:It is rather American-centric to assume that a very important person in American history would be more known worldwide than a person who has spent the last 20 years breaking album records and doing sold-out shows all around the world. For example, [[Olusegun Obasanjo]] is an extremely important person in Nigeria and every person in Nigeria knows who he is. However, he is not well-known everywhere in the world. -- [[User:Kainaw|<font color='#ff0000'>k</font><font color='#cc0033'>a</font><font color='#990066'>i</font><font color='#660099'>n</font><font color='#3300cc'>a</font><font color='#0000ff'>w</font>]][[User talk:Kainaw|™]] 13:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
:It is rather American-centric to assume that a very important person in American history would be more known worldwide than a person who has spent the last 20 years breaking album records and doing sold-out shows all around the world. For example, [[Olusegun Obasanjo]] is an extremely important person in Nigeria and every person in Nigeria knows who he is. However, he is not well-known everywhere in the world. -- [[User:Kainaw|<font color='#ff0000'>k</font><font color='#cc0033'>a</font><font color='#990066'>i</font><font color='#660099'>n</font><font color='#3300cc'>a</font><font color='#0000ff'>w</font>]][[User talk:Kainaw|™]] 13:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
: The question specifically regards "African-Americans"; Olusegun Obasanjo is not African-American. [[Special:Contributions/87.114.25.180|87.114.25.180]] ([[User talk:87.114.25.180|talk]]) 13:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
==Treaty of Peace with Italy==
==Treaty of Peace with Italy==
Revision as of 13:49, 13 July 2009
Welcome to the humanities section of the Wikipedia reference desk.
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.
For a 4th of July Parade tomorrow, I need to tune up a snare drum. The heads seem to be loose and the snares are woefully loose. I am filling in as a drummer. How would one determine when the upper and lower heads are at the proper tightness, and when the snares are properly tightened. This drum has a rotary adjustment for the snares as well as a lever to apply or loosen the snares. Normally a brass player, played snare many years ago for a bit. Thanks. Edison (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you what I did a couple lifetimes ago... First, are the heads usable? If this is an old drum that has been sitting in an attic for 10 years, the heads may be shot. Assuming that they are good, start by getting the tightness down a bit. Just tighten all the lugs around until you get a somewhat proper snare sound, not a thud. Note: If the bottom is a tad looser than the top, you will get more of a classic snare sound. Once it is tight, you can tune it properly. Place your finger in the middle of the head. Tap around the head near each lug. You will hear if one is looser than another. Adjust them until they all sound the same. Repeat on the bottom. Then, try it out. If it doesn't snap enough, give each lug a little tightening and then check to see if they are all in tune with one another again. That's pretty much all there is. -- kainaw™14:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
why aren't there parachutes in every plane so more lives could be saved. Instead of life jackets of course. Any article?. I find it interesting. Thanks. --190.50.120.109 (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The logistics really would not be too feasible except in a very small number of situations. Maybe if the landing gear is out, but everything else is working, and the plane has plenty of fuel to fly low and slow for an extended period. Otherwise, parachutes probably wouldn't do too much except for a few highly lucky people and/or highly-trained parachutists in a rather unusual and rarely-occuring situation... AnonMoos (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a catastrophic plane failure, they're not going to have time to use the parachutes (those who bothered to listen to the pre-flight instructions). If it's something less serious, like what AnonMoos described, then the pilots would most likely try to land the plane. So either way, parachutes are pretty much useless. However, there are parachutes for entire small planes - see Ballistic Recovery Systems for an example. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a newsreel film (Possible in the Popular Science series) made in the 1930's or 1940's in the U.S., showing an airplane in which each passenger had an ejection seat allowing him to parachute down when over his home. There were two rows of seats, and each had a portion of the fuselage next to the seat which could pop open and the seat would tilt outwards to eject the passenger. It was a gimmick or demonstration and not a commercial project. The plane was not pressurized. Such a plane would allow the rapid ejection of all passengers in an emergency. Edison (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Boeing 737 has say, 150 passengers. Having all the passengers, most likely inexperienced in jumping from aircraft, escape via parachute is not feasible. And what happens if a passenger is in a wheelchair or strapped to a gurney? --Blue387 (talk) 07:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I remember watching an interesting documentary about an artist who mainly created (I *think* prints, but could have been another medium) of bright flowers and fruits like lemons. He is alive now and fairly well known. The art created is fairly repetitive and bold, for example 5 lemons on a plain background. Can anyone help me identify him? I might be completely wrong, but his name might have been Howard something.
I take "ink plum" to be a literal translation of "墨梅". It means mei flowers as depicted in ink and wash paintings. Though a conflicting explanation found on the internet says that it means mei flowers with especially intense colours. I'm not so sure about this second one. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This rumour has cropped up many times over the years. It is perfectly possible Hitler knew some Jews when he was young, but since little is known of the specifics of his youth. His parents either died or never commented on anything (I assume died) so we can never know for sure if he did have a specific Jewish friend when young. Prokhorovka (talk) 06:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If he had he and his lieutenants would have gone to great lengths to try and cover up or destroy any record of it. The lack of detail about his early life considering he was so famous does argue that there were things he didn't want known. I doubt you'll find any record of anything like that. Dmcq (talk) 10:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The apocryphal story I heard was that Hitler's mother had a Jewish doctor who was very kind to her and did not charge. Hitler saved his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alf1052 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting ... the (again, apocryphal) story I heard was that when Hitler's mother died, she was being treated by a Jewish doctor, whom Adolf blamed - which was supposed to be one of the reasons Hitler disliked Jews. These sorts of conflicting reports illustrate the difficulty with trusting such apocryphal stories. -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not in essence apocryphal. See Eduard Bloch, his family's Jewish doctor. On the contrary, Hitler greatly esteemed Bloch. IIRC, Bloch admired and retained one of Hitler's paintings, which he sold for a large sum later. (Not in the article, which mentions a large Hitler painting which was lost.) John Z (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the term for a trance brought on by art?
I remember reading about a supposed altered state of consciousness that can be induced in some people by viewing or being in the physical presence of some great and beautiful work of art. I would have asked this question in the science reference desk, but I'm fairly certain this isn't a technical term from psychology, it's a general word that at most derives from pop-psychology. I could be wrong though. --86.135.177.168 (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The [jump!3A!27as4419040!27/doc/{@17911}? Alaska succession law] covers this - Although, it has to be approved by a joint session of the Alaska legislature, so either they have to convene, or she may already have taken care of this, since she was supposed to do it back when she won the office. --Saalstin (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at the federal level, from 1886 to 1947 there was a similar law. If the vice-presidency was vacant and something happened to the president, the power of the presidency went to the secretary of state. And that office is filled by the president's nomination and confirmation by the Senate. --Anonymous, 23:21 UTC, July 7, 2009.
rue de Richepanse
The name of this street in Paris has been changed to Chevalier du St. George. Anyone know why. I would have thought that a successful General would outlast a fallen Saint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alf1052 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He was victim of the change in the public perception of slavery and colonial power that's taken place in France in the 1990's. No one denied that France took a active role into the slave trade and created a colonial power based on slavery in its West Indies until that time, but that was not a central issue in the public debate. With this change, the perception of Richepanse was transformed : he is now first and foremost the general whose mission was to reinstate slavery in 1802 (French Revolution had abolished slavery) and who brutality massacred people to this end, and not any more the young and successful officer who helped Napoleon in his first European campaigns. The places that are named after him are renamed one after the other: the new names are those of black persons from the French West Indies. In Guadeloupe in 1999 the "Fort Richepanse" has become the "Fort Louis Delgrès" (a black officer who was the leader of the vey insurgency that Richepanse repressed), in Rouen a headquater lost his name, just as a waterfront in Metz (2004), etc. You can sign a petition in line to rename the "rue Richepanse" into "rue Delprès" in Sartrouville. --Gede (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's general consensus that Soviet sources are biased when it comes to versions of history, after all, these are the products of the regime where "history serves politics." I'm therefore at a loss when editors lobby for the "truth" based on what's stated in declassified Soviet archives—aside from the fact that doing so quotes a primary source. They may be declassified, but, quite frankly, it would be uninformed to contend the archives are intrinsically any more reliable than what came before. There are more than a few "facts" in the archives which are not corroborated by reputably documented circumstances and events. Does anyone know of any studies of Soviet era archives as to their fundamental reliability? VЄСRUМВА TALK 21:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. And it's also documented that, for example, "reports" to Stalin were informed more by an instinct for self-preservation than by a desire for openness and honesty. In fairness, there's also this same issue with Nazi archives with regard to Hitler. VЄСRUМВА TALK 21:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To what extent have Soviet archives been forged to sell western researchers what they are looking for? for example with the rosenbergs? --Gary123 (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I gather the reason the declassified archives are fairly trusted is because everyone (even the Soviet Union) needs a reliable source. The things they publicly announced were false, but the records they kept secret and for internal consumption only, which became available following 1991 are fairly trustworthy. We can 'know' this by doing things like comparing our information on things we know to the internal archives and checking. If the Soviets weren't lying to themselves on things we can be sure of, then it is logical to assume the rest is true also. Prokhorovka (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both. To Gary123's... for example, Soviet "archives" have produced evidence that individuals were Nazi war criminals when in fact they were children at the time and produced testimony by people known to be dead. To Prokhorovka's... what has been reported to be in the Estonian Soviet archives (families taken to Siberia on coach trains, nursing and medical care, et al.) is patently false. That something was kept for "internal" consumption is more "true" is based on our "democratic" assumptions about when/where one lies and one does not. We cannot make those assumptions regarding either Soviet or Nazi archives—hence my asking about research on the topic. VЄСRUМВА TALK 19:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about assumptions about archives in general or as compared to other archives. We know that what is reported in Soviet archives is not necessarily factual. There are also problems in interpretation, for example, for "production" numbers of the economy where that was recorded in terms of value (rubles) and not raw units (such as barrels, metric tons, etc.), leading to inflated figures. So the issues are with regard to both facts (yes/no) and interpretation. VЄСRUМВА ☎ 13:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
July 6
Poor people
In the 1990’s, the Bureau of the Census reported that about 35 million Americans were classified as poor. They also stated that the majority of poor were white. What race currently makes up the highest percentage of poor?71.164.13.96 (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In 2007, there were an estimated 25.1 million poor whites (of whom 16 million were non-Hispanic), 9.24 million poor blacks and 1.35 million poor Asians out of 37.3 million poor people. Hispanics, who can be of any race in the census, accounted for 9.89 million poor people. See [1]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting to note, however, that while whites make up roughly 2/3 (67%) of poor people are white; 3/4 (75%) of all U.S. citizens are white (or thereabouts, see 2000 United States Census). Thus, minorities represent a larger portion of poor people than they do of the general population. --Jayron32.talk.contribs04:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding on to that, poor blacks make up 25% of America's poor, but blacks represent only 12% of the America's population. 25%/12% is more than two times higher than 67%/75%, so the statement that the majority of poor were white, although true, is highly misleading. --Bowlhover (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that as misleading. If someone were to read into that "blacks were richer than whites" they would be failing to consider other evidence required to validate their statement. You are right that other considerations are important to give this statement context and depth, but of itself the statement doesn't appear to be misleading - only the reading of it. If, for instance we were to read a stat showing the % of each racial-group that are poor we might (incorrectly) assume that there were less poor whites than black. This would be incorrect in 'volume' terms, but correct in terms of 'proportion'. Either way it's often how individual's interpret stats, rather than the stats themselves, that is an issue (though of course the people doing the stats can be trying to willfully misrepresent the data. On this, the excellent book How to lie with statistics is well worth a read. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the other way round : 24.7% of black are poor (slightly less than 25.3% of American Indians, who are the poorest "race"), that is 2.5 times more than white (10%). But 58.6% of poor are white, 24% are Hispanic, 23% are black, and only 1.5% are Indian Americans. --Gede (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did the Chinese Communists ever officialy use the term Maoism?
