the empire was, as anyone inside the empire can see for themselves every evening. What may be true is that when the sun sets on some place in the empire, there is another place in the empire where it is daylight.—Emil J. 14:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is precisely what the expression means. It was also used of the British Empire, and that didn't mean that London was in permanent daylight. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi Kurdistan

Why is this not a country? It has its own president and government system. The article describe it as an autonomous region. What is the difference between a country and autonomous region anyway? They are the same thing?65.128.142.118 (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An autonomous region is one that is given the right to manage most of it's own internal affairs while the national government manages foreign affairs. It is basically a form of federalism. This sort of limited autonomy or sovereignty is common in many parts of the world; in the United States, for example, it is the normal state of affairs, as the U.S. States are given a fair degree of autonomy. Spain is divided among Autonomous communities as well, and many of the Federal subjects of Russia have a large degree of autonomy. As to why it isn't a country, well the answer is quite complex, but many of the issues related to Kurdish sovereignty are covered briefly in the article Kurdistan. For one, there are Kurdish people in several countries; including Turkey, Iran, and Syria along with Iraq. All of them oppose an independent Kurdistan separate from Iraq because this would also invite their own Kurdish populations to agitate for separation from themselves to join a united greater Kurdish state. --Jayron32 04:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The Kurds may be the largest ethnic group without their own nation. As such, it may not be possible to thwart their ambitions forever. The Kurdish regions in Syria may soon have a de facto sovereign nation, as the Syrian government has more important problems to deal with than suppressing their Kurds. StuRat (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A significant such group, but not likely the absolute largest. Consider that there are 30-38 million Kurds, but 77 million or so Tamils, another group which has been agitating for its own state on the island of Sri Lanka (Tamil Eelam). The Tamils in India, which represent the bulk of the ethnic group, are not similarly agitating for their own nation, but they still are a larger ethnic group than the Kurds, and don't have their own independent nation. --Jayron32 04:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to consider is that no superpower has supported the Kurdish wish for independence. The four states mainly affected are strongly opposed to it, and at least one of them was aligned with either side during the cold war. Turkey is a strategically important NATO member, Iran under the Shah was a western ally, Syria was nominally non-aligned, but Soviet-friendly, and Iraq was supported by different sids, depending on how Iran went. Neither the US nor the Soviet Union wanted to lose their allies, and, to be fair, neither wanted to add more instability to the region. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Offices affected by the Weather Service Modernization Act of 1992

Resolved

– All of the resolved thanks to User:TheAustinMan. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the life of me, I have never been able to find a list of NWS offices/facilities closed or substantially relocated as a result of the modernizing/restructuring associated with the Weather Service Modernization Act of 1992. Since this is the United States Federal Government I'm sure some documents exist somewhere if they can be found. Can anyone provide me a list of the offices affected (whole or incomplete) or tell me where I might have better luck searching/asking than Google and EBSCOhost? Thanks in advance, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheAustinMan just presented me with my dream come true on IRC: Brief History of National Weather Service Offices Past and Present. I'm practically rolling around with joy...it's exactly what I was looking for. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can it make sense to issue mortgages now?

