Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 October 16

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

October 16

William J. Clinton

I need help finding out the names of, and how many boards of directors Bill Clinton serves on.

The wiki article on him does not have this information, and neither does GOOGLE!

This is not homework. RJSEAB (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

They may know at the William J. Clinton Center. Here is their "contact us" page. I would try there first. --Jayron3202:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Out-of-state employment discrimination laws in the US

The biggest thing keeping me from coming out openly is that I work for a company in a small conservative town, and the state and local anti-discrimination laws don't offer protection for discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, my company is owned by a company in a state with better anti-discrimination laws. My paycheck comes from the parent company, but come tax time the income counts as from my state. I'm trying to figure out if the state law of the parent company offers me protection. I know you can't provide legal advice, but I'm looking for resources or groups that can help me figure out the answer. I contacted the Human Rights Campaign earlier today, because they are very active in campaigning for LGBT anti-discrimination laws. Does anyone else know of any organizations I could contact that would be able to help answer my questions?108.194.140.240 (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

What state is the parent company located in? Someguy1221 (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You might start with the company itself: What is its official policy on this subject, if any? If they are openly/officially anti-discriminatory, maybe their legal departmen could offer some advice. If not, you'll probably want to keep it to yourself within the company, and seek counsel elsewhere. This is a shot in the dark, but it occurs to me that Planned Parenthood is a pretty open-minded organization. You might call them and ask they can direct you to any good organizations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 01:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The parent company is in Wisconsin, and the company I work for is in Michigan. My company has nothing about sexual orientation in their anti-discrimination policy, and I don't know where to find the parent company's policies. 108.194.140.240(talk) 02:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Not being anything resembling a lawyer, I may be totally wrong on this, but I can't imagine a scenario in which the laws of Wisconsin would hold any sway in Michigan, or vice versa. That's "state sovereignty". Now, if Michigan's discrimination violates a federal law, that could be a different story. Back to your company: As you're an employee, maybe you could approach H.R. and ask to see or to have a copy of the policy manual... to see what it says about various kinds of discrimination that they don't allow. If they ask why you want it, don't give away the game, but make up something vague and noncontroversial, until you've had a chance to read the part you're interested in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

My experience (having been fired for being queer, and having been refused as a candidate for coming out to the hiring agent) is that your employer will find whatever excuse they want or need to fire (or not hire) you on whatever grounds. Non-discrimination laws largely apply for wrongful termination. Are you trying to get yourself fired? If not, why do you need to come out to your employer as such? You can tell your co-workers whatever you like. Your employer won't ask you diddly, unless they are looking to get sued. Not that I am offering you legal advice, just personal opinion based on unfortunate experience. μηδείς (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting to be good friends with my immediate coworkers, and would like to be able to be open about it with them. There have already been a few times where I almost said something that would give it away and caught myself. The problem is that I have no idea what they think of homosexuality, and if one will mention the "problem" to anyone else. Word gets around fast. The company is also pretty large and the town is small enough that I have met friends outside of work that end up having a connection back to the company. One friend turned out to the daughter of one of the higher-ups.108.194.140.240 (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I need to mention this question asks way too specific a factual question, and probably should not be answered because that would be legal advice.Shadowjams (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not looking for an answer to the question here, but for help finding groups that can answer the question. I know they exist, and I would prefer to not have to go to a lawyer with the question if there is a group that has experts on the subject that exists to help people in situations like mine.108.194.140.240 (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a list of such organizations on this page.Here is a similar list. Equality Michigan is a referral service for anyone with questions such as yours. Taknaran (talk) 10:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Now that I've thought about it for a bit, I'm thinking of contacting the parent company to see their anti-discrimination policy. Odds are it mentions sexual orientation because it is in the state law. If it does, I'll see if I can get them to work on making sure that all of their companies adopt a similar policy. 108.194.140.240 (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If it's part of state law, then wouldn't it apply to the company whether or not the company has it as part of its own equality/anti-discrimination policies? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Company A is in a state with sexual orientation listed in the anti-discrimination laws. I work for Company B, which is in a state without protection, but company B is owned by company A and I get my paycheck from company A. Company A's anti-discrimination policy likely mirrors the state law. I am going to see if they can make sure company B (and other companies they own) can update their anti-discrimination policies to be at least as comprehensive as their own. 108.194.140.240 (talk) 10:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Just make sure you carry your bugle with you.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Marbles and Jews