Except the Communist Party of China disowns "Maoism" as represented by Maoist insurgents around the world, stating that it departs from and does not represent Mao Zedong Thought. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inside the communist movement, there is a sharp differentiation between Marxism-Lenin-Mao Zedong Thought (MLMTT) and Maoism. The CPC always rejected the term 'Maoism'. In the 1980s, a tendency began to appear internationally, which began to substitute MLMTT with Maoism as their ideological doctrine. Those who claim themselves as Maoists considers Maoism as a qualitatively higher stage of Marxism, in the same sense that Marxism-Leninism is qualitatively higher stage of Marxism as compared to the Marxism of Marx's lifetime. This position is not uncontroversial though, and in some cases (like the Indian ML left) there are both supporters of Maoism and supporters of MLMTT. --Soman (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that its highly unlikely Chinese Communists would use an English term to discuss their own ideology. . . DOR (HK) (talk) 05:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. The CPC has always (at least since after coming into government) translated party documents into English and other foreign languages. They have always been very exact with using a certain terminology when translating documents. --Soman (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ornamental
In Northern Europe, were Moors ever kept ornamentally by affluent families-- brought out for parties, taught pleasantries in Dutch, etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.104.114 (talk) 05:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This may be of interest. There were several black servants in the Scottish court (taken from a captured Portuguese slave ship, apparently) in the early 16th century, and the presence of one as the queen of beauty in a mock tournament would seem to constitute at least one "ornamental" appearance. (William Dunbar's poem associated with the event can be read here.) The use of another "Black-Moore" in a pageant, as described on page 4 of the source cited above, would perhaps constitute another. However, describing such individuals as being "kept ornamentally" seems debatable at best. Deor (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, that raises the question of the difference between being used ornamentally for an occasion, as in dressing up the house slaves nice for the guests, but other wise having such slaves doing standard slave stuff otherwise, or keeping such slaves for the sole purpose of ornamentation; i.e. as living statues and nothing more. I think the former may have been much more common than the latter. --Jayron32.talk.contribs20:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! The above article explains where the idea of an angel (right side) and the devil (left side) comes from. However, when and where did it start, that these companions showed the actual face of the person in question? So far, I got back to the 1960ies Tom and Jerry cartoons; Homer met them too and some Disney characters (Donald and Goofy), of course. Is there a non-animated movie (from when?) which uses this symbolism? Looking forward to your suggestions! -- 12:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)
Going back a long way the idea of a devil/angel dichotomy was common in middle ages images of the last judgement - with angels and devils in an almost symbiotic relationship - someone with a better knowledge of art could probably supply an example of a painting with devils and angels in a tug-o-war with a human (soul). See also [2] the section on "Ars Moriendi" which describes angel and devil struggling for possesion of a dyinh mans soul - particularily memorable is
The old print shows the dying man on his deathbed... Christ and the Virgin are at his side, but he does not see them, for a devil raises the covers behind his head and hides the heavens from him
- I've seen something similar (but less morbid) in those cartoons.
I'm not the OP, but I assumed they were discussing the trope where, for example, Homer has a devil-Homer on one shoulder and an angel-Homer on the other, or Donald has a devil-Donald on one shoulder and an angel-Donald on the other. So they say the article already discusses the history of showing an angel and a devil on the shoulders, but it doesn't discuss the history of showing the angel and devil as, effectively, versions of the person. They wish to know if a non-animated film makes use of this trope, and where and when it started. Does this seem a fair reading of their question? 89.168.106.72 (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly the point. This displayed symbolism exists already in old paintings but there is the person in the middle and a "real" angel on one, and a "real" daemon on the other side. To put the face of the actual person on the angel and the devil must be "modern" because in religious terms it is a bit daring (or - as in the cartoons - you know that it is meant to be funny - specially when the two get into an actual fight). Other associations that I had in respect to that question was "Jekyll and Hide", "S. Freud" and Goethe "Zwei Seelen wohnen - ach - in meiner Brust" (Alas, two souls inhibit my bosom [free translation]. --62.241.104.16 (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC) (I'm logged, and I sign, but somehow the system doesn't get it...)[reply]
I don't have an answer for the original question but the OP might be interested in Herman's Head. It was a television show where, at certain points in the show, a cast of characters was shown who were supposed to be the embodiment of various parts of the main character's psyche. The characters were shown lounging around in what was supposed to be Herman's head. I'm also pleased to see that the Shoulder angel article doesn't contain an exhaustive trivial list of all the occurances of the shoulder angel in film and television! Dismas|(talk)09:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually a list might have been helpful here - I can't help wondering if its the invention of a particular animator ? A list might show a connection, it looks like the idea is public domain, now at least.83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
+1 (like the popping eyes, stamping feet and the tongue rolling out??) Thank you for the Herman-Idea! I remember this series. It comes close and "Angel"(!) and "Animal" (Beast?) comes pretty close. --62.241.104.16 (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Identify this play
I saw a play in Winchester, UK about fifteen years ago. I remember very little about it, except it had a spiral staircase on stage. At the climax of the play, the main male character is electrocuted or suffers some other fall, and tumbles down the stairs. While he lies on the apron, another character appears, stalking round the stage, his head turned away. When he reveals his face, it is the same actor, or a twin - of the first, still visible male character.
Are the United Kingdom and Canada in Personal Union?
OK, so we had a long discussion about this a while ago on a talk page. I don't know why I didn't think of this before, so I'd now like to put the question to some of Wikipedia's unsung heros - the ref desk guys!
I can't actually see anything that speaks against the Commonwealth realms being in personal union however it is almost equally as hard to find any sources stating that a personal union exists. The only evidence that can be found is a few obscure political commentaries and the dictionary definition of the term "two sovereign states that share a common monarch".
I'd be very interested in your personal comments on the subject, and thrilled by any sources anyone can find - I can't find anything myself! :) Best, --Cameron*17:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC)Thanks, yes that section is, I believe the result of the discussions. Thanks for the other comments/sources too. Surtsicna, your source is a dream come true, I could kiss you!!! :) --Cameron*18:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not usual to talk of Canada and the UK as being in personal union because they aren't - unlike Jersey or the Isle of Man and the UK - only in personal union. In countries usually discussed as being part of a personal union, the countries generally have little or no relationship other than being ruled by the same crowned head, and that's clearly not true of Commonwealth nations like Canada and the UK. - Nunh-huh18:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are not just in personal union, of course, but that doesn't mean they are not in personal union at all. Anyway, thank you Cameron! I'm glad I was that helpful :) Surtsicna (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of these pictures were taken with a Nikon D40 and its standard kit lens, the AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6G ED. At first I thought it was lens flare, but now I'm not so sure. It doesn't seem like dust since it is blue, so my only other guess is some sort of sensor flaw, but I have taken pictures both before and after these without the weird blue spots. Also the photos here were not all taken consecutively; I had other exposures in between them that came out fine. Any ideas, and suggestions to avoid this problem? dlempa (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The pictures aren't showing--they either weren't loaded properly, or are deleted (wikipedia is not an image host), or something like that. Sensor dust can cause colored spots because of the Bayer filter over the sensor. If the pics were taken in low light it can be ordinary sensor noise. If you can get the spots to be out of focus by changing the lens focus, it's dust on or inside the lens. Without being able to see the shots it's hard to diagnose. 208.70.31.206 (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, but I'm pretty sure it's not dust. I've uploaded the pictures on Wikimedia Commons, and I'm not sure why they're not showing up - if someone could help here, that would be great. dlempa (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found and corrected the image links (hope I got the right ones). They are in different places on each image, which suggests to me that it is an optical effect rather than a fault with some pixels in the camera's sensor or electronics. That also suggest it is not dust or other dirt on the lens. The photos were all taken with the sun in front of you, or at least above. In fact the blue spots all look like lens flare to me, but are much smaller that other lens flare I have seen. I could speculate that there is perhaps a small lens defect (a tiny bubble for example?) which catches the sun in some circumstances. Examine the lens very carefully using a magnifying glass if you can. Take some test pictures and see if you can see some pattern to when the blue spots appear. If there is a defect in the lens, you sould try to get a replacement - especially if it is still under warranty. Astronaut (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a test - you could try taking images of a lightbulb, and a plain room - put the light bulb at various positions in the screen, and also try photos with the light bulb to the left/right/above/below/behind you etc.. see if you can get the spots reliably - this might not work if a very bright light is needed - the photos look light they were taken on a v. bright day. - possibly a bubble or even tiny crack or edge flaw on the lense, or maybe even a patch on the lenses inner case that is not as black as it should be.
That is pretty weird looking for lens flare but it's possible.
Do your tests in aperture priority mode with the lens stopped to the smallest setting.
Always use a lens hood when shooting outdoors (or pretty much all the time, really). It will help with flare and make your pictures look better even when there is no flare, plus it will help protect the lens from stuff bumping into it. The recommended hood for your lens is the Nikon HB-45. Or heh, you can also make your own for free. 208.70.31.206 (talk) 04:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Photographs from Obrazove zpravodajstvi CTK archives
I have several photographs that belonged to my late father which depict The Massacre at Lidice.
These photographs are stamped on the reverse with Obrazove zpravodajstvi CTK archives.I have had them for several years and would like to know if they are of any interest to any organisation or individual.Curious60 (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they aren't copies of the photos available currently at our Lidice article or at the Google image search page for Lidice, and if you are the current legal owner of the photos and you wish to share them with the world, then scanning the photos yourself and uploading them to Flickr or Wikipedia is the easiest way to make the photos available to interested parties. First, scan the photos — front and back, separate files, since you make it sound like the reverse of each photo may be of interest — and save the photos to your computer's hard disk. If your scanner software allows, save them as PNG (or even TIFF) files to be sure that no lossy compression artifacts get baked in to the scan. (If this is not feasible then JPG-format files are fine; save the photos using the highest-possible quality setting, if your scanning software has such a setting.) Then you could head over to the Flickr website, create a new account, and then start uploading the photos. You can decide what license you want to impose on whoever is interested in reusing the photos. CC-by-sa is a license, for example, that would mean anyone can use the photos for any reason and must attribute them to you (presumably using your Flickr account name, whatever that is.) Tag the photos with a description of anything you know about the photos — the story of how your father obtained them and anything he told you about them — and you're done. Alternatively, here on Wikipedia, you can click "Upload file" off to the left of the screen and contribute them using the license of your choice; though here on Wikipedia there is the risk that your photos will be "nominated for deletion" at some point if they are not actually incorporated into an article, or if a skeptic doubts that you are being truthful about your ownership of the photo. Hence my recommendation to use Flickr. If you lack a scanner then you might contact World War 2 museums, such as this Lidice museum in the Czech Republic which might be interested. Tempshill (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inheritance of German Noble Titles
HI there. Could somebody explain this to me: In Germany titles of nobility are not inherited by the heir but by all children of the title holder. Thus the children of a Freiherr are all known as Freiherr "Son 1", Freiherr "Son 2" and so on. The heir may place the word "Erb-" infront of his title to signify that he is his father's heir. Could anyone confirm that this is true. If this is true, surely half Germany would be entitled to use a title, seeing as both son 1 and 2's descendants would also inherit the title, as would their descendants and so on. I hope you can see where I am coming from. It's all rather complicated. If anybody has a useful English language link that explains German titles I'd also be interested. Thanks...--217.227.122.36 (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If only sons of sons, sons of sons of sons etc. (in a strict patrilineal line) inherit nobility, then it would not really be expected that an ever-increasing proportion of the general population would be noble over time...
