Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

February 16

Ismaili Mustalis and Nizaris

Is there any Arab Shi'a Muslim who is either belongs to Mustali or Nizari? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.7 (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the Nizari article, there are "about 15,000 [ Ismā'īlī ] in western Syria" that do not follow the Aga Khan IV, so I'd assume that there are others that do. I'd guess there would be some Arabs in that group. NJGW (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

We have an article on Mustaali... AnonMoos (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Boiling to Death

The question on the science desk reminded me of a newspaper story that I want to find but frustratingly cannot remember any proper nouns/specific details about. A teenage girl was abducted by a man hoping to extort money from her parents. Her father, believing the kidnappers would not kill her because doing so would eliminate any chance of financial gain, engaged in brinksmanship. He adamantly refused to pay the sum demanded unless it was lowered significantly (by 80%?). After finding out that even torturing the girl wasn't even enough to get him money, the kidnapper threatened to boil her alive. To the father's surprise--he said something like "Oh? So he doesn't want the money?"--he carried out the threat.

This story is from around two years ago. I read it on the Internet, so it might have happened virtually anywhere in the English-speaking world. Can anybody find it? --99.237.96.81 (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

perplexing why it would have had to happen in the English-speaking world, unless that's all your news sources cover? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.97.16 (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't bite. If you have no answer for the question, remain silent. --Milkbreath (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason is simple: this news story is from an English article that I believed was describing a local event. I could be wrong, though, considering that I don't remember enough details to find any related information. --99.237.96.81 (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's biting. It's a valid question based on the phrasing of the OP's question Nil Einne (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What a father. Are you sure that it wasn't an urban legend? There are many stories of very brtual crimes like that on the Internet which usually began as chain emails: ...and if you don't send this to 15 people by midnight, their ghosts will come and boil you! That kind of thing Library Seraph (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It could have been an urban legend, but I don't remember doubting the legitimacy of the website; it looked like a site of a newspaper. About the comment "what a father"--well, not everybody has millions of dollars to spare, and not every kidnapper can judge how much money the victim's family is financially able to pay. Taking a hard line may have been the best choice for both parties with the information they had. --99.237.96.81 (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you just hand over the money this time then you are encouraging others to do the same thing. (That's the reasoning behind "don't negotiate with terrorists" policies.) --Tango (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There was no boiling involved but the brinkmanship sounds like the story at the bottom of this page--Digrpat (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think cutting off fingers to prove you are serious when someone refuses to pay is particulrly uncommon when it comes to kidnappings sadly Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Historical forms of address

A&C Black's Titles and Forms of Address (for example) is a useful summary of modern customs regarding titles and addresses. But when did these customs become established? We now have a very strict hierarchy and order, and would never address a knight as "my lord", or an earl as "your grace". Were these distinctions always as rigorous, or might a man have called his master "my lord"? Also, how might kings and queens be addressed in the past? I know "Your Majesty" is not an old form, and while Queen Elizabeth II is addressed "Ma'am" (after the initial "Your Majesty"), I can't imagine anyone addressed Queen Elizabeth I so familiarly. And were there similar forms and traditions in other languages, or did they develop independently? (I did try to search Wikipedia for these answers, but the various title pages seem to discuss only the current forms.) Thank you in advance for your comments. Colours Blazing (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have the impression that the rules in Tudor times were more variable and less elaborately codified than in the 19th century... AnonMoos (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I remember watching a programme (UK television - may have been Channel 4) which claimed that "Your Majesty" was invented by Henry VIII. Before that, monarchs had been referred to as "Your Highness". On another TV programme about the Duke and Duchess of Devonshire, the staff referred to them as "Your Grace" to their faces - saying "Yes, your Grace" in reply to a question, for example. The staff at Longleat (on the BBC's Animal Park series) seem to refer to the Marquess of Bath as "Lord Bath" and "Sir" to his face. I know you're not really interested in current forms, but it seems instructive here. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Forms_of_address#United_Kingdom and Forms_of_Address_in_the_United_Kingdom. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, the formal English usage to do with titles has changed very little since the late 17th century, but the medieval uses were very different. "Your Highness" and "Your Majesty" came into general use in English in the mid 16th century. Elizabeth I was often (but not always) called "Your Majesty", and Shakespeare uses "Your Majesty" in addressing some of his kings - even King Lear. Xn4 (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Your answers are all very interesting, particularly the Shakespeare reference. XN4 - what were the medieval uses? Colours Blazing (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That calls for quite a long essay, but to give you two examples, in the later Middle Ages the wife of a knight was commonly called 'Dame Joan' (or whatever her Christian name was); and before about the end of the 17th century the daughters of English and Scottish monarchs weren't 'Princess Joan', they were usually 'the lady Joan', unless they took on some other title, by marriage or whatever. Both of those uses are so old-fashioned that they can't be looked on as correct any more. Xn4 (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I too have read somewhere-or-other that it was Henry VIII who adopted Majesty (in imitation of some other court) in preference to Grace. I would like to know when/where the whole Your Abstraction pattern got started. —Tamfang (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Australian Floods