What in detail is the connection between Judaism and marble playing? This early WP essay asserts one[1] and there is a symbolic link between the the Jewish orphan of S01E03 of the new Upstairs, Downstairs (remake) and her mother in the previous episode. μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Err well I doubt one exists, Atlas Shrugged was a novel and at that time, marble playing was fairly common so it could be why it was included. Today, it's generally less common, so I don't know how relevant it would be. I don't know if there's any connection though, there certainly isn't a religious one... --JethroB 04:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The author of the essay, Adam Reed, is (or was) a well educated Hungarian Jew, the name is a pseudonym he adopted when he emigrated to the US to work for Bell Labs. He seems to believe there is at least a cultural a connection:

"Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian D'Anconia sat on the floor, playing marbles." Playing a child's game on the floor is a celebration of the Maccabee revolt. The Maccabees were guerillas, and chose carefully the few battles they fought. They hid for years in caves and wadis, and fought boredom with games played on the ground. The reader who knows the origin of this custom now also knows that Francisco must be, in some sense, the soldier of a rebellion, fighting from cover behind enemy lines.

and the U/D episodes seem to back him up. Atlas Shrugged itself is irrelevant here, so far as I am aware, except that Rand herself was a Russian Jew. μηδείς(talk) 04:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe marbles is seen as being similar to the game played with a Dreidel. Bus stop (talk) 04:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(Unrelated question: How do I get rid of the "SAM COHEN IS A JEW!" at the top of the article I Have a Little Dreidel?) Bus stop (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(Done μηδείς (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC))

How did you do it? Bus stop (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

At the top of the vandalized article was a {{link}} to another article, which traced to another embedded article, to another embedded article, eventually to Template:JewishMusic which had the offending text. I deleted that text from the multi-embedded article.μηδείς (talk) 05:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 05:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The dreidel/marbles connection is actually part of Reed's essay, which was an early contribution to WP. But I am hoping for some independent confirmation of it. (I am loath to reproduce his entire essay, although he did give me permission to do so. People should read the link I provided in the first line and second sentence of this thread.) μηδείς (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The essay answers the question:

In Jewish custom, one commemorates one's ancestors by re-enacting their practice. Francisco's Converso ancestors could not keep Jewish objects, such as spinning tops with Hebrew letters, since such objects would have immediately marked them as secret Jews. They played, instead, with marbles unstrung from a rosary. If a curious neighbor or servant wandered in, all he would see would be an accidentally broken rosary, and children helping to pick beads off the floor. Francisco is hiding his true self, and things are not what they seem.

The author is suggesting that some conversos / crypto-Jews (sometimes referred to as marranos, which is a perjorative term and should be avoided) adopted playing marbles as a seemingly innocent way of referencing the custom of playing dreidel on Chanukah, as mentioned by other editors, above. I don't know how common such a thing might have been among conversos, but pretty much any converso behaviour is rare today among Jews - (OR time) anecdotal evidence I've heard down the years suggests that some crypto behaviours, such as women lighting candles in a cupboard on a Friday persists, but among people who do not consider themselves Jewish. More information can be found in the links I've given. I've not seen the TV episode you mention, but from the scant information in the question, I'd guess it's simply a case of a kid who happens to be Jewish playing marbles, a fairly popular game in Victorian Britain for Jewish and non-Jewish kids, alike. See Marble_(toy)#History.--Dweller (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Marbles was still a very common children's game in London in the 1960s. It's normally a game for at least two players, but children are very good at working around problems like this; I recall as a child playing chess by myself a few times. Every child I knew had marbles in their toy box and boys would often carry them around in the pockets of their school shorts. Unusual ones would be the subject of playground swaps. You could buy a bag of a dozen glass ones (each with a coloured twist inside) for a shilling (5p) in Woolworths. I think that I'd have been rather surprised to be told that playing marbles was enacting a Jewish ritual.Alansplodge (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Iran and homosexuality

I have a question regarding homosexuality and Iran, is a person liable to the death sentence just for being gay or for having gay sex? Thank you.Iowafromiowa (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

See LGBT_rights_in_Iran#Capital_punishment. 'Being gay' is not forbidden in any country. Performing homosexual acts may be punishable by death however, as seems to be the case in Iran. - Lindert (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Homosexuality in the Old World before the spread of Judaism and Christianity