Banks, in general, earn money by constantly borrowing money at short-term rates for short intervals, while lending money at long-term rates such as mortgages. The difference is the profit. How does it make sense, then, to issue mortgages at today's rock-bottom rates, when banks know that 10 years from now, they won't be able to borrow money at today's artificially deflated interest rates? What will happen to their profits then, when short-term rates will most likely be higher than today's long-term rates? They can't securitize their loans easily these days, so they can't offload the interest rate risk like they did pre-bubble. 67.243.3.6 (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what country you're in. This may be too simple to be the answer, but here in the UK, most mortgage rates are fixed for 2-4 years, after which the borrower needs to find a new loan at competitive market rates, or fall into a very uncompetitive basket rate with their original lender. Either way, the bank can recover very nicely from the fact that rates have risen. --Dweller (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Similar mortgages have variable rates in U.S.: When interest rates began changing greatly, many banks increased the use of "variable-rate loans" which are tied to the prime interest rate (the rate which banks charge their best customers). The financial calculations behind loan origination are quite complex, especially for commercial loans, which typical have interest to the exact day of payment (versus the level payments of consumer loans), as well as including an added insurance premium for single or joint credit life insurance. The final calculation involves about 18 independent variables, any one of which will change the amount of the mortgage payment, but bankers carefully test the numbers to ensure a profitable result, sometimes using mathematical analysis by actuaries who are skilled at a variety of related complex math formulas. So that is why banks are typically able to predict the expected profits accurately, and are covered by insurance premiums also billed to the customer (in the total payment). -Wikid77 (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, long-term fixed-rate mortgages may be originated by retail banks. However, virtually all of them are guaranteed and/or owned by the Federal Housing Administration or by either of two GSEs: Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Retail banks originate the loans because they can sell them on to a GSE at a small profit, thereby avoiding any long-term risk. Often, the GSE will enter into a contract with the same bank to service those loans in return for an annual payment or share of the income they yield. So there is actually very little risk to banks. The GSEs, which receive government support and an implicit government guarantee, purchase mortgages issued on terms that almost certainly would not be available on a fully privatized market. Marco polo (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very good point. U.S. still uses fixed-rate loans for the most part. I do know that the banks have had trouble packaging their loans, but I think it may be getting slightly easier now. Still, until securitization returns to normal, the banks are taking on the risk themselves, right? Wells Fargo for sure are not selling as much of their loan portfolio as they used to. I've read an article that said in the just announced quarter, they have kept the loans so as to show a bigger profit than they would've otherwise. 67.243.3.6 (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article placed under Irreligion?

It seems that some people identify Agnostic theism is more closer to agnosticism than theism... so it fits under Irreligion? Huh? 140.254.226.237 (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Dweller (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If only I could find the Religion template. 140.254.226.237 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every article on Wikipedia has a corresponding talk page, for discussing improvements and issues about the article. Why don't you head over to Talk:Agnostic theism and broach this issue there?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If my country were ever attacked, could we attack their soil?

Could my country deploy troops overseas given that we only have self defense forces? Kotjap (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an opinion question? 140.254.226.237 (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which country? --Jayron32 21:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My country is Japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotjap (talk • contribs) 21:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, what is the reason for the idiom 'my country' in place of the country's actual name? I found myself using it the other day, but I normally associate it with those whose first language is not English. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English is not my first language. Kotjap (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Department of Defense employs 2.1 million military active duty personnel and has managed their attacks on many countries around the world over the past 63 years, since it replaced the United States Department of War. Invasions of and various attacks on other countries seem to have been more frequent under the Defense Department than they were under the War Department. Edison (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but here the constitution forbids the deployment of forces to other countries. Kotjap (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<ec> the USA does not have a constitutional constraint against aggression, like the Japan Self-Defense Forces do. See Japan_Self-Defense_Forces#Defense_policy --Dweller (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec with two above) The question seems to have been a little lost in the above. As mentioned in our Japan Self-Defense Forces and Military history of Japan, the Japanese constitution says they will not maintain 'war potential' and have given up on the threat or use of force or war to settle disputes. Even the formation of the defence force has been controversial and a number of their actions like participation in peace keeping operations likewise. The article doesn't specifically say how far they can go in the event of war from outside parties to defence themselves. On the other hand, I question the usefulness of going by how things are now anyway. Even if current interpretation of the constitution and policy of the government says they will not invade another country in retaliation and there is sufficient opposition from the Japanese people to make it unlikely, it's impossible to say this will remain in the event they are attacked. On other words, even without a change of the constitution it's possible they'd decide they can invade another country to 'defend themselves' if invaded and of course if they really feel they can't it's difficult to rule out a change to the constitution. I would note both our articles and [22] suggest that the JSDF do have some degree of power projection, and many suggest it is increasing [23] with increasingly liberal interpretations of the constitutional limits, even if the overall military budget is decreasing [24]. Although most of those sources as with others like [25] (albeit a bit old) do agree they nature of their forces do mean they're clearly oriented towards direct self defence of Japan itself so despite their power projection capabilities their ability based on their current forces to seriously invade any country likely to give them problems is probably in doubt (although again going by how things are now may be a mistake). Nil Einne (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question seems to be asking about legalities, which are dealt with here, but there's a practical aspect, too. Without essential hardware like:

"aircraft carriers, long-range surface-to-surface missiles, ballistic missiles, strategic bombers,^[1] marines, amphibious units, and large caches of ammunition"