The British pattern, in which the wife and children of a title-holder derive honorifics and precedence from him, but only the title-holder as an individual is really fully noble in a technical legal sense (so that, for example, Lord Astor's wife and son could be MP's in the House of Commons) was not the prevailing tradition on the Continent... AnonMoos (talk) 02:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the nobility only tended to marry amongst themselves, there are lots of cousins marrying other cousins. In a perfect family tree where there are no familial marriages, you would get that diluting of nobility; each generation would produce more and more nobles. However, since the family tree of any noble family essentially folds in on itself, the size of the nobility grows MUCH slower than one would expect. --Jayron32.talk.contribs03:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that, as explained above, the situation in Britain was quite different from the continent. As already noted, only title-holders in England are considered to be noble; a noble's heirs who do not inherit titles from him are no longer considered noble there, unlike in Europe, where ALL decendents of a noble inherit nobility. Plus, the particular attitude towards nobility only got esconced in Europe during the age of absolutism; Edward III ruled many centuries before that. --Jayron32.talk.contribs11:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do Abdoulaye Wade have any siblings. I've google once on Abdoulaye Wade, I don't know if I can find that site again. If so, how many total. Is he oldest, youngest, if 6th is he the 4th?--69.229.111.118 (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a market for it? I assume there must be. What forms does it take? CD? MP3? I assume it must be audio-based, but perhaps it could have a tactile element. I suppose this question is in poor taste, but I'm genuinely curious. LANTZYTALK23:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a scene in the movie Sneakers where a blind character is shown reading a braille version of Playboy. I personally doubt that they made it specifically for the film. Dismas|(talk)09:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this possible that Kalkot Mataskelekele wife to be older than Kalkot. All evidence given is Kalkot's wife have some white hair, hybridding with brown hair. Kalkot have gray hair he is born in 1949 so 59 or 60 depending on his b-day. I don't know anything said the wife is to be how old, but it is less likely to be younger than 1953, gray or white hair shows people is likely to be old. Even pitch black hair could odd people to be at least 60. Like Paul Biya 76 years old (b. 2/13/1933), pitch black hair, his facial look like 40s.--69.229.111.118 (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no knowledge on your specific question (and also no particular idea why you're asking it), but as a general matter, it's highly inexact and quite dubious to attempt to estimate people's ages by the amount of grey in their hair (even leaving aside the possibility of dye). My uncle was starting to show a significant amount of grey in his hair in his early 40's... AnonMoos (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My hair turned almost completely grey in my thirties, yet a friend of the family still retains his black hair well into his seventies (though it has started showing a little grey round the edges very recently). Hair colour is a poor indicator of age. I'm also unsure quite what you mean by "hybridding". Astronaut (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By hybriding, I believe that questioner merely meant "mixed" or as it is called salt and pepper. (Guess I'll have to update that article.) But the best way to find out birth dates is to find reliable media or legal sources which mention them. Attempting to determine them visually is not reliable. Rmhermen (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Black people don't get grey hair until they are in the 60s or 70s. John Kufuor my favorite-popular-guy-who shows up to whitehouse 4 times, at his first visit to Whitehouse he was 62.12, his hair is still totally black then, second visit in 2005 and a have no gray hair yet, he was 66 and a half; third visit was April 2006, he was 67 and 4/12 month, NO black HAIR yet, then his last visit to Whitehouse in September 15, 2008 he was 69 and 9/12 month, is the first gray hair (or some white hair, some black hair). Robert Mugabe is 85 years old, no white or gray hair AT ALL. Abdoulaye Wade never have hair, so....Mwai Kibaki is 77 right now, when he went to Whitehouse in 10/05/2003 no white or grey hair. Now he have some black some white hair. Sam Nujoma who turn 80 on May 12, 2009, still have some black hair though alot of white hair. Hifikepunye Pohamba turning 74 in August, still all black hair.Then let's take a look at women. Terri Mensah, in her late 60s or she just turn 70 like 4 to 6 month after John Kufuor, still all black hair, while Lucy Kibaki 68 or 69 depending on her birthday, still no white or gray hair at all. lily Coker, look up google image with Eva Coker on Sierra Leone obituary site, hair pitch black. ngina Kenyatta is shown on google image, 69 in 2002 all black hair. Maya Angelou's hair is still at least 60 percent black, little gray or white hair. She is 81. Zelma Henderson who die last year on May 20, 2008 at age 88, her hair is fully brown with no white or gray at all.--69.229.111.118 (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would wager that Spanish has relatively few, especially since its orthography has a systematic means of preventing them, namely, by putting an acute accent over a vowel: si/sí, como/cómo, mate/maté, tu/tú, etc. However, this system is not perfect, and there are still quite a few: for example 'haya', beech tree or a form of the verb haber; 'vino', wine or a form of the verb venir; etc. (A commenter at this thread provides a list of Spanish homographs, of which most of the examples are not true homographs but examples of polysemy.) LANTZYTALK01:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is more of a humanities question than a language question: when North Korea is involved in diplomatic affairs, like the Six Party Talks, what language do they use? Would they use Chinese? Russian? English? Or just Korean, with translators? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My guess would be either Korean, because two parties speak that language and the others all speak different ones, or English, because so many more matters of international relations (even when non-English-speaking countries are involved) are transacted in English. Sorry, but I don't have any reliable sources on this. Nyttend (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The most possible language may be either Korean or English. I guess North Korea would prefer Korean since it's their own language and it's easier to communicate with South Korea in the party talks and other uses. I don't have sources or references either but it's my best guess. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the personal union of Canada and the UK question above, I wondered: what is the official status of the monarch if two countries that are in personal union go to war? I don't mean something like Norway and Sweden, since Norway wasn't trying to become totally independent while retaining the House of Bernadotte. Instead, I mean something such as the invasion of Grenada, in which Jamaican soldiers participated; or if war had erupted between the Empire of Austria and the Kingdom of Hungary during the period of Austria–Hungary? I know that the UK protested the invasion of Grenada, but I'm not sure that such a protest could change the Queen's legal standing in that situation. Nyttend (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, unless you stretch the definitions of the terms. For example, Henry VI of England also ruled France during the Hundred Years War, which was ostensibly between England and France; but was really a dynastic war between the Valois and the Plantagenets. So, since there was open fighting during Henry's rule of the two kingdoms, does that make him at war with himself? (as your question seems to ask). Probably not. For most of European history, the idea of Balance of power was so important that personal unions between major powers were HIGHLY discouraged. When the did exist (consider Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire/I of Spain) it was usually broken up, either voluntarily as Charles did, or by force, in the case of the Hundred Years War cited above. In other cases, potential personal unions between major powers were fought over in wars of succession often resulting in a prevention of the personal union in question. The War of the Spanish Succession prevented a personal union between France and Spain. Also, in the case of many personal unions, one party takes something of a "junior" role in the union; usually the one which "took over" the other tends to dominate what should be a co-equal union. Consider the 60-year Iberian Union, at the end of which the Portuguese revolted and threw out the Spanish King from Portugal, establishing the House of Braganza. --Jayron32.talk.contribs05:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
India and Pakistan fought a war in 1947 when both were dominions under George VI. I don't know why a war between two dominions would affect the position of the monarch. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the dominions of the British Monarchy the monarch is constitutionally obliged to act on the 'advice' of the government of that country. So in the (unlikely) event that, say Canada and Britain were to go to war, the government of Canada would order Canadian soldiers, in the name of Her Majesty Queen of Canada (to whom they have sworn allegiance) to go and kill the soldiers who have sworn allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom. Neither of the two queens gets any real say in the matter. For those not familiar with the situation, those two queens are of course the same person.DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just as Dominion/Realm governments can send High Commissioners to each other who do not represent their identical head of state (an Australian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom is not a representative of the Queen of Australia to the Queen of the United Kingdom, but a representative of the Queen's Australian Government to her United Kingdom government), so Dominion governments can fight each other without their identical head of state fighting themselves.
Practically, of course, the distinction is all but irrelevant, since, as has been pointed out, the Queen acts on the advice of her ministers in her separate capacities as monarch of each Realm. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments! I think that the Indo-Pakistani war is the best example of what I was looking for, since it was an actual war and much more significant than the Grenada invasion. Somewhat more specifically, I was wondering if one country might disown the monarch because s/he didn't favour the other one. Looks like the answer is clearly a "not-necessarily", since India and Pakistan both remained dominions under the King until after the war. Since other constitutional monarchies tend to work the same way, I'd be quite surprised if any of you were wrong in other situations. Perhaps the reason I was thinking that one might disown the monarch was the treatment of Charles I of England, since (if I remember right) his alleged act of treason was favouring the Scots after they declared war on England. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The proximate cause of his ouster and execution was his attempt to use his position as King of Scotland (then in personal union with England, but still an independent nation with its own systems) to put down the republicans in the English Civil War. Its actually also pretty close to the OPs requirement; basically Charles (as King of Scotland) was waging war on himself (as King of England). The apparently more logical Roundheads apparently thought this was as rediculous as it sounded, and put him to death for it. However, there is some speculation as to whether or not his death was a foregone conclusion if he had NOT taken such a drastic action; he may have been merely forced to abdicate the English throne and may have remained King of Scotland had he not attempted to fight the war in this manner. Remember that the two nations had only been in personal union for 40 years before the Civil Wars; the situation may have only ended up like the Iberian Union, with Charles retaining his Scottish posessions, had he not attempted to wage war in the manner he did... --Jayron32.talk.contribs02:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
US federal swearing-in
The president, vice-president, senators, judges etc. are all sworn into office. Does the same hold for lower level federal officials like the assistant undersecretary of whatever? How about just ordinary paper pushers and janitors in the various federal departments? Thanks. 208.70.31.206 (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Normally officials that are politically elected may need to swear in. Whereas government staff and officials hired by the government (sometimes called civil servant) doesn't have to swear in. This also applies in each state, as each state is like an individual government. Governors, legislators also needs to swear in, while normal government staff don't swear in (think it as politically selected and hired). I'm just replying this based on my past knowledge, there may be small details I don't know but this should be the general definition. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that federal civil servants do take that oath by signing on a piece of paper; they don't say it aloud or place their hand on a Bible or anything. I also believe that state workers take a similar oath to protect and defend the constitution of the state they are working for. Tempshill (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(I struck my assertion above based on Who then was a gentleman? below. As a state worker I merely signed a piece of paper to swear by the oath.) Tempshill (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even temporary Census workers have an oath to take. As a graduate teaching assistant at a state university, I had to take an oath to defend the state constitution of a state I wasn't even a resident of. Rmhermen (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly here in Canada, when I had a summer job for a federal government agency, there was some sort of requirement to swear or affirm allegiance to the Queen. It's been long enough that I don't rememeber in detail. --Anonymous, 23:29 UTC, July 7, 2009.