It's a well-known fact that homosexuality was widespread in the Roman Empire. In fact, it is believed that some Roman emperors were gay. However, ever since Christianity spread, homosexuality has been a sensitive topic at least in the Western world. However, before the spread of Judaism and Christianity, just how widespread was homosexuality in the Old World (Europe, Asia and Africa), and what were the views of the different societies and religions at the time on it? And before the Abrahamic religions were founded, were there any major societies in the Old World or religions that frowned upon homosexuality? And what were the contemporary non-Abrahamic religion societies that frowned upon homosexuality in the Old World? I'm sure there's a Wikipedia article about these topics but I'm not so sure. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's important to distinguish between homosexual orientation and homosexual attraction or practice. As a bisexual person, I experience the attraction (and may engage in the practice) without possessing the orientation. Conversely, someone who is celibate but gay may possess the orientation and identification, but rarely experience the attraction and never engage in the practice.

Beyond that, it's crucial to note that the modern understanding of sexual orientation was devised by researchers and campaigners in the 19th century (Kertbeny, Ulrichs, Kraft-Ebbing &c). The classical world had no conception of orientation as we understand it. AlexTiefling(talk) 11:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You should probably be cautious in assuming that people in ancient times who at least sometimes participated in male-male sex had a real "gay" self-identity in the modern sense. Most male-male relationships in Greco-Roman civilization fell into a specific middle-aged man and teenage boy pattern, which was not considered incompatible with heterosexual relationships. When St. Paul wanted to refer abstractly to those who did male homosexual sex (without getting involved with the specifics of the middle-aged man vs. teenage boy roles), he seemingly had to coin a new word on the spot ("arsenokoites"). Anyway, one reason why homosexuality was particularly disliked in the Old Testament seems to have been that a form of male prostitution was part of the ritual associated with a pagan polytheistic deity. Probably many ancient cultures were like many cultures described by anthropologists, which have certain rituals or roles (such as "third genders") which can involve homosexual sex, without really having a clear idea of gay identity as we would think of it today...AnonMoos (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

In case you haven't seen them, we have articles on history of homosexuality (with regional sections) history of human sexuality, and LGBT history. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

U.S military commander who - erroneously - believed that Israel couldn't withstand the Arabs alone prior to the upset that became the Six-Day War

Any ideas? It was around the time of the Baghdad Pact. Eisenikov (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Most of them? Needs more detail to disambiguate. —Tamfang (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Im not sure what you're referring to exactly. In 1967, the CIA believed that Israel would be able to defeat the surrounding Arab countries if attacked, saying that Israel could "defend successfully against simultaneous Arab attacks on all fronts . . . or hold on any three fronts while mounting successfully a major offensive on the fourth." Source =CIA

I haven't looked at the source enough, but I'm almost confident that the CIA also estimated that if Israel launched a preemptive strike against the buildup of Egyptian military force in the Sinai Peninsula after Egypt forced the peacekeeping force to leave, it would take them less days to win, while Israel would still be able to win had they not done this, but it would've taken more days (although a few days for a country with a small population can lead to significant civilian losses...)

Hope this helps! --Jethro B 23:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Found it, thanks for the extra information, though! My question was somewhat misguided.http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MFUSpolicy.html#11 Eisenikov (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Foreign language interpretation

Why is it on news reports when foreign language is contemporaneously interpreted with a voice-over, the interpretor always concludes slightlybefore the foreign speaker finishes speaking? Case in point. Ankh.Morpork 18:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

If this happens, it is one indication that the translation is not happening in real-time but was dubbed over the footage. Voice-over translationexplains a bit of the process as used for news broadcasts and this academic article discusses how sometimes translations are tailored to suit the show’s thesis or agenda. Taknaran (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Another reason could also be that a person, when answering a question spontaneously, uses a lot of fillers, such as 'umms' and 'ehhs', repeats what he has just said, or stops himself mid-sentence, to rephrase his point into a cogent sentence. The translator (assuming that the translation and dubbing was done between the interview and the boradcast) doesn't have to do this, but merely read the the translation. V85 (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I once heard an anecdote told me by an EU translator in a bar in Brussels: he was waiting to take over from someone translating from German into English, and he heard him start a sentence, then pause, then a longer pause, then an anguished cry "The verb! Just say the frigging verb man!" (German is notorious for having the verb at the end of the sentence) --TammyMoet (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Lovely story, Tammy, and one that's had many incarnations. I once heard Peter Ustinov telling it about an episode in the General Assembly of the UN, where the interpreter's long silence while waiting for the German Ambassador to say the verb caused various delegates to turn around to see if the interpreter needed medical help. He was indeed frustrated to the point of his brain exploding and his blood boiling, but was otherwise OK. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk]22:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