, your country would be extremely ill-advised taking aggressive steps against all but the least militarised countries of the world, unless you had allies taking up most of the slack. --Dweller (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not our place to be telling Japan or any other country what it would be ill-advised to do. All we can say is that Japan's military forces are constitutionally prevented from engaging in external aggression. Whether that would or could ever be over-ridden is something for the crystal ball, and we seem curiously out of stock of them at the moment. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I wonder what the term "Kotjap" is supposed to mean. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical matter, if Japan wanted to either ignore that provision in it's constitution or remove it, how the world would react would depend greatly on the circumstances. That provision, of course, is to prevent aggressive actions like the invasion of Manchuria, Rape of Nanking, and, of course, the attack on Pearl Harbor. So, if Japan repeated anything like those actions, it could expect to be attacked by many other nations. On the other hand, if Japan was first attacked, say by North Korea, then I doubt if anyone would object to it doing whatever it takes to defend itself. However, since Japan lacks nukes, and NK has them, I agree that Japan is unlikely to be able to offer an effective counter-attack, so would have to rely on it's allies. StuRat (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea maybe has a small number of half-baked nukes without reliable delivery systems. It has a rather weak economy and industrial infrastructure. Japan is a modern high-technology country with 5 times the population and roughly 100 times the GDP (by purchasing power parity). I know which state I would bet on... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're straying well into the terrority of crystal balls here, but there are different levels of "winning" a war. I don't doubt that Japan would win a straight out war with North Korea (although one would never happen - other countries would undoubtedly get involved, the real outcome would depend on what China decides to do), but North Korea's nuclear technology could result in massive damage to Japan before they win (they've tested both nuclear devices and launch systems now - it's not a big step to combine them). Of course, North Korea actually using nuclear weapons on another country would guarantee the involvement of the rest of the world in the conflict. --Tango (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, when did the supply of crystal balls get replenished? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ 防衛省・自衛隊：憲法と自衛権, www.mod.go.jp

The legitimacy of Azawad as a state (Malian conflict)

I'm interested in understanding the Malian conflict a bit better to maybe propose some sort of solution.

A focal point of the conflict in Mali is the rise of Azawad nationalism, the movement of the far-right and Islamist extremists working to establish Azawad as an independent state. I wish to ignore all the talk of it becoming a terrorist haven, and focus on one question: under the universal right to self-determination, is Azawad a legitimate nation?

From research, I can see that 20% of the population is in the area claimed to be Azawad. Does the majority of this section of the population wish for Azawad to be a recognised independent state? Thanks. 72Volt (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This shows the demographic breakdown of Azawad. The nationalism you've been hearing about is by Tuaregs, who make up only 35% of Azawad's population. That is not even a plurality, let alone a majority.

As for whether Azawad is a "legitimate" nation, "legitimacy" involves nothing more than killing enough people and stealing enough land to make the rest of the world realize they need to take you seriously. It's solely based on political, economic, and military interests. The so-called universal right to self-determination was made up by European colonial powers after WWI to strip the Central Powers of their colonies so that they can control said colonies (see League of Nations mandate).

EDIT: Never mind, that pie chart is from 1950. For some reason, I can't find more recent demographic data.

--140.180.240.178 (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOAPBOX much? Regarding legitimate, independent state, Wikipedia has an article called Sovereign state and also an article on Diplomatic recognition. Between the two of them, and links therein, the OP should be able to form their own understanding of the situation. They certainly don't need to you have their opinions created for them. --Jayron32 02:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The pie chart linked above shows the ethnic breakdown in 1950 of the region of Gao, one of three administrative regions claimed by the proponents of Azawad. In the other two regions, Tombouctou and Kidal, Tuaregs and Arabs together probably constitute a majority. It is likely that Tuaregs and Arabs make up a slim majority of the population of Azawad as a whole. Many, but not all members of these two groups support independence for Azawad. However, it is impossible to conduct a scientific poll in the region under the current circumstances, so there is no way to know the preference of the majority of the population. It is almost certain that most Songhai, the next most numerous group, do not support independence for Azawad. Marco polo (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a link to the Azawad state and an explanation of what "hard-right" means in theis context, other than, say, a 360, or support for hard monetarism? μηδείς (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 17