Is there a website on resources for Australian floods where I can find detailed information on the causes, reactions, causes, analysis, the responses of emergency services, the processes involved and a timeline about the history of Australian floods that is as detailed as possible?

Thanks in advance. Fuzzymugger (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

We have a short article on Floods in Australia, but it does have a reference to a book titled Flooding in Australia. this page contains links to places where you can possibly find that book. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Does Australia have something like FEMA? They should be able to provide such data. (I would assume they are public record, but you may have to go to their archives to get at it.)76.97.245.5 (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

16th-century Latin

Can anyone help in translating this phrase from an engraving by Dominicus Custos? Que conspecta nocent, manibus contingere noli, ne mox peiori corripiare malo ciao Rotational (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"They who do harm in gazing refrain from touching with the hands, lest they soon compound the sin." --Wetman (talk) 11:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that the "refrain" in Wetman's traslation should be taken as imperative (or hortatory subjunctive) rather than indicative. Deor (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps more meaningful? "Do not grasp in your hands those things which are harmful, once you have seen them, in case you are soon seized by a worse evil." 196.2.124.248 (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Or, "Having seen things that harm, do not touch them with the hands, lest the sin soon becomes worse" Rotational (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that - sounds a bit like Jimmy Carter's confession of adultery in his heart! Could you please take a look at these as well? They are all part of representations of the five senses, the illustrating of which seems to have been a popular - or lucrative - pastime of the period. Rotational (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The second one (taste) is "Sweet things are often harmful when tasted with a greedy palate and as wanton pleasures of damnable gluttony"; the third (smell), "Although a flowery garden is pleasing to the nostrils, often gall is hidden beneath the sweet odor." Note that each "caption" is an elegiac couplet. (Also, it occurs to me that the translation of the first one, above, might be clarified by having it begin "Let them who do harm …") Deor (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No, as 196.2.124.248 has it: "qu(a)e" like "conspecta" is neuter plural, and "conspecta" is passive (being seen). "Don't touch with your hands things which it hurts to look at" (something to do with the blemishes on the upper lip of the couple? or is that just a fault of the engraving?) N p holmes (talk) 13:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What is this story?

I read a short story many years ago. The main characters are a boy and his governess. The boy keeps stealing nutmeg for use in an occult ceremony involving a wild animal, possibly a mongoose, which he keeps in a cage or perhaps a shed. The governess' curiosity eventually leads her to investigate, and she is mauled to death by the animal. Lantzy ^talk 19:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"Sredni Vashtar," by Saki. Deor (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And an excellent story it is too. All children should be encouraged to read & learn from it. DuncanHill (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, Duncan, your comment reminds me of another Saki story. Deor (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

A copy of Saki and a polecat-ferret would make an excellent present for any small boy. DuncanHill (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Small boys indeed have an affinity for ferrets, but isn't Saki a taste we acquire with maturer years? Xn4 (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Deor. That had been bothering me for a while. Lantzy ^talk 23:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"Sredni Vashtar" culminates in shredding of vascular tissues, it seems. Edison (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Who owns a car dealer's cars?