Where is the original file? (This file is probably positivelydilated; when I expanded it in Paint, the blue boarder appeared where there should be no light blue. This made me extrapolate that this is not the original file, because this file itself has a light blue boarder surrounding\enclosing the red.)70.73.145.207 (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the prompt answer, very interesting, as I had been under the impression that he and his wife had been killed, so I've learnt quite a bit :D. Thanks a lot for your help SpitfireTally-ho!09:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that middle and high schoolers are told to emulate Jesus using this example? I mean, there are lots of teenagers who probably would love to have a good excuse for worrying their parents by doing this sort of thing, albeit with different motives, perhaps. Vltava6817:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean "why are middle and high schoolers told to wander off to the temple on their own"? I'm not sure they are. Do you have reason to think it's the case? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, meaning that they're told to be determined and passionate about their work and etc. Possibly also to not let anyone get in their way, which is one of the perhaps more problematic parts. Vltava6817:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Being passionate about your work" has clear advantages. Determination helps with success. "Not letting anyone stand in your way" can, as you say, be more problematic. Some people think that life is all about competition and winning counts for everything. But I've no idea what this has to do with Jesus in the Temple. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try... I suppose what I was trying to ask was why people set that as an example to be set in high esteem or something like that. (Sorry, I was tired and suffering from insommia when I posted that.) Vltava6802:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you're referring to the passage where Jesus goes missing, and is eventually found in the temple questioning the elders? I think there is a connotation of independent learning here - go and find out for yourself. Rather than being up to no good, you are up to some good by participating in something that is likely to help you. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Members of the British Parliament (including Lords)
Hello. Does anybody know of a place where one can download decent-resolution (preferably high-res!) pictures of Peers and MPs; the "biography" section on the Parliament website provides only a tiny thumbnail of each. Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 17:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, if you want the pictures for purposes of putting them on Wikipedia or for some other distribution, you probably won't have the right to do that unless they explicitly grant permission. --Anonymous, 23:30 UTC, July 7, 2009.
Depending on how high-res you are looking for, the BBC might suffice. Here's their effort for Diane Abbott [6], others can be found with the "find an MP" box on the right. Martlet1215 (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know if Hubertus Johannes van Mook had a wife? And if so what her name might have been? For some sources I have picked up see: [7], [8] and [9], I have been working on this half the day, but have turned up no results, I wonder if anyone might like to give it a stab? Thanks awfully for your time, SpitfireTally-ho!19:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this possbile for prime minister to become a national leaders? is this possible for Nahas Angula (not certainly) to become a national leader successor after Pohamba tough it's long ways away if Pohamba would or would not stay for 2013 election.--69.229.111.118 (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Chapter 5 of the constitution of Namibia, "Every citizen of Namibia by birth or descent, over the age of thirty-five (35) years, and who is eligible to be elected to office as a member of the National Assembly shall be eligible for election as President." He's obviously eligible to sit in the NA, so unless he isn't Namibian by birth or descent there's no reason why it wouldn't be possible. --Saalstin (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant is this possible that Hahas Angula could become a HE of Namibia. Do Namibia have two-term only rule now? By the way what does "HE" stand for?--69.229.111.118 (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NVM about how-long-hold power question. The legislation said HE cannot hold office for over two terms.Hifikepunye will have to leave in 2013 election and hand the power to somebody else. So who will be next in Namibia? Will it be Angula?--69.229.111.118 (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid Wikipedia does not make predictions. It looks like it's constitutionally possible for the current Prime Minister to run for President, but we have no way of knowing whether or not he's going to win --Saalstin (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On a point, anyone Royal in the UK is heavily, heavily discouraged from taking a political stand, including heirs. So no, not in the UK - they'd be kicked out as monarch before they could be elected into parliament (the other way round is illogical, since you're born a royal). 92.17.236.247 (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
July 8
Jewis converts in nazi germany
what was the nazi's attitde towards gentiles who had converted to judaism. Because i thought that jews were killed on racial grounds as opposed to religious grounds, so just wondering where converts stood on the spectrum between living and dying --Thanks, Hadseys11:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect lots of Jews simply 'forgot' their Judaism and hoped to escape notice, especially the less religious ones. The Nazi laws however defined a Jew as anyone with a Jewish Grandmother or closer relative. As such actual conversion was futile, though I think there was a brief period pre-war when the laws where more specific and the converts were spared for a while. Prokhorovka (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question was about gentiles who had converted to Judaism, not what you wrote about. I expect that converts to Judiasm were technically classified as non-Jews, but they would have been out of favor with the government and might have been persecuted. Christians who spoke in defense of the Jews were persecuted. Most converts to Judaism were gentiles who married Jews, and that itself was a violation of the Nazi racial purity laws [10]. Edison (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One book, "Hitler's Jewish Soldiers: The Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and the Men of Jewish Descent in the German Military" by Bryan Mark Rigg, says that "Converts to Judaism were treated legally as Jews, and formally documented as such" per this review [11]. Edison (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of criteria are you looking for? Offhand, I can provide quick answers. 1) all end in a vowel. 2) all countries end in a vowel. 3) both end with an 'n'. However, that's not really useful information, and you'll probably need to clarify. — Lomn14:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And Puerto Rico isn't a real country either, it is some kind of part of the US. Not a state, not a territory, but somewhere in a grey area between the two. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, Puerto Rico is a US Commonwealth, which has a specific legal meaning that shouldn't be confused with, say, the "commonwealth" of Kentucky, which is purely a naming affectation. — Lomn15:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whichever Boston the OQ is asking about hardly has a history in a Latin-based language, unless you are claiming that the Romans having conquered Britain gives Boston a Latin-based language. Both Bostons have Germanic-based languages. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about this: None have been visited by Eni Abumere Okonofua of Kaduna, Nigeria. If that isn't good enough and these are homework questions, you are better off asking the teacher. -- kainaw™17:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, looks like 87 forgot to write "This is a joke, and as such not intended to be taken seriously; rather, it is an attempt to leaven the conversation and help create a friendly working environment for all involved. In no way does it suggest that I believe Kainaw is actually called Eni Abumere Okonofua, although of course this could be the case. After all, On the internet nobody knows you're a dog. But this is beside the point, because this is a light-hearted comment." at the end of their message. I'm sure they won't forget again, and thus we will all be saved this terrible confusion. 89.168.106.72 (talk) 05:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Comintern article states that the Socialist Workers' Party of China attended the 1st Comintern 1919 meeting, what was this party and what were its views? How does it relate to the CPC?--Gary123 (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to this book, the party was formed in January 1919 by Chinese workers in Russia who were active in the Union of Chinese Workers. That had been founded the previous year in support of the October Revolution by various Chinese workers, and some Russian Bolsheviks such as Yevgeny Polivanov. As a result, it appears that its views were essentially those of the Bolsheviks. Many of these workers returned to China during 1919 and 1920; there doesn't appear to be much record of what happened to those who returned, and there's no evidence of their involvement in the May 4th Movement, but some in Shanghai joined the Socialist Club there, which became the Socialist Party at the end of 1919. This seems to have started working jointly with some other small groups in 1920, and this appears to have shared many members with the original Communist Party of China - so basically, the group in 1919 and the CPC have only very tenuous links. Warofdreamstalk12:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the role of Euroclear Bank or ClearStream in the Clearing System of equities? And what is the benefit for someone to subscribe shares under for example Citivic Nominees as custodian for an Euroclear A/C with a particular ISIN number of a fund rather than to subscribe it directly with the administrator of the fund? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.212.198.31 (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Legal Guardian
I remember back in school permission slips and other forms often required the signature of a parent or legal guardian. I've always wondered, beyond the legal nature of a legal guardian are there any people who recognize their relationship with a child as a legal guardian but not a parent. For example, would someone ever introduce themselves as "Billy's legal guardian"? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Legal guardians almost always have another title that may be used. Legal guardian is a very general term that covers people such as foster parents or grandparents with legal custody. Therefore, the more specific term would most likely be used. -- kainaw™17:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it would depend upon the circumstances. While I think Kainaw is generally correct, I have heard "I am XX'x guardian" when the adult's name was different from that of the child. (This was in a classroom on parent-teacher night.) One might use the word "legal" in legal circumstances -in court or a lawyer's office where one's relationship needed to be legally clear. Now, when having a parent with a name different from that of a child seems almost the norm, I doubt any such qualifier would be needed in person. // BL \\ (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might be used in addition to the more specific term when it is necessary to be clear about that fact that you are responsible for the child. This might be legal circumstances or in relation to school/nursery. I can't think of any other likely times it would be relevant. --Tango (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arrh, Jim Lad!
I'm an American of French descent, and I've lived for ten formative years in London.
So, please, don't interpret the following question as a sorry example of xenophobia: believe me, my bewilderment is authentic.
Why are Englishmen so enamoured of Long John Silver impersonations?
I mean, it's obviously funny per se, but still...I've made an informal survey, and out of 13 Englishmen asked: "Could you do a Long Jiohn Silver impersonation?", eleven said yes! Or rather, they didn't-- they just launched into "Eh, Jim lad!..." lunacy.