Question about crime

I wasn't quite sure where a crime-related question would go, so I chose this Help Desk. There is a high profile murder case going on right now (Murder of Travis Alexander). In a nutshell, the police allege that the defendant rented a car in California, drove to Arizona, and killed her ex-boyfriend. The police claim that when she rented the car, she turned the license plates upside down. So, this particular action is somewhat lost on me. What benefit would that be to an (alleged) murderer who (presumably) wants to get away with the crime? I have some of my own theories, but I am not sure I quite get it. So, I want to see what others make of this odd conduct. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the web pages I found through Google mention that questions about red light cameras came up. Maybe the idea was to try and make the automated plate reading not work? Or maybe she was not acting rationally and didn't have a reason. RudolfRed (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I don't follow your first theory. If the plate were upside down, the plate reader would not work? If that's automated, I guess so. But, I would assume, the person (police official) would look at the photo, simply turn the photo upside down, and be able to read the plate. No? Just wondering. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If she was thinking rationally, then she knew the plate readers were automated. Otherwise, I can't think of a rational explanation. -Lgriot (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe she thought that it would be harder for a witness to note her licence plate number if it was upside down. --Viennese Waltz 09:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Viennese Waltz. I had not really considered that angle. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Automatic number plate recognition, "If an ANPR system cannot read the plate it can flag the image for attention, with the human operators looking to see if they are able to identify the alphanumerics." Alansplodge (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage Validity

I recently saw a Chinese TV series where one of the female characters, who was terminally ill with leukemia, died during her wedding ceremony with her boyfriend before the two could finish exchanging their wedding vows. If such an event were to happen in real life, would that render the marriage invalid based on technicalities? 24.47.141.254 (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where I live, Australia, such an event would mean that they hadn't got around to signing the marriage register. That would mean that legally, they're not married. What their church might think of a ceremony truncated at that stage I have no idea. If no church is involved, see first sentence. HiLo48 (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At my wedding we exchanged vows in the minister's office before the wedding proper. The ceremony was purely...ceremonial. So yeah, I could have dropped dead during the wedding and we'd still have been married. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States I believe it is customary for couples to get a marriage license before the ceremony, although I'm not sure on the ramifications of this with respect to when the couple is considered legally married. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 10:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would think it would depend on the law that applied in the place where this occurred. It would not necessarily be the same everywhere.

HiLo, re the marriage register: how does that count when the priest/minister/celebrant has already said "I now pronounce you man and wife"? Is he/she technically lying? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The celebrant at my daughter's wedding last year told us that the only bit that legally matters is that signed and witnessed document that he sends off to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Department (or whatever it's called today). That signing's usually done after the main ceremony in our part of the world. I imagine that Christian celebrants see the "I now pronounce you man and wife" bit as the moment when you become married in the eyes of God. Got to call my Anglican priest mate soon (about something that has nothing to do with religion). Must ask him. HiLo48 (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, there is precedant for marriages to be held valid under exceptional circumstances, even if the proper procedures aren't followed. That might apply to a case like this. I guess it only really matters for determining how to interpret your last will and testament. I think the probate courts would take a pragmatic view and go with the clear intention of the deceased, which was to be married. --Tango (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The UK also has precedent for deeming marriages not valid under exceptional circumstances! NB Our article on the woman in question says that "according to canon law, a marriage was not valid until consummated". Is this still Catholic doctrine? --Dweller (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonconsummation is still possible grounds for annulment of a marriage. See the articles in question. --Abracus (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was married in the U.S. State of Virginia, and my understanding is that the legal moment when my wife and I were considered "married" was when the two of us, as well as the officiant and witnesses signed the application for marriage license. IIRC, we did this in a room at the back of the sanctuary some 20-30 minutes prior to the "walking down the aisle" ceremony. I distinctly remember the minister who married us signing the document (after we, and two witnesses, signed it as well) and saying. "Now, you're officially married." The rest of the ceremony was entirely for show, including the vows and declarations and "I do"s. The application was filed by mail that day; IIRC it came with an enveloped that we sealed and put in the mail (I think we also could have filed it in person with the county office), several weeks later we received the official license. note: the use of the word "legal" above does not constitute a formal legal opinion, and if you have a real situation where the validity of your marriage is in question, seek the advice of a qualified attorney.--Jayron32 14:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Jack of Oz notes, the validity of a marriage is dependent upon applicable law - usually national law, but state law in the United States. (The OP geolocates to New York.) In every U.S. state of which I am aware, solemnization is required for a valid marriage (other than a common law marriage, and those have their own requirements); a marriage license generally is also required, and in some states the marriage is also required to be registered. For example, Illinois law provides, "A marriage between a man and a woman licensed, solemnized and registered as provided in this Act is valid in this State." But not all states require registration; Virginia law, for example, says that "Every marriage in this Commonwealth shall be under a license and solemnized in the manner herein provided." Persons who perform marriages are not necessarily trained in the legal requirements and may provide incorrect advice on what is required, as in Jayron's case (and possibly HiLo's case too, though I don't know Australian law).