My local authorised Honda dealer has gone bankrupt, and I've been shocked at how quickly and thoroughly the lot has been cleared - every single car has been removed from the dealership, leaving only a few desks and one very bored security guard. I'd expected to see the cars still there, heavily marked down by the receiver, and probably with some of the sales staff retained to shift the remaining inventory. This leads me to think that maybe the dealer didn't own the cars, that they're in fact owned by Honda (or some Honda-associated dealer-financing company), which has withdrawn all the unsold cars to its own storage facilities (which appear to be several old airfields dotted around the UK). Wikipedia's car dealership doesn't help answer this; for the US the Car dealerships in the United States says the vehicles are owned by the dealer, but financed by the manufacturer - I guess if that's the case in the UK too, and the dealer has run up a big debt with the manufacturer, then I'd guess the vehicles are collateral. So, who actually owns the cars on a UK (manufacturer branded) dealer's lot? Thanks. 87.112.81.29 (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

In the usual case you described, where the dealer is the registered owner of the car but it is financed by the manufacturer, then the dealer has the legal interest in the car and the manufacturer has an or the equitable interest in the car. See equity. The precise nature of that equitable interest will probably depend on the terms of the arrangement between them.

This is similar to the situation when you mortgage your house to the bank in England and Wales (under registered title). You are the legal owner of your house - still - but the bank now has an equitable charge over the house. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've heard it said that most goods in the possession of most dealers (including food in supermarkets and so forth) are sold before the suppliers have been paid for them, but for a dealer to be able to pass on a good title to a car, he must surely have it, unless he is acting as an agent for the manufacturer? I'm not sure about the concept of "registered owner" - registration of cars in the UK is to do with keepers, not owners, and although the keeper is often the owner, what is registered is not ownership but physical possession. Actually, it seems to me rather unlikely that the OP's question has a clear answer, as arrangements will surely vary from one business to another. Xn4 (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

In the case where a retailer like a supermarket sells a good before actually having paid for it, ownership would still have been with the supermarket. The payment would just end up a payable (liability) on the supermarket's books and a receivable (asset) on the wholesaler's. Account will be settled by payables/receivables clerks based on an agreed upon timing structure. There will usually be a discount for early payment (less than 2 weeks) and a penalty for late (greater than 1 month). This allows the purchasing company to minimize the working capital needed to run the business by aligning receipts with expenditures. The opportunity cost of the money in the bank (working capital) has been minimized.NByz (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I know that doesn't help the OP's question, unless car dealerships operate in the same way. I don't know :) NByz (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I remember messy equity cases about lawnmowers and whatnot where the question was who "owned" them when the dealership went bankrupt. The results there depended on the terms of the agreement and also their timing. Will need to check them up. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That must be right. When such agreements are drafted, suppliers need to keep a keen eye on the occurrence of retailer bankruptcies, which have always been a constant problem, to a greater or lesser extent. With relatively expensive items such as new cars, there's a balance to be struck between the risk of not being paid and the risk of losing sales. It seems likely that some dealers can get easier terms than others, at least from some suppliers. Xn4 (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting news item, apropos this question: [1] Bus stop (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Constitutional question

Would the Treaty Clause enable the US to accede to a supranational constitution that had legal supremacy over that of the US? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

From a purely technical point of view, I don't know, but in practical terms it doesn't matter. The US constitution can be changed if there is a large enough majority in Congress, and I can't see such an accession happening without a large majority even it it were legally possible (it would be a political nightmare). --Tango (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The US constitution can be changed if there is a large enough majority in Congress -- uh, not so. A large enough majority in Congress can offer an amendment to the states to be voted on for approval. Much harder. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

My bad (not my country!). My point stands, though, I can't see such a treaty being signed without such widespread approval that would allow for a constitutional amendment. In fact, I would expect a referendum to be held. --Tango (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

mmm... I have to disagree. There is rarely "widespread approval" on anything in the US, and certainly appealing to direct popular votes as in a referendum would not get you that in most cases. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And that is why the US in unlikely to accede to a supranational entity. --Tango (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