Did he actually pronounce all the R's that were in a word and refrain from pronouncing those not in the word, like Americans, and unlike most Brits? "Shiverrr me timberrrrs! It's the law!" rather than "Shiva me timbas! It's the lawr!"Edison (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Eastern Orthodox church has never had any influence on British politics, so no-one has ever had a reason to try and reduce that influence. So, as far as I am aware, Mikhailovich is eligible to become King. I'm not sure what you are saying about the Russian throne - last time I checked, there wasn't one. --Tango (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is no throne of Russia there are no rules about who can sit in it. I don't know what the rules were before it was abolished. --Tango (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Act of Settlement 1701 says the monarch "shall be remain and continue to the said most Excellent Princess Sophia and the Heirs of Her Body being Protestants." Is an Orthodox Christian a Protestant? Generally, the term "Protestant" refers to denominations that arose during or after the Reformation. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of us is being obtuse, either myself or Tango. If Grand Duke George wanted to be Tsar of Russia, wouldn't he have to be Russian Orthodox, or else kiss off any chance of support of the people? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any support of the people for any monarch, regardless of religion. The question is only relevant if something changes to make the Russian people want a monarchy, and that something could well change their opinions about religion so it is impossible to meaningfully speculate. --Tango (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there an additional requirement, namely, that they be "in communion with" (whatever that means) the Church of England? It's not enough just to not be a Catholic or married to one. For example, a member of the Methodist or Presbyterian churches would fail this requirement. They're Protestants, but they're not in communion with the C of E. That would also seem to apply to members of Orthodox churches. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The wording in the Act of Settlement is 'That whosoever shall hereafter come to the Possession of this Crown shall joyn in Communion with the Church of England as by Law established'. I think that means that the Grand Duke and his ilk can inherit, but are required to join the Church of England on doing so. I'm sure George I wasn't in communion with the CoE before his inheritance. Algebraist20:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being in communion means to be a member of that church. In the view of most eighteenth-century Protestants the internal divisions in Protestantism were great but the division between Protestantism and Catholicism was even greater. Keep in mind that when in England the monarch is an Anglican and when in Scotland a Presbyterian.--Johnbull (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What would happen, then, if a person acceded who met the first requirement (not a Catholic or married to one), but was not in communion with the C of E and refused to do so? Surely they'd be disqualified, and the next in line would be asked. That would be an interesting process: asking down the line until they found someone who could qualify. There might be a period where there was no known monarch, but when they finally found a suitable candidate, that person would retrospectively have been monarch from the moment of the previous monarch's death, because "the king never dies". -- JackofOz (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ancient Polynesians in Australia
Why didn't the ancient polynesians colonise Australia, but chose to colonise New Zealand and other smaller pacific islands? Sonic99 (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Polynesians were coming along the Indonesian archipelago and around Papua New Guinea no more than 6000 years ago. The Australian Aborigines had been there for some time. Their presence would not be helpful to colonising Polynesians. Furthermore, the Polynesian culture is island based, and would still have been so at that point. Adapting to life on the Australian continent would have been difficult. Other islands may have simply been the easier option. Steewi (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't Australia more to the west of the area that the Polynesians were traveling? I don't know if they were using trade winds or such, but most of their travel was to the east. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How interesting. I had no idea about this. If Thor Heyerdahl's theory is correct, some Polynesians came from South America; and now it seems some of them sailed on to Madagascar. Maybe it would have been quicker to just go around the Cape in the other direction. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Is there any evidence that the ancient polynesians tried to colonise Australia? Any oral polynesian story or artifact finding? Sonic99 (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To reply to your original question, Polynesian settlement expansion wasn't necessarily by conscious "choice", but often by ships that went astray happening to strike land. Any Polynesians would probably have had to hit a favorable spot on Australia's east cost to have a good chance of settling there long-term. It's one of those things which theoretically might have happened, but in actuality didn't (as far as available evidence goes). In Guns, Germs, and Steel there's a discussion about how Indonesians discovered north-central Australia before Europeans did, and regularly visited there (see Macassan contact with Australia), while aspects of Melanesian culture percolated into the northeastern tip of Australia, but neither of these external influences had any kind of major transformative impact on Australia as a whole... AnonMoos (talk) 10:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I entertain the possibility that Macassans etc sometimes became friendly enough with aboriginal or TSI people to impregnate them, and their descendants are with us today. I'm open to the idea that this could also have occurred with Polynesian sailors who were blown way off course, but there's no evidence this ever actually happened. On the question of prior inhabitation, Australia as a whole was certainly inhabited, but extremely sparsely. If Polynesians ever landed here, depending on precisely where they actually landed, it's possible they would not see any other signs of human life for days, weeks, months or even years, if they remained that long. But the longer they remained, the greater the chance that some evidence of their presence would exist. There is no such evidence, apparently, but who knows what may yet turn up. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
July 9
Military customs and courtesy question
Today my sergeant asked me if I knew why the lower-ranking soldier walks two steps to the left and one step behind the senior soldier. I told him "no" and in a typical sergeant way told me to find out for myself. He says it's something that's been around for a while but won't offer any clues. 70.122.122.112 (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's also the protocol for walking with someone of higher rank than you in the history of English aristocracy, if I recall correctly. It was supposed to show respect for them, because they are leading the way. Why to the left? I suspect that it's something to do with wear you wear your sword, but I have no evidence for that. Steewi (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I've always heard is walking three paces behind (usually in reference to women and children walking three paces behind their husband/father). --Tango (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about the sword issue as well, but it's on the left in all the images I've just looked up. --Sean14:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's on the left hip but is drawn across the body by the right hand. By being two steps to the left, you would be sufficiently out of the way so that the officer can draw his sword and completely out of the way when he came to use it. --Tango (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the usual approach in dogwalking is to have the dog walk near the walker's left heel. I don't know how closely relevant this is to the question. CBHA (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen dogs walked on both sides, probably the right more than the left. Maybe it depends on what side of the road you drive on - I'm in the UK where we drive on the left so if you are walking towards oncoming traffic (as you should do) and the dog is on your right then you are between the dog and the road. If you drive on the right, then you would want your dog on the left. I suspect none of this has anything to do with military custom. --Tango (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the past I went to several dog-training classes (in the UK) and the rule was always to have the dog on your left. --rossb (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That didn't sound quite right, so I looked it up. Per FM 7-21.13 Chapter 4, Customs, Courtesies, and Traditions: "Walk on the left of an officer or NCO of superior rank."[12] The FM does not give reasoning, but most Army customs and courtesies have obscure and conflicting reasons. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk15:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC) (First Team!)[reply]
The correct answer may be "because it says so in regulations", but let's assume your sergeant is better than that. I suggest asking more senior members of your unit. He may have asked this question before. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just to stay away from his sword side, but also to step up and guard his non-sword side. This is the proper position for the less-experienced or less-capable warrior, and particularly for a knight's squire. -Arch dude (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States, a bipartisan gas tax holiday proposal failed due to concerns the oil companies wouldn't pass the savings onto consumers. Theoretically, could these concerns have been addressed by setting a price ceiling per gallon, above which gas could still be sold but wouldn't qualify for the tax break? NeonMerlin02:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically, yes, I see no reason why they couldn't pass such a law. It would probably be better to set a maximum amount over the price of crude oil that can be charged (without being taxed) rather than an absolute maximum, though. --Tango (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically, Congress could have put aside its long-standing abhorrence of price fixing and done exactly as the OP suggests.DOR (HK) (talk) 05:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright on CIA code systems(not legal advice, hypothetical situation)
The book Without Cloak or Dagger, published in the 70's by a former CIA agent, contains some detailed explication of the codes and ciphers that have used by CIA agents. If I were to use these codes in a work of fiction(I'm not actually planning to, but I am curious about the laws involved), would I be violating copyright law? Would the CIA object to their(presumably obsolete by now) codes and ciphers being revealed in fiction once they've already been published in a(not particularly well-known) work of nonfiction, and what kind of legal action would be taken if they did? Who owns the copyright to code and cipher systems? 69.224.113.202 (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can't give legal advice, so I won't comment on the specific case you ask about. I can tell you, however, that copyright doesn't generally apply to mathematical algorithms (which codes and ciphers are). Patents sometimes do, though, and copyright will apply to the presentation of the algorithm used in the book (unless there is no other reasonable way to present it). --Tango (talk) 03:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
US intelligence agencies (CIA, NSA, etc) have in fact been known to object to disclosure of obsolete cryptographic technology (see our articles invisible ink (last section) and The Codebreakers), but there doesn't seem to be much they can do about it. There are several existing novels into which obsolete crypto systems figure in, with various degrees of realism. Books_on_cryptography#Fiction lists a few examples. 208.70.31.206 (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If memory serves, the US doesn't have any kind of Official Secrets Act, so unless you have signed a non-disclosure agreement I don't there is anything they can do about it (other than make you "disappear", if the movies are to be believed!). --Tango (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The CIA is an agency of the US federal government; works of the US federal government aren't subject to copyright - see Copyright status of work by the U.S. government. Naturally this doesn't mean that it's unclassified. Incidentally the government can be granted patents, and the NSA can be granted secret patents (yes, that is somewhat pathological) - see National Security Agency#Patents. It's very difficult for a regular work of narrative fiction to infringe on a patent (puzzle books might, I guess), but wouldn't this make for a nice plot element? 87.113.26.43 (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The government can classify patent applications, technically, not patents. They aren't in effect when they are secret. They only take effect if they are later declassified and granted. All they do is allow the government to avoid publication of the patent, but to have it on file in case they want to use it to contest a competing patent later. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Problems in the list of Oldenburg Counts
Ok, I am having trouble with the Oldenburg counts. The different languages don't match with each other.
German Wikipedia mentions
1345-1368: Graf Konrad I. (ca. 1300 - 1347) ∞ Ingeburg von Schaumburg-Holstein
1368-1386: Graf Konrad II. (ca. 1331 - nach 1401) ∞ Kunigunde
1368-1398: Graf Christian V. (auch Christian VI.) (vor 1342 - nach 6. April 1399) ∞ Agnes von Hohnstein-Heiringen
1398-1423: Graf Christian VI. (auch Christian VII.) (ca. 1378 - 1423)
1423-1440: Graf Dietrich, der Glückliche (vor 1394 - 22. Januar 1440) ∞ Heilwig zu Schleswig
French Wikipedia mentions which is mostly taken from here
Christian IV co comte d'Oldenbourg 1305-1324.
Conrad I comte d'Oldenbourg 1344-1368.
Conrad II comte d'Oldenbourg 1368-1386 abdique, mort en 1401.
Maurice comte d'Oldenbourg 1386-1398 abdique, mort en 1420.
Christian V comte d'Oldenbourg 1398-1423.
Thierry L'Heureux ou Le Fortun? n? vers 1390, comte d'Oldenbourg 1423-1440 abdique, mort le 22/01/1444.
Partitioned between Denmark, itself, and Delmenhorst
Here is my question who was this Christian IV who ruled (1386-1398). Christian IV in the French wikipedia was a co-count that ruled 80 years before the years where the two other Christian show up. The German wikipedia shows the dates when these people lived and it appears that the elder Christian was the father of Dietrich and the younger one was someone else, probably a brother. But could anybody tell me more and help fix the mixed up in the list.