TammyMoet -- Mark Twain was already joking about that in the 19th-century... AnonMoos (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

And A.C.Doyle: “Do you note the peculiar construction of the sentence – ‘This account of you we have from all quarters received.’ A Frenchman or Russian could not have written that. It is the German who is so uncourteous to his verbs.” (A Scandal in Bohemia) —Tamfang (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

How to get the details on the Romney-Ryan tax plan?

close pointy non-question
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I tried this site: http://www.romneytaxplan.com/ but it doesn't work :( . Count Iblis (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Fake question. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point (even when it's a good one). — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC) WP:Spoilsport (check later when I've written this up). Count Iblis (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC) No need to wait, ironically I did it three years ago: {{The Spoilsport Award}}. Who would have thought... Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC) If you follow the link it amounts to a practical joke. This should probably just be deleted. μηδείς (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC) It's possible that he really is looking for those details, and didn't understand that the site he went to is a joke. In that case, let me point out that the Romney tax plan has a huge question mark in it, where he said, in his first debate with Obama, that he would eliminate $5 trillion in "loopholes used by the wealthy" to balance the budget. However, there don't actually seem to be $5 trillion in such loopholes. StuRat(talk) 03:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

List of most corrupt Congressmen

A political ad for a local US Congressional seat claims that the incumbent is on "the list of the most corrupt Congressmen". Is there such a list? Where can I find it? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Googling this term mostly leads to an annual list by the "watchdog group" "Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington". It seems the latest edition was released about a month ago. 86.166.186.159 (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, this is an unfair attack on our immaculate Congress. In fact, as Will Rogers once said, "We have the best Congress money can buy!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Define "corrupt". In addition to the CREW reference (see the list here), we have Category:American politicians convicted of crimes, which deals with both recent and historical crime in and outside of congress. Unlike the CREW list, ours only includes convicted politicians, rather than those merely suspected of criminal activity. The most amusing find for me in that list is that we have an entire subcategory, Category:Governors of Illinois convicted of crimes. I mean, wow. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

No matter how "corrupt" is defined, and how any such list is compiled, it won't include those who haven't been caught yet.HiLo48 (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of such things, I would love to see List of future Nobel-prize-winning discoveries, and of course List of start-up companies that will one day be worth billions of dollars. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, they would be useful, so long as they were accurate and complete. HiLo48 (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Techno-religion

Is there a name for such cults with fringe ideas like how cryonics/cold fusion/AI/or space travel will save humanity? This kind of cults seem to be a separate category for me, with a technology as the meaning of life, in the same way that Abrahamic religions have God.OsmanRF34(talk) 21:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Transhumanism (and the associated technological singularity), while formally not a religion, has been described as the "rapture of the nerds". Technopaganism is a religion, but is less utopian and more spiritual. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a transhumanist who's probably part of the "cults" the OP is referring to, so sorry in advance for my bias.

First, are you looking specifically for fringe ideas? The last time I checked, neither AI nor space travel is a fringe idea; they are both reality. Cold fusion is fringe, but I doubt many of the nerds who identify as transhumanists would believe in it. It also isn't a fringe idea to believe that AI will save humanity, because in many ways, it already has. The modern world simply isn't possible without computers controlling every aspect of our lives, because humans simply aren't smart, fast, accurate, or patient enough to design a 22 nm processor with 1.4 billion 3D transistors, or align mechanical components to nanometer accuracy, or mass produce and mass inspect products at a rate of 100 per second, or simulate exactly how the 1 million components of a complicated system will behave under stress. As for space travel, you don't need to be a genius to realize that exponential economic growth is not possible on a finite planet. The only alternatives are to have the world economy stall and shrink--which is contrary to human nature and human ambition--or to expand to the 10^21 other solar systems in the visible universe.

Anyhow, in my experience, transhumanists are not "cultists" in the sense of being an organized group, having a leader, or having a common ideology. They don't believe that technology is the meaning of life or that it will save mankind in the same way that Christians seem to believe about Christ. Transhumanism is best described as "extreme optimism about and admiration of technology", not anything spiritual or religious. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Raëlism. Roger (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

When did the English monarchy lose their power?