In a state in which registration is required, the death of a would-be spouse would prevent registration and the marriage would be invalid. Otherwise it would depend on whether the marriage had been solemnized. The requirements for solemnization vary and tend to be left mostly to the celebrant. However, I believe every state would require the parties to exchange vows. Some states make this specific; California law, for example, provides that "No particular form for the ceremony of marriage is required for solemnization of the marriage, but the parties shall declare, in the physical presence of the person solemnizing the marriage and necessary witnesses, that they take each other as husband and wife." But even in states not specifically requiring a vow, marriage is understood to be a contract, which would require both parties' assent. I believe, therefore, that the death of a party prior to exchanging vows would prevent a valid marriage from being contracted. A more interesting case arises if the parties have exchanged vows, but the celebrant contemplated further steps (e.g., a party dies after the exchange of vows but before the celebrant says "I now pronounce you man and wife"). Death before an unimportant part of the ceremony, such as a final performance of The Wedding Song, probably would not interfere with the existence of an otherwise valid marriage. John M Baker (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Succession to the Crown Bill logic

The article about the Succession to the Crown Bill 2012 says that "only the next six persons in line to the throne will require the sovereign's approval to marry". Does this mean that, after the Duke of Cambridge's child is born, Princess Beatrice of York will be excluded if she marries without a permission regardless of who her spouse is, while her younger sister will be able to marry a drug lord and remain in the line (provided that Eugenie's marriage takes place before Beatrice's)? In fact, in that scenario, Princess Eugenie of York and her children sired by a drug lord would become closer to the throne because Beatrice and her line would be excluded. This doesn't seem sensible. Am I missing something here? Surtsicna (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They want to draw the line somewhere, that's as good a place as anywhere. The chance of someone lower than sixth in line ever actually becoming monarch is very low, so it shouldn't really matter. It just simplifies things. --Tango (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1] 防衛省・自衛隊：憲法と自衛権, www.mod.go.jp

[1]

Revision as of 20:16, 17 January 2013 edit JackofOz (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 206,882 edits →‎Far Spain: that's what it means ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:40, 17 January 2013 edit undo Tango (talk \| contribs) Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 19,387 edits →‎Succession to the Crown Bill logic Next edit →
Line 315:		Line 315:

	The article about the [[Succession to the Crown Bill 2012]] says that "only the next six persons in line to the throne will require the sovereign's approval to marry". Does this mean that, after the Duke of Cambridge's child is born, Princess Beatrice of York will be excluded if she marries without a permission regardless of who her spouse is, while her younger sister will be able to marry a drug lord and remain in the line (provided that Eugenie's marriage takes place before Beatrice's)? In fact, in that scenario, Princess Eugenie of York and her children sired by a drug lord would become closer to the throne because Beatrice and her line would be excluded. This doesn't seem sensible. Am I missing something here? [[User:Surtsicna\|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna\|talk]]) 19:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)		The article about the [[Succession to the Crown Bill 2012]] says that "only the next six persons in line to the throne will require the sovereign's approval to marry". Does this mean that, after the Duke of Cambridge's child is born, Princess Beatrice of York will be excluded if she marries without a permission regardless of who her spouse is, while her younger sister will be able to marry a drug lord and remain in the line (provided that Eugenie's marriage takes place before Beatrice's)? In fact, in that scenario, Princess Eugenie of York and her children sired by a drug lord would become closer to the throne because Beatrice and her line would be excluded. This doesn't seem sensible. Am I missing something here? [[User:Surtsicna\|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna\|talk]]) 19:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

			:They want to draw the line somewhere, that's as good a place as anywhere. The chance of someone lower than sixth in line ever actually becoming monarch is very low, so it shouldn't really matter. It just simplifies things. --[[User:Tango\|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango\|talk]]) 20:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)