I seem to remember years ago a Wikipedia article listing notable children, i.e. individuals who accomplished notability before becoming an adult. But I cannot find any such article anymore. I've tried notable children, notable teens, notable teenagers, etc. Any ideas where this article went? Was it deleted? Is there an AfD? Kingturtle (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be just notable people that are currently children, rather than people that were notable when they were children, which I think is what the OP is after. --Tango (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I remember them too, I think they were "List of famous children" etc. They were probably deleted so long ago that they can't be viewed even by admins. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a complete idiot when it comes to economics, but I was thinking the other day about how the GBP is always stronger than the USD or Euro, despite it seeming like the United States and EU economies are stronger. By this I mean that for one pound, you can get approx. 1.5 dollars, or 1.1 euros. Why is the British Pound so strong against other currencies of countries such as the United States? Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 15:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's the way it started out (or settled down to after some major economic event). The strength of a currency isn't determined by the absolute exchange rate (which is just an arbitrary number), but by how the exchange changes. When we say a currency is strong we mean it is worth more than it has done on average over recent history. --Tango (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The fact that GBP1=USD1.5 (or whatever it is today) doesn't tell you anything about the relative "strengths" of the currencies, as they effectively started out as arbitrary units. If the UK replaced the Pound by a "New Pound" (GBN) that was equivalent to 1p (GBP0.1) then you would have GBN1 = USD0.015, but that wouldn't mean that the GBN was "weak" compared to the Dollar. (France did the reverse of this in the early 1960s, when they introduced a "New Franc" worth 100 old Francs.) Strength refers more to how the relationship changes over time: I can remember the days when GBP1 = USD2.80; more recently it was closer to parity (GBP1=USD1). See Exchange rate. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But if you got 1.5 USD for 1 GBP, doesn't that imply you're getting more for your money? Or are things simply more expensive in America so it equals out? As you can guess, I don't know much about economics. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 16:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's consult amazon.com in the US and in the UK. An Xbox 360 with a 60GB drive in the US costs US$299.99. In the UK it costs ₤169.99 (normal price). The calculator at xe.com says today that one US dollar is worth about 0.611 UK pounds. Multiplying 299.99 by 0.611 gives us 183.29 pounds, meaning that if you took your US$299.99 to the UK, converted your dollars to pounds (assuming no exchange fees), and purchased the Xbox there, you'd still have 13.3 pounds in change; so today, you actually get a little more for your money in America, at least if you are in the market for an Xbox 360. (You don't get more for your money just because you're in America buying with dollars, though — I'm sure the price difference has something to do with shipping costs, and of course differing supply and demand in the region.) Does that help? Tempshill (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, when you hear on the news that the dollar "has strengthened" or "has weakened", that doesn't translate to "good for Americans" and "bad for Americans" respectively. If the dollar "weakens" against foreign currencies, that means that 1 British pound will purchase more US dollars, and 1 US dollar will purchase fewer British pounds. A "weaker" dollar is bad news for American tourists, who will find that foreign accommodations and travel will be more expensive for them, because they can't buy as many pounds as they could previously; but a "weaker" dollar is good news for the American tourist industry, because Brits will be able to buy more dollars for their pounds, and presumably more Brit tourists will come to America and spend money there, because they can get better value for the pound. The same applies to American businesses who import and export goods — from the perspective of a Brit, when the dollar is "weaker", American goods become cheaper and hence sales of American goods increase. The reverse is true when the dollar "strengthens". It's too bad we use the strong/weak verbiage when discussing currency fluctuations. The exchange rate article has more, and also see the "Foreign exchange" infobox links off to the right of that article. Tempshill (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Following on from Tempshill, it's worth noting that some countries prefer to have a "weak" currency (or, conversely a strong one) and design their financial policies accordingly. For example, if a country is reliant on its export trade, then they want a 'lower' currency, to entice purchasers of their products, or to get the maximum benefit from world commodity prices. (Take New Zealand, for example, who made a fair amount from exporting milk powder when the NZD was low and the milk price high.) On the other hand, countries which rely heavily on the import of commodities want their currency to have a high exchange value, to maximise what they can buy for their money. Gwinva (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Modern Polyandry
Hypothetically, say a woman in the US marries one man. Then she falls in love with another. The husband is accepting of this relationship and allows the second man to live with the couple. Legally, I guess, it would appear that there is a married couple and a single man living in the same residence. So, the wife decides to have one child with her husband which will have his last name. Then later she decides she wants a child with the second man. Would the hospital (or the state) allow the child with the second man to have the second man's last name? And if so, would someone look into whether she committed adultery? Is that punishable in some sense by law in the US even if all parties are accepting of the situation? --Reticuli88 (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States, laws vary from state to state. In those states where adultery is still on the statute book (although rarely prosecuted), penalties vary from life sentence (Michigan)[30], to a fine of $10 (Maryland), to a Class I felony (Wisconsin) [31]. In the U.S. Military, adultery is a potential court-martial offense.[10] The enforceability of adultery laws in the United States has been / is being questioned following Supreme Court decisions since 1965 relating to privacy and sexual intimacy of consenting adults, in cases such as Lawrence v. Texas.
I don't know about registering births in the US. In the UK the mother's husband is assumed to be the father unless the mother says otherwise or there is a paternity test saying otherwise (as I recall). Surnames in the UK can be pretty much anything you want (there are a few restrictions, but nothing says you have to have your father's name, or your mother's husbands name or anything like that). --Tango (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[14] Sounds like the General Register Office tries to deliberately keep it vague to avoid people rules-lawyering. Deed poll services often place sensible restrictions. Remember that in the UK there isn't really the concept of an 'official name' as such.89.168.106.72 (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the name on your birth cert, passport etc is your 'official name'. What meaning could 'official name' have, other than the name the state knows you by?Stanstaple (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These kinds of issues are generally handled at the state level, so it will vary. In North Carolina, it requires legal action to put someone besides the husband on the birth certificate. --Sean17:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link actually shows the address and number of the site you are discussing, so by Googling the address, it appears to be a water treatment plant of some sort. The realtor.com site on it helpfully states that it was built in 1898. (What, by the way, is a smoke factory?) Tempshill (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically there could have been a bigger company 20 years ago but that does not seem likely so I agree with you. I guess there are some public organizations though like the U.S. military that are bigger. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1.4M people in the Catholic church? Try 1.086 billion in 2005 [1]. Not sure at all where you are getting 1.4M people from the Catholic Church article. "1.4" doesn't appear anywhere in the text. And you seem to have missed the first sentence of the article which mentions "over a billion"...and later in the article where it says "1.147 billion people." Kingturtle (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It's hardly reasonable to compare Catholic worshippers to Wal-Mart employees. A more sensible comparison would be of Catholic worshippers to Wal-Mart customers, or (as the OP seems to intend, and as I have done), Catholic Church employees to Wal-Mart employees. Algebraist19:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is why your comment about more than a billion Catholics was irrelevant. I'm not certain all of those 1.4M should be considered employees, but it suffices for an upper bound. Algebraist19:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about OPEC? Would you count all the employees of all the national oil companies of OPEC members?
Sorry to hijack the question, but what about a single person? I'm thinking QEII as the personification of Canada, but are there any of those interesting arrangements, like that one, in other countries? Or even any businesses where people are employed by jsut that one person? - Jarry1250[ humourous – discuss ]19:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nationalised oil company workers and those officially employees of the Queen of the UK/Queen of Canada/Queen of every other Commonwealth Realm are state employees. Moreover, Communist Party employees in any country such as the People's Republic of China are effectively state workers: officially they're separate, but practically they're identical. Nyttend (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. They are still GM employees. The U.S. is a 60% equity shareholder in the company, but the company is still a private company run by its own board of directors. The U.S. government does not "own" GM anymore than a single shareholder, even one with 51% or more of the stock, can be said to "own" any publicly traded company. --Jayron32.talk.contribs18:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nicolas Sarkozy is always getting height-based jokes about him in sections of the UK press, and he's 5ft 6 apparently. Not sure if that makes him smallest but he's the most prominent leader that I can think of that gets comments about height. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there was reliable data out there -- and I'd be astonished to find that there was -- it would be interesting to ask the same question on an all-time basis. My nominee for the recordholder would be King John I of France. But what if it was restricted to adults? The Napoleon article says he wasn't really all that short; are there any good answers? --Anonymous, 20:40 UTC, July 9, 2009.
Another historical king known as "the Short" was Władysław the Short of Poland. His Polish cognomen, also rendered as "the Elbow-high", is "Łokietek". It is a diminutive of "łokieć", which is an old unit of lenght equivalent to the cubit. I don't believe he was really that short (a cubit is less than a meter), but he must have been vertically challenged nonetheless. According to Internet sources, he was about 130 cm tall. — Kpalion(talk)07:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no indication that he was. His article states there are no surviving first-hand accounts, and the one second-hand one says he was merely "short of stature". Clarityfiend (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I remember going to the Cummer Art Museum in Jacksonville, FL a while back and I saw an interesting painting. I can't remember the title or artist, but I remember the painting was of an 17th or 18th century ship with its masts up. The ship looked like it had run aground on a beach and the ship was tilted on its side at about 45 degrees. It was also sunset. If anyone knows what painting this is, I'd be really grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.154.88.53 (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your description sounds like any one of a half dozen of Aivazovsky’s paintings. He is best known for his wonderful water, and often painted with sunset or moon glow, after a storm. (See the Gallery at the bottom of the article page, specifically the painitng entitled Moonlit Seascape With Shipwreck.) I don't know if the Cummer has any of his works. // BL \\ (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
British monarchy
Hypothetical scenario. If britain had a king who died but whose consort was pregnant what would happen then. Would it be held for the child and a council of regency be established. Or would he be overlooked in favor of the next in line to the throne? --Thanks, Hadseys23:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Legally, a posthumous child is considered to have the same status as it would as if it had been alive at the time of the father's death. In the situation above, the throne would be held for the child, assuming they are the only child of the royal couple. If the royal couple have an older boy, he would inherit; if they only had a girl, then inheritance would depend on the sex of the posthumous child.. a boy would inherit in preference to the older girl (in the British monarchy). A "regent" might well be established until the child is old enough to reign in his/her own right. This would have been a pretty powerful and essential role in the past when the king had more constitutional powers; now, they would presumably take on a similar the role to a Governor-General. Gwinva (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It actually happened in France. See John I of France, aka John the Posthumous, whose father died before he was born. He was thus officially the youngest King of France (being king from birth) and also the shortest lived, as child died at 5 days old. --Jayron32.talk.contribs01:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to precedent set by Queen Victoria's accession, in case of sovereign dying while his consort was pregnant (or possibly pregnant), the crown would be inherited by the person next in line. That person would reign until the birth of the child and would then automatically cease being a monarch as if he/she died. The child would become sovereign at the moment of its birth (unless it was female with an older sister). That's the scenario planned by Regency Act 1830 - had Queen Adelaide given birth to William IV's child after his death, the child would've succeeded Victoria as if she died. Surtsicna (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just imagine the fun if the queen didn't know she was pregnant with her first child at the time the king died. Here is his younger brother thinking he's already acceded to the throne (the coronation ceremony in British royalty is a formality and does not mark the transfer of power), and then the following week he hears "well, maybe not -- I missed my period". --Anonymous, 07:04 UTC, July 10, 2009.