When did the King/Queen of England become a mere figurehead? ScienceApe (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Power was lost throughout the 17th century. It wasn't, as has been suggested, on the restoration of Charles II. His brother, James II tried to emulate his father (and Louis XVI of France) and become an absolute monarch. he didn't succeed and lost his throne. William of Orange was offered the throne in his stead and Parliament began to take control. After the death of the last of the Stuarts, Queen Anne, the throne was handed to the Elector of Hanover who became George I and Parliament passed the Act of Settlement defining how the crown would descend from then. Throughout the 18th century, parliament as we now know it, with a Prime Minister and his Cabinet gradually became the norm and accepted. George III tried to influence his ministers, but by the time of his illness and the need for the Regency, followed by the reign of George IV parliament was completely in control and the monarch no more than a figurehead. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Quibble: the Hanoverian succession (1714) was a consequence of the Act of Settlement 1701. —Tamfang (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The transformation in England towards the modern constitutional monarchy in the United Kingdom was gradual. You could say thatthe development of "Parliament" paralleled the growth of constraints on the monarch's pwoer. The Magna Carta is often pointed to as a symbol of the king's acceptance of such constraints. Chopping off the king's head may also have been an important event. Our article constitutional monarchy cites the Glorious Revolution of 1688 as establishing the modern constitutional monarchy, but of course the monarch's powers continued to shrink after that. It is still hard to say whether the Queen is a mere figurehead even today - ourConstitution of the United Kingdom article points out that the Queen last made an active choice (on advice from her Privy Councillors) as to the identity of the Prime Minister in 1974, though the last veto of a ministerial appointment was in 1892, the last dismissal and appointment of an appointment against convention was in 1834, and the last actual withholding of royal assent to legislation was 1708, though it remained a possibility even in 1914. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The role of the Hanoverian Kings of Great Britain cannot be underestimated in the expansion of the power of Parliament at the expense of the Monarchy. George I of Great Britain spoke very little English, knew very little of the laws of Great Britain or the role of the Monarch within the British system and spent a significant portion (about 1/5th according to our article) in Germany in his role as Elector of Hanover. As a result, much of the administration of the Kingdom which had been managed from the King and his Court devolved to Robert Walpolewho is widely regarded as the first Prime Minister of the Great Britain. George II of Great Britain continued his father's policy of non-intervention in British domestic policy, also splitting his time between Britain and Hanover. George III of the United Kingdom attempted to re-establish Royal Prerogative in the U.K., but had frequent struggles with his Prime Ministers and with his own Son, heir, and sometimes Regent (seeBritish Regency). George IV of the United Kingdom took little active role in day-to-day politics when he finally ascended, spending most of his time fat and wasted in Windsor Castle; though he did periodically intervene where he had a strong opinion. By contrast William IV of the United Kingdom worked closely with his ministers early in his career, though he is noted as the last Monarch to appoint a Prime Minister in opposition to the will of Parliament. From Queen Victoria onwards, the British Monarch undoubtedly took a back seat to Parliament in terms of power in the UK. --Jayron32 03:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's important to note that actually the monarch hasn't lost their power. In most cases, the powers that have been available to the crown for centuries are still available, but are not used. Interestingly, this is one of the arguments used by monarchists in favour of keeping the royal family- that it's better to have a royal family with powers they don't use than a dictator with powers they do use.