well, I think there are deeper reasons for why that is unlikely that are unrelated to its treaty process. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You could imagine similar questions coming up, though, in certain other agreements. For example, let's pretend the US agreed to the Baruch Plan in 1946, and now, 60 years later, the International Atomic Authority (or whatever it was they called it) decides that occasionally it might need to search places at random in order to determine whether forbidden nuclear activities are going on there. Does that violate the 4th amendment? Only the courts could tell, of course, but it would set up a tough constitutional question about whose authority has authority. --140.247.243.148 (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Courts have ruled in the past that treaties themselves cannot contradict the US Constitution — that is, you couldn't sign a treaty that violated the first amendment in some way in its implementation. (In other words, treaties and statutes are treated in the same way, constitutionally.) Other than that, I don't think there are any limitations. Whether the supranational constitution was constitutional is an independent question (it might be, it might not). Courts have never (yet) ruled treaties unconstitutional, to my knowledge, but that doesn't mean they can't. More legalistic discussion here. --140.247.243.148 (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've heard a contrary argument that foreign parties can't be expected to know the nuances of US constitutional law and therefore treaties must take precedence over the Constitution so that foreign parties can be confident of no "gotcha". I don't buy it, but there are lots of things in settled constitutional precedent that I don't buy (such as the "insular cases"). —Tamfang (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The totality of the U.S. Constitution deals with establishing national sovereignty and states retaining their sovereignty in the proper spheres. I cannot conceive of any circumstances that would lead the U.S. to legally establish intranational sovereignty over U.S. sovereignty. Such a move would run counter to the intentions and dreams of the Framers and every generation of Americans since then. Still, the U.S. Constitution may be amended through ratification. Only the section dealing with two Senators per state is not amendable. In Star Trek time, though, it appears that the former U.S. ceded such power to the United Federation of Planets. So, it is feasible with science fiction.75Janice (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC) 75Janice

I must confess, I am asking the question for science fiction writing purposes. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

WTO The WTO has been used to supersede US law in some cases, and seems to have bypassed the Treaty clause in it's passage/adoption. Search for wto us constitution for all sorts of takes on this. NJGW (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Does the US enforce WTO rulings? Aren't they enforced by the rest of the world on the US, whether the US likes it or not? --Tango (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

WTO treaties or rulings don't supercede American law. However, the US is obliged to, in some cases, change its laws and practices to comply with WTO treaty obligations (and rulings are a part of these treaty obligations). Though the WTO is a voluntary organisation, the importance of trade makes its rules pretty much enforceable in practice: don't comply with the rules, and other countries wouldn't trade with you. However, where the laws are changed to comply with WTO rules, it is not the WTO acting by legal paramount force - it's US lawmakers voluntarily choosing to comply with WTO rules in order to avoid adverse trade consequences. This is different to the situation envisaged by the OP. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this isn't always the case. In the on-line gambling story, the result so far is "don't comply with the rules, and the other countries will break your intellectual property laws." So far there's been no resolution, but congress isn't about to pass a law permitting the gambling.[2] We'll see what happens. NJGW (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

February 17

Why is the gov't obligated to help people get out of foreclosure?

I'm referring to the US gov't on the subprime mortgage crisis. Why should taxpayers help out homeowners who got subprime mortgages? If I, for example, don't give full, timely payment for a car, the car will be taken away. I don't expect other people to be forced pitch in so my car wouldn't get repossessed. Shouldn't the homeowners be treated with the same logic? I think it's even worse because those homeowners weren't in good financial status in the first place to get the house. I'm not looking for some right vs left, conservative vs liberal debate here. I'm just trying to understand the logic of those who feel I should help out those who couldn't pay for something they should've never gotten in the first place! (P.S I realize there's enough blame to go around for the crisis. Securitization of the subprime mortgages is one big cause. I don't want this question to be a discussion of the causes of the crisis. 199.76.164.202 (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe because lax government regulations and oversight played a significant role in creating the mortgage mess in the first place, and because foreclosing on every mortgage which is behind would significantly worsen the current economic crisis? Also, if banks can get hundreds of billions in government funds, then why can't some cash be directed towards hard-pressed individuals? In any case, few are advocating mortgage aid for people who were always way in over their heads -- it's the marginal cases, who have the ability to make significant payments, but who are still at risk of foreclosure, who are the most eligible candidates for such aid. AnonMoos (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

From a macro point of view, helping struggling homeowners is a targeted fiscal stimulus. Like a tax cut, the extra money that the government distributes will either be directed towards consumption (which helps reduce inventories of consumer goods, encouraging producers to produce more, employing more labour, capital etc.) or savings (in the case of a struggling homeowner, the most obvious place to build savings is via the equity in their home, which helps bolster real estate and real estate-derived asset prices). Is a targeted stimulus better than a regular stimulus (a general tax cut or spending increase)? Difficult to say, but it would have to be analyzed in the normal economy terms: equity (equality) and efficiency.