I think that's a real possibility, and it would definitely put the royal cat among the royal pigeons. These days, having acknowledged the possibility that the widowed queen consort might happen to be pregnant without being aware of it, they could surely test that medically before proclaiming her brother-in-law as the new king. Coronations tend to occur quite some time (in Elizabeth II's case it was 16 months) after the accession, so the issue (in both senses of the word) would have arisen well before then and they wouldn't plan a coronation unless they were sure there was someone available to crown. There'd have to be a regent until the new monarch reaches 18, but regents are not crowned afaik.-- JackofOz (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The proclamation and coronation are purely ceremonial. Legally the new monarch becomes monarch immediately upon the death of the old monarch. They can delay the proclamation and coronation all they want, it would make no difference. --Tango (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JackofOz who talked about testing before proclaiming despite the proclamation being completely irrelevant, legally. --Tango (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't arguing that at all. I was simply talking about a scenario where it was unclear who the new monarch was: the late king's younger brother, or the late king's as yet unborn child, whose very existence might not be certain until they could perform tests on its mother to see whether she was pregnant or not. Even if she were pregnant, the foetus could die in utero, and sometimes it's not clear for some time that this has happened. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no really authoritative source, but as the Royal Family website puts it, "...the Act of Settlement confirmed that it was for Parliament to determine the title to the throne." It would be up to Parliament to elect a new monarch. It's an interesting question whether the power to elect a ruler in the absence of an heir would entitle Parliament to declare a republic (the Finnish Parliament used just that argument in 1917, and we're happily republican since then, having been spared a German king). It's not immediately clear that it would, but then it was not immediately clear that it had the power to install William and Mary, either.--Rallette (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Such an Act of Parliament would still need Royal Assent, so I'm not sure what would happen if they ran out of heirs suddenly and didn't have time to pass an Act before the monarch died. If there was some warning it would be simple enough to pass an act repealing the Sophia-clause (or abolishing the monarchy entirely). --Tango (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that the Queen or King could withold Royal Assent; see again Charles I of England, James II of England. In most cases where there has been a constitutional crisis of this nature, parliament has made it abundantly clear that, when push comes to shove, it has supremacy in ALL matters, including this one. Again, I am not saying Parliament would take any act of this nature without just cause to do so, but it has shown in the past that where it deems necessary, it will make the ultimate decision about who will be King or Queen. --Jayron32.talk.contribs18:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but if there isn't a monarch there is no-one to give Royal Assent, even if it is just a formality. Some kind of extralegal action would be required - it would basically be a revolution or coup, albeit an extremely peaceful one. --Tango (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're forgetting that these days the UK monarch rarely personally puts pen to paper to give Royal Assent to bills. This action is taken by the Lords Commissioners in the name of the sovereign. Maybe they could do it on behalf of the crown, even if they could not name the occupier of that office. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's your source for that, Jack? A few years ago there was a BBC documentary about the Queen, which showed her signing bills and giving her Royal Assent. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I’m confused, I must say. I have also seen photos of the Queen personally signing bills, but I thought it was nowadays an uncommon practice. I can’t find it now, but I was certain this topic was discussed here not that long ago, and it was generally understood that only certain special bills are sent to the Palace for the Queen’s personal signature, and that the others are done by the Lords Commissioners in her name. Royal Assent says that"... the Sovereign does not actually analyze the bill and make a decision on whether or not to grant Assent. In practice, the granting of Assent is purely ceremonial. Officially, Assent is granted by the Sovereign or by Lords Commissioners authorised to act by letters patent". But later on, it says: "During the 1960s, the ceremony of assenting by Commission was discontinued, and is now only employed once a year, at the end of the annual parliamentary session."This link talks about the LCs giving Royal Assent by Commission. If nothing else, it’s a fascinating insight into the sorts of arcane ritual that may still sometimes prevail. However, it seems to suggest that the LCs don’t have a standing commission to assent to any bills without reference to the sovereign, but each bill or group of bills has to be the subject of a separate commission under Letters Patent from the sovereign - which almost seems to defeat the purpose. It would be more time consuming to have Letters Patent created, which she has to sign anyway, than to simply sign the damn bills and be done with it. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think she would have to actually go to the Houses of Parliament if she were to assent to them herself. If you watch the clip of the new Speaker's recent approbation the commissioners said something along the lines of "It not being convenient for Her Majesty to be present at this time she has commissioned us to issue the following", I guess Royal Assent is a similar process, although apparently they don't go through the whole ritual every time (I don't know what legal fiction they use to get around that). --Tango (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the words are mentioned in the link I provided. But I don't understand why there'd be any such requirement for a queen, when it doesn't apply to her governors-general. They just sign bills into law in the comfort of their official residences, and brief messages are conveyed to the parliament that assent has been granted. The only time governors-general are ever required to physically appear in parliament is at the opening of a new parliament after a general election. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what effectively happens, but what legally happens may well be that the monarch/governor-general signs a commission authorising someone else to sign the actual bill into law, and that happens in parliament. --Tango (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not the case in Australia. The G-G personally signs the bill at home or wherever, and parliament is then informed that Royal Assent has been granted. See a recent example, page 40, 2nd column, where 10 bills have been assented to. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question on Dow Industrial
Currently the Dow is something like 8000-8200 ish. It is not a simple average. So with the current values of the stocks, how much does 1 stock going down 1 point affect the Dow average? Say if Chevron dropped 1 point and everything else stayed constant? Googlemeister (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard persistent stories for several years now that Madame Ngô Đình Nhu used those pistols she was often photographed with, upon those who incurred her wrath. Examples I've heard include her shooting a hairdresser who gave her a bad 'do, and sniping at strategic hamlets from a helicopter. Google search brings up nothing, maybe I don't have the right keywords, maybe the text is all in Vietnamese, which I can't read... Help? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some record in history of a case where two nations are at war, and the ruler (king, president, whatever) of one nation personally kills the ruler of the other one? -GTBacchus(talk)17:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What an interesting question. I'm gonna probably spend the better part of the next hour thinking of possible answers to this. It is certainly the case where heads of state have died in battles where both were present, see Harold Godwinson, defending England at the Battle of Hastings, at which William the Conquerer, then ruling Duke of Normandy, was also present leading the invading army. But it is almost certain that William did not personally kill Harold in battle. It's a certainly interesting question... --Jayron32.talk.contribs18:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, our article on the duel (different thing, I know) mentions that "In 1593 Siamese King Naresuan slays Burmese Crown Prince Minchit Sra, in a duel on the back of war elephants", which is altogether pretty close. I think he was the son of the King of Ayutthaya. - Jarry1250[ humourous – discuss ]18:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Single combat in warfare has been common at various times and places, but was normally fought between opposing champions rather than leaders. Naresuan's killing of the opposing prince in elephantback combat is the closest thing mentioned in that article. Algebraist18:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. So there are a few battles where one of the leaders is killed, but it's not entirely clear whose actual hand did it. In the Biblical case, there are conflicting accounts. Then there's the war-elephant duel. I think I'm gonna go ahead and say that counts, per the "War-elephants Clause", (there always is one) which says that if war-elephants are involved, other rules might just change.
Talorgan I of the Picts and Dúnchad mac Conaing get an honorable mention for cool-sounding names, and obviously, Necho II wins "best dressed".
It is a fun question though, isn't it? I'm not sure what's compelling about it. On a comic-book level, I like the idea of killing someone and taking their country, but I would be horrified if I heard that Obama had gotten on an war-elephant, was vanquished, and now I'm Canadian, or Dutch or something.
Other than single combat in battle, another way this could happen is if a leader is captured and the opposing leader chooses to kill them personally. I have no idea whether this has actually occurred or not. Algebraist19:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Bulgarian tsar Krum made a drinking cup out of Byzantine emperor Nikephoros I's skull, although he probably didn't kill him personally. Also, Saladin personally killed (or ordered someone to kill while he was standing right there) Raynald of Chatillon, who, although not the king of Jerusalem, was the most powerful noble of the kingdom. (He had captured the king too, though.) Adam Bishop (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No head of state has actually been killed while fighting in battle leading the army since Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden in 1632. A fighting leader would be subject to being captured and humiliated before being executed. This dictates against being in the final fight at all, and then there is the unlikelihood of being in a place to do single combat with the opposing leader. Edison (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this is a philosophy/logic question or a language one, but I'll ask here to start with. Is there a term for arguing that because something is unimportant, the person making the argument should get their way? For example, there are two people arguing over who should get the last box of candy, and one of them says: "It's only candy. Why do you care who gets it? Just let me have it." Similarly, a politician might say: "We propose that the law should say X, but the other party claims that it should say Y. However, there is no practical difference between the two, so they should stop being obstructive and support a law which says X." If this is the whole of the argument, it would seem to be poor logic — an issue may well be unimportant, but by itself, that doesn't constitute an argument for or against either of the options, does it? People are basically arguing "it doesn't matter, so I win", even though "it doesn't matter, so you win" seems to make just as much sense unless there are other factors involved. Is there a term to describe this sort of argument? -- 203.97.105.173 (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it took until the 1900s for someone to be the first to say (or even write) that. It sounds more like a phrase that would have its roots as a popular saying and with a much longer history. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Variants that may be useful for searching include "If you're so smart why aren't you rich?" and "If you're so smart why ain't you rich?" I vaguely recall the latter as the last line of a Eudora Welty story, though I don't remember the title. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"If You So Smart, How Come You Ain't Rich?" is the title of a song by Louis Jordan. As Jordan was a major figure in American music, it was likely this that made the "If You So Smart, How Come You Ain't Rich?" line so well-known.
I seem to recall us talking about this very song not too many months ago on here. It definitely is what popularized the phrase in US culture (there are zero newspaper references to it before the song came out, which is a decent barometer), but that of course is just a discussion about what popularized it, not originated (which is a dubious game to try and play anyway, as William Safire discussed in a recent column). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to the building of the Beeston canal 1796, did a ford over the river Trent exist in a position below where the existing weir built with the canal is now. In August 2006 the river level was very low, so low in fact that a line of stones crossing the river appeared above the water level (I do have photographs of these stones). I have lived in Beeston for 70 years never before have i seen this "ford". can anyone help to determine if my assumption would be correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.222.111 (talk) 10:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably your local history society or municipal archives or librarian will have better access to sources than random people will be able to turn up by searching the Internet... AnonMoos (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Netherlands the most Islamophobic country in the world?
Probably not; however, it's the country where some political groups have currently gained electoral traction on an anti-Muslim-immigrant platform (partially based on the fact that in some cases Muslims rather conspicuously stand out in a small densely-populated country which used to be quite homogeneous in many respects). AnonMoos (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if the Netherlands as a nation actually discriminates against or persecutes Muslims as a matter of public policy, somehow I doubt it though, which is what I'd describe as an Islamophobic country. I'd say the country, the state, must be held seperate from the people who happen to live in it.
France has the no burqa in schools policy which is seen as officially anti-Muslim by many. (and the President's recent comment on banning them completely) The Netherlands had the nude sunbathers in the cultural video required viewing for immigrants that which some saw as officially anti-Muslim[15]. Rmhermen (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much nonsense -- politicized Islamic ideology actually played a fairly small role in the Arab-Israeli conflict before the early 1980's, and over the last 60 years Muslims have had a lot more freedom to publicly worship in Israel than Jews have had freedom to publicly worship in Arab countries (there are a lot of mosques in Israel, but I would be surprised if the number of currently-functioning synagogues in all Arab-ruled countries other than Morocco was much beyond the single digits). AnonMoos (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can argue to great length what the criteria for measuring Islamophobia (or Antisemitism) would be, but the quantitive measuring of number of religious buildings is probably the least useful. The number of mosques in present-day Israel is primarily related to the fact that Palestine was a predominately Muslim country prior to Nakba. By similar argument, Bhutan would be far more antisemitic than Poland. If we are to measure Islamophobia (which probably will turn out to be an impossibility to find an objective set of criteria) then it ought to be more interesting to measure attitudes amongst the population towards Muslims (in terms of negative stereotypes, etc.). It's quite difficult to white-wash the fact that Islamophobic attitudes, and anti-Arab attitudes in general, are very prevalent in Israeli society today. --Soman (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is NOT the case that "By similar argument, Bhutan would be far more antisemitic than Poland"! My observation was that the number of functioning synagogues in Arab countries has undergone a dramatic and catastrophically precipitous decline over the course of the 20th century, while the number of functioning mosques in Israel has moderately increased since the early 1950's. I really doubt whether there has been a corresponding DECLINE in the number of synagogues in Bhutan, so Thimphu is off the hook. It's not perfect, of course, but the fact of a decline in the number of functioning houses of worship of a particular religion in a particular country can be a roughly-approximate yet practically-useful indicator of big problems with freedom of religion in cases where opinion surveys are not available, or would not be all that helpful...