As for the date when all this happened, since there hasn't been a formal law passed (like there was in Sweden, for instance) it's difficult to put an exact timeframe on it. But how about two possibilities: (1) 14th December 1861, when Prince Albert died and Queen Victoria retired almost completely from public and political life. Before then she had been (relatively) interested and engaged in politics. Her withdrawal set a precedent that future politicians would want to preserve. (2) 16th November 1936, the day on which Edward VIII told Stanley Baldwin, the Prime Minister of the day, of his intention to marry Wallis Simpson. Baldwin's refusal to accept Edward's decision precipitated the abdication crisis and showed that the government had the power to refuse a monarch's right to rule. Powers, once removed, are not easily regained. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 07:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, only in the sense that a) Parliament could feasibly declare Britain an absolute Monarchy again tomorrow and relinquish all control over the day-to-day operation of the nation back to the Monarch at any time and b) That if the Monarch actually started to exert the little bit of power that it still had, what Parliament would likely do is abolish it. If you acknowledge a) as a realistic proposition and b) as an unlikely one then you may be correct. Having a "power" one can never actually practically "use" is not a power. Parliament established it's authority to do whatever the heck it wants with regards to the Monarch several times, most recently during the Glorious Revolution, when it was established that the Monarch rules/reigns at the pleasure of Parliament, and not the other way around. Before that, the last king that tried to assert their power lost his head over the matter. I'd say that also settled it. --Jayron32 11:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that the value of the Reserve Powers is that they can be used in an emergency, if for any reason Parliament and the Government are unable to operate. Perhaps the only valid example of this happening was the role of the Spanish monarch in the 23-F coup. Alansplodge(talk) 12:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Spain =/= U.K. --Jayron32 13:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, but it is a constitutional monarchy. Alansplodge (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Bats and gorillas are both mammals, but they don't exactly work in the same way, n'est ce pas? --Jayron32 17:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point, also guinea pigs and humans. However, should we in the UK ever be subjected to a military coup (unlikely I know, but consider theHarold Wilson conspiracy theories), then there might be some similarity. Alansplodge (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Been there, done that. --Jayron32 23:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I have always assumed that the Monarchy retains a sort of legitimacy that, were, say, a hostile EU to "appoint' a replacement for the PM, and the Queen to go on the radio and call for open resistance, her word would be heeded much more so than if the Chief Justice of the US were to say the President was to be arrested on sight. Am I mistaken? μηδείς (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, inosofar as you are a thousand steps removed from likely events, why not? Since we're writing fiction here at this point, you can decide exactly how it would play out. --Jayron32 23:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any idea what "... a hostile EU to "appoint' a replacement for the PM ..." means. But I'm afraid to ask for clarification. I will say that each nation of the European Union is sovereign and conducts its own internal affairs according to its own laws. The EU purporting to appoint a British PM seems to make as much sense as a clockwork banana crowning itself pope. But that's just me. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I though there had been a current of thought recently that the new Italian and Greek technocratic premiers were in effect forced on their respective countries by threats to withhold loans needed by the two countries, and/or act (or fail to act) so that their borrowing rates became greater than bearable. All in all, from the perspective of an embattled Greek or Italian, one might perceive a hostile EU appointing. Russia Today (bless; it never disappoints) says 'EU like an abusive relationship, eurocrats pulled off autocratic coup'.--Tagishsimon (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Long time later but while frankly I don't trust RT, I question the connection to μηδείς's point. It seems clear Greece and Italy could have just buggered out of the EU if they'd wanted to. If they did want to stay in the EU, then perhaps they did have to accept these "appointed" leaders. But this means it's hard to imagine why there would be any need for the Queen to call for open revolt. She could just say the UG should bugger off from the EU rather than accept this appointed PM. Of course as long as she retains the ability to theoretical ability to appoint and dismiss the PM, it's unclear why she would need to call for open revolt anyway. She could just cause a constitutional crisis by refusing to appoint this appointed PM. Nil Einne (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Foreign relations of Gujarat

I found this article from something that was linked by a discussion over at WP:ANI. It leaves me very confused — why would Germany and the UK even consider engaging in foreign relations with Modi's government? Why wouldn't they just go through New Delhi for all of their foreign relations? Note that I've never heard of Modi before; perhaps there's a very big issue that I didn't notice in his article and that I couldn't find through a Google search. Nyttend(talk) 23:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This is basically about business relationships, not diplomatic relationships. Looie496 (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

One thing to note is that India is a federal state (sadly Federalism in India is pretty lacking), and as such the States and territories of India enjoy a limited sort of sovereignty (though the article notes that the Federalism is similar to Canada, in that not-enumerated are reserved for the National government, and unlike the U.S., where not-enumerated powers are reserved for the States). I am unsure of how this extends to the relations between individual Indian states with foreign powers, but the above news article makes it seem as though some sorts of limited relations do exist between individual states and foreign governments, though as Looie notes, this may be primarily commercial in nature. --Jayron32 04:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

There are sizeable Gujerati populations in Britain's major cities, and it would make sense to have some sort of dedicated office set up in Gujarat to cater for them. In particular, Gujaratis seem to be indomitable entrepreneurs, and one would have thought that a country wishing to encourage business would wish to have excellent community relations with this community. See here. I don't know if the Modi in the original question is Lalit Modi, but he is a very influential person indeed in the world of cricket, and that makes him important to England at least. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Also of note, and probably related is the UK Trade & Investment Office, which would likely work with the Government of Gujarat. for all of the reasons you note. --Jayron3218:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that the person in question is Narendra Modi. --BDD (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And the Modi is Narendra Modi, the chief minister of the State of Gujarat (equivalent of U.S. Governor or Canadian Premier).--Jayron32 18:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)