It's definitely not more equitable. Although it's somewhat progressive - as some least well-off citizens will be the ones who aren't able to make their mortgage payments - the least well off people never even tried to buy a house in the first place, and wouldn't be getting any help. Tax cuts, on the other hand, can be targeted by income. It can't be more efficient. Rather then letting the free market or the aggregate general public choose how to allocate the funds, they are being distributed in an area with a very high marginal propensity to invest in housing.

It's possible that there are externalities when foreclosure happens, and that government is trying to avoid these. The assumption of "costless bankruptcy" is a common one in the economics of finance, but doesn't reflect reality.

It's also possible that the government believes that the environment of fear is resulting in imperfect information or non-rational decision making in real estate, and real estate derived asset markets. If this was the case, and these asset prices are temporarily and artificially depressed, then propping them up temporarily could be seen as offsetting this externality or market imperfection, yielding an 'efficient' allocation.

It's also possible that, since struggling homeowners tend to be in areas hardest hit by the coming recession generally (say: Michigan), distributing funds in this way allows government to target the stimulus in the hardest hit areas.

Without entering a partisan discussion, I would suggest that this policy be better analyzed from the point of view of political science than economics. A few political points:

1) Blue states and swing states have been very hard hit. The hardest hit states will get the most relief under a mortgage assistance plan.

2) Homeowners and people on fixed incomes or social assistance are more likely to vote than others.

3) The democrats ran on a "struggling low-to-middle class assistance" platform. They need to reward these voters with something tangible.

I'm sure others on the ref desk can think of quite a few more political points. NByz (talk) 04:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

On the one hand, you would say "My next door neighbor had it coming... He shoulda never taken on more debt than he needed, and if he gets forclosed, its just deserts" Sure, until his house, and twenty others like it in your neighborhood get forclosed, and even though you've never missed a mortgage payement and you bought your house in a good neighborhood, now through no fault of your own, your house has lost 20 percent of its value, and the good neighboorhood now has twenty houses for vagrants and meth labs and crack dealers to move into. So you tell me? How many of your neighbors in your neighborhood do you want to see get what's coming? This stuff does not exist in a vacuum, and plenty of innocents are being dragged down because of the crisis. The government's responsibility is to protect people who have done nothing wrong. Even if it means proping up those that did. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The more liberal side of politics would add protecting people who have done something wrong but did so under mitigating circumstances. In this case, that includes people who were misled by faulty professional advice (i.e. they were told by a person they trusted that these loans were a good idea). When that crosses the line into fraud and other criminal activities is very gray, but protecting people from the effects of crime is clearly in the government's realm of responsibility. Otherwise this could really be seen as a natural disaster (human nature in this case) and the government also helps out with disaster relief. SDY (talk) 06:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"Shouldn't the homeowners be treated with the same logic?" - a car is a disposable item of (normally) considerably less value than a home, your occupation may require you to have a car but it is not in the same league as losing your home either in terms of your finances or life-distruption. "I'm just trying to understand the logic of those who feel I should help out those who couldn't pay for something they should've never gotten in the first place! " - Many would argue that by doing nothing you would be Cutting off the nose to spite the face. The crisis has occured so whilst there are lessons to be learnt about how/why this transpired, the question is what action will have the biggest (positive) impact at the best cost-to-impact ratio? Some Economists have argued that we should let the banks fail, some argue that we should step in and save the banks - others argue for Nationalisation of (more) banks. As it is there is no given definitive answer, but certainly the 'reason' that 'we' are helping (i'm in the Uk so slightly different) is that we are believing that acting now with money will be less costly than trying to pick the country back up again if we let things pan out without any interruption. It happens all the time with government pumping money into industries, seeking ways to prevent shut-down and it happens all the time with private-businesses but in the current climate the problem is the depth and breadth of the crisis means that more 'visible' action is taking place. 09:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk)