In any case, fighting wars with enemies who happen to be majority-Muslim is not the same thing as Islamophobia, and if there has been a rise in purely-religious odium theologicum in the Arab-Israeli conflict, it is because many Muslims have made a deliberate conscious intentional choice to emphasize that aspect over the last 30 years or so. During the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's, most Arab leaders were careful to state that the Arab-Israeli conflict was not a "religious war" as such... AnonMoos (talk) 10:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an honest question with a possible answer, but simply an attempt to provide opportunity of venting personal points-of-view. It is entirely inappropriate to the Reference desk.--Wetman (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
+1 What Wetman said. I don't usualy use discussion boards language here, but this question, although probably posted in good faith, deserves it.TomorrowTime (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course a country includes the people living in the country. If you were a Muslim living in the Netherlands, how much prejudice and discrimination would you face? Compare with other countries. That is what I mean by Islamophobic. So Wetman, this is a relevant question.
Here is a report on a 2006 survey of attitudes toward Muslims in 13 countries (as well as Muslims' attitudes towards the West). Of the countries surveyed, Spaniards were the most likely to agree that Muslims are "fanatical;" (non-Muslim) Nigerians were the most likely to agree that Muslims are "violent;" and Indians were most likely to agree that Muslims are "arrogant." Interestingly, Americans and Britons were less likely to hold negative views of Muslims than people in other countries did. Some of the countries mentioned in this discussion, such as the Netherlands and Denmark, were not included in the survey. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This question is based on the classic logical fallacy known as the fallacy of many questions. "When did you stop beating your wife?". The fact that it presupposes a condition which is not yet shown to be true (the islamophobia of dutch society) makes it a loaded question, as Wetman notes above. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama03:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not plurium interrogationum. The questioner is clearly assuming that Holland is islamophobic, but this presupposition is not actually required to answer the question. If Holland is not in fact islamophobic, then the question can be answered with a simple 'no'. Algebraist09:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me the question cannot be answered in any meaningful way without first answering this one.
What objective measures of "Islamophobia" are to be used?
Also, are some sort of statistics maintained that would allow comparing one country to another? Perhaps there is some agency that has such information. CBHA (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say there is not any islamaphobic countries; Countries in the modern world only seem interested in being politicaly correct right down to the foundations of society; however if you flip that on its head you do not see this happening in a Muslim dominated society Muslim is right no matter what and there is no give and take for other people living in that country especially if you are a minority. There for only people with a phobia against a religion would be islamic countries (if your not a muslim and you dont become one you should be killed i think the mantra is)214.13.64.7 (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How ironic, what 214 said is an example of Islamophobia. Like I said, how much prejudice and discrimination would a Dutch Muslim face compared to, say, a Singaporean Muslim? Prejudice and discrimination can range from negative stereotypes to hate speech to hate crimes to official discrimination. I believe there are ways to measure Islamophobia and compare the level of Islamophobia in different countries. For example, statistics on hate crimes, surveys about prejudice (I saw one above) and info on official discrimination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.64.28 (talk) 10:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that 214.13.64.7 was trying to point out (in his own rhetorically loose way) that the status of Christians in Pakistan (for example) is not an enviable one... AnonMoos (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Faulty logic in supporting the example of inelastic demand
While it is true that the demand for drinking water is inelastic and that for sugar is comparatively elastic, the argument put forward that it is so because there are many substitutes for sugar is faulty.If GUR, saccharine, or other substitutes are expected to replace sugar it is incorrect because no of them is cheaper than sugar.The reason why demand for sugar falls when prices go up too much is because poorer people forego its consumption.#REDIRECT [[Sharma_1932#REDIRECT Target page name]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharma1932 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would guess that EVERY American university with a History Department has classes on the American Civil War, and many outside of the U.S. likely will as well. It is, without a doubt, one of the most studied aspects of American history. At many universities with a 2-semester "General U.S. History" sequence, the civil war generally takes up the last half of the first semester's class, probably at least one or two months. I would also almost guarantee that any sizable 4-year school will also have a specific class about the Civil War itself; and likely will have several classes, each from different perspectives. Looking at the history courses at my alma mater, I can see ones titled "Civil War and Reconstruction" and "United States Social and Cultural History: 1850-1929" and "Historical Archaeology of American Battlefields" just skimming a few which would probably have special emphasis on the Civil War. And this was not an Ivy League school, but a state university on the East Coast. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama04:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Book
I remember reading a book in my childhood that had something with "Snake Island" in the title (though I might be wrong) and some stuff about manioc (tapioca, cassava) and a skeleton in a cave. That's sadly all I can remember. Does anyone know what it was? 80.123.210.172 (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alaska was settled by the Russians and western Canada by the British. The border between British and Russian America was established by treaty in 1825. In 1867, the U.S. bought Alaska from Russia. The adjacent areas of British America became part of Canada in the 1870s. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
July 13
English royal succession discrepency
Request comments:
Under Act of Parliament 1331, foreign title holders not born in England are not part of the royal line of succession. This not only barred the Portuguese allied Lancastrian heirs of Edward III (which included Henry the Navigator), but was reason for Henry VIII to bar the Scottish line via Margaret from succeeding Elizabeth, also should have been enough to keep Philip of Spain, William of Orange as well as Hanoverian descendants off of the throne, in self interest, rather than jure uxoris.
Foreign-born were, in order, from Denmark (Sweyn Forkbeard), then Hungary (Edgar Aetheling), Scotland (St. Margaret), Rome (Henry IV, Salian emperor), France (William the Conqueror), Acre (Princess Joan), Wales (Edward II), Portugal (Edward/Duarte of Portugal), etc. with repetitions from these nations, interwoven for the line of primogeniture.
I'm just digging now to see the Edwardian Portuguese line, considering the ancient alliance and it being the most recent foreign origin of royal blood, before the hypocritical & typical Tudor "approval" for interjection of the Scottish James VI on the basis of contrived religious policy, followed later with his foreign heirs, most of which, like James himself, were originally non-Anglo-Protestants, much less Anglo-Catholics. There was a vague accessory hope for uniting the two kingdoms into a more powerful "Britain", by allowing the Scottish male line to succeed in England, rather than the English male line to succeed in Scotland. (the Scots would never allow a reverse) A similar set of unions were to follow, under the Hanoverians, when the "official" construction of "Britain" occurred, or at least confirmed by Parliament, designer and architect of Protestant unifications, through the machinations of the Lords Cromwell, whether the Earl of Essex or his nephew the Lord Protector and their Prime Minister followers.
I'm having difficulty working through all your rhetorical flourishes to find the basic meaning, but having a foreigner come to rule one's country would seem to be a legitimate political concern in most contexts. However, in the post-medieval period foreign monarchs did in fact ascend to rule over England in 1603 (James I, Scottish), 1689 (William III, Dutch), and 1714 (George I, German)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the value of such legislation as the 1331 act of parliament and the succession act of Henry VIII, which bar foreigners, if Parliament simply overrides the code, without actually eliminating it? What present legal status is afforded legislation which has never been abolished? How else to put it, than a government which acts as if it is above its own laws? 70.171.239.21 (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of your analysis that Edward II was foreign-born, as England had annexed Wales by 1331 and made it part of England. I suspect the answer to your question lies in the English Reformation somewhere: if Henry VIII (or Elizabeth) had passed an edict saying only non-Catholics were eligible to take the throne, this may have included the intent that the 1331 law be rescinded. I'm also not sure of your point about the English male line taking over in Scotland: surely the point was that there was no English line of succession full stop so the question is not relevant. I would also point out that, until the English Revolution in the 1650s, Parliament was not the supreme legislator in this country: the King could still demand that his Subjects obey his own laws, and not those passed by Parliament. This was the very thing that got Charles I beheaded.--TammyMoet (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How did Parliament override both the 1331 act and the Henrician succession acts (both of which were exclusionary), to import James and all the others in his wake, all the while presenting their case as though it was nativist, vis a vis Philip of Spain, or even the old French dynasties? If you point to the Reformation, then that is a further cause of inquiry: how do German ministers become more natural and customary than Roman priests, except by a coup d'etat via the "fidei defensor"? 70.171.239.21 (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
English translation for chain of law, police and forensic scientists
Hi all,
I'm looking for a nice translation of the Dutch word strafrechtsketen, or if that doesn't exist, ketenpartner. The word strafrechtsketen means something like "the chain of cooperating instances in law and order, like police, forensic institutes and law enforcement" or maybe something like "chain of criminal law"? The word ketenpartner might be translated as something like "chain of cooperating instances", or "partner in the chain". I would be very pleased if someone could help me with the correct word, since neither of them can be found in my dictionary.
From CNN: "They were the two most famous African-Americans in the world: President Barack Obama and Michael Jackson." Is Martin Luther King not one of the two most famous African-American?--Quest09 (talk) 10:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps they meant the ones with the most world-wide publicity on a given day? The most photos in that day's media circus? Certainly Martin Luther King's legacy is more important than Michael Jackson's, and will live on a lot longer....in fact if it were not for King it is unlikely Obama would be President today. Put it down to stupid TV hype. - 125.63.156.249 (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think MJ probably is more famous than MLK, both inside and outside the US. MLK’s legacy is clearly more important and long-lasting, but a living entertainer, that’s been in the news a lot in recent decades, is going to be recognized by more people than a civil rights leader who’s been dead for 41 years, that a lot of youngsters will only know about from history class. MLK is certainly well-known to the intellectual elite, but MJ is part of the modern US pop culture that inundates everybody on the planet. Red Act (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because the CNN quote is in the past tense ("they were the two most famous", and not are the two most famous), the meaning seems to be that Jackson and Obama were the two most famous living African Americans, but are no longer, now that Jackson is dead. It was once often claimed that Muhammad Ali was the most famous living black American; maybe he's back at #2, though I think Oprah and Will Smith are on the short list. —KevinMyers12:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is rather American-centric to assume that a very important person in American history would be more known worldwide than a person who has spent the last 20 years breaking album records and doing sold-out shows all around the world. For example, Olusegun Obasanjo is an extremely important person in Nigeria and every person in Nigeria knows who he is. However, he is not well-known everywhere in the world. -- kainaw™13:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I remember hearing something about different projects regarding the new boundary between Italy and Jugoslavia after WWII, but there are no mentions about it in this article or anywhere else on Wikipedia (as far as I know). For example I recall that Russia asked for a larger italian area to be annexed to Jugoslavia. I'd like to find somethig about it. --151.51.50.16 (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
![[3]](http://bp3.blogger.com/_xQwP8MNj0EA/R21FPASU4-I/AAAAAAAAD-g/BSICNCQa3KE/s1600-h/C12384.jpg){kind=link}