The short answer is that you're right: it's fundamentally unfair to reward people for bad choices. Fairness just isn't a very high priority when you're trying to prevent another Asian financial crisis, or worse. --Sean 14:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but that also depends on your how you want to look at "fair" and "unfair". For example, is it fair that people who make bad choices have to suffer the consequences? Maybe. But is it fair that their kids have to suffer as well? Or that their other creditors get the fallout when these people suddenly find themselves in a financial crisis? This "every man for himself" crap is pretty short-sighted. The economy just isn't as simple as it was when squirrelskins and potatoes were considered as (or more) useful than paper money. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's compare the house and car examples. If your neighbor couldn't make his car payment, and it's repossessed, that probably won't have all that much effect on you. If your neighbor's house is foreclosed, however, and it won't sell in this depressed market, and ends up being boarded up with homeless and/or drug dealers living in there, that will have a profound negative effect on you and your home value. StuRat (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The American government is “of the people, by the people, for the people.” In this light it seems natural that if enough of the people are in need of some particular help the government will respond. People vote based on their personal problems, not necessarily what seems fair. --S.dedalus (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Not taking it to the extreme that StuRat does in his example, homes that do not sell generally drop in property value. Prospective buyers will look at the date the home went on sale and think to themselves "Gee, this house has been on the market for 3 months/6 months/1 years, etc, why hasn't it sold yet? Is there something wrong with it?" This will carry over to YOUR house when people look at homes in the area and think "well, if this house over here can't sell, maybe its something wrong with the area. I don't want to live there" Its poor logic on the behalf of the prospective buyer, but it is what happens. Livewireo (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It's more logical than that. Why would a potential buyer pay the asking price for your home if your neighbor's identical foreclosed house is on sale for half that ? StuRat (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Australian Passport

Do you need a passport to travel from Australia to New Zealand? Does the Trans-Tasman passport agreement still apply? Jamie Shaw (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

See [3]. --Sean 14:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You definitely need a passport. If you are an Australian citizen (which I presume you are otherwise you wouldn't be in Australia without a passport) or permanent resident, you probably don't need anything else, even if you want to work (see [4], [5] and [6]). However you definitely should contact the New Zealand high commision to make sure, there are other potential complications e.g. if you have a previous criminal conviction Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You are asking an incomplete question. Perhaps you are asking if an Australian citizen can travel to New Zealand without a visa? You need to be a bit more specific about your question. 118.71.169.174 (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Travel Europe To Australia

Is It Quicker To Go From Europe To Australia Via Aircraft Than Australia To Europe Via Aircraft? Jamie Shaw (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I just looked up Melbourne to Paris and back on a variety of routes, and the trip varies from 20-24 hours of flight time, with the to-Europe direction taking an hour or so longer than the return direction.

Plus half a day more for getting through customs at Charles-De-Gaulle Airport.--KageTora (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're lucky. --Sean 20:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Having headwinds or tailwinds can make some difference in how long a flight or the reverse flight takes. Time zones don't really change how long a flight takes, but can make it appear to take more or less time, when comparing departure and arrival times in the local time zones. StuRat (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Comparative religion: Jesus

It's the consensus view that Jesus is both fully deity and fully human. In my opinion, this introduces unnecessary complexity, such as the need to answer the questions "did Jesus exist before he was born?"[7] and "did Jesus exist after he died?". (deities in general, and the Christian God in particular, are usually considered to exist eternally)

Question #1: Are there any other religions that share this concept of fully human and fully deity?

Regarding the question of "did Jesus exist after he died?", it's true that deicide is prevalent throughout mythology (see life-death-rebirth deity for more examples). However, Jesus is the only one that I know of where a non-deity was able to kill a diety.

Question #2: Are there any other examples where a deity was killed by a non-deity? --Underpants 14:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for any confusion my handle might cause — this is a serious question, and all of my contributions have been done in good-faith. --Underpants 14:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean the consensus view among Christians? There isn't a general consensus view. Doesn't the Bible say something like "In the beginning there was the Word and the Word was God and the Word was with God"? The "Word" here is mean to be Christ (see Christ the Logos), so that would suggest he existed before he was born. And Christians frequently pray to him, so that would suggest he still exists now (ie. after his death). But you really can't discuss this without discussing the concept of the Trinity, and I'm not sure there is even consensus among Christians about that. --Tango (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the questioner means 'consensus among Christians', and among Christians overwhelming belief is Trinitarian. Those who dissent from it number only a few percent of Christians.

Question 1: I know of no belief system that has a corresponding concept to this. Several polytheistic religions allowed for 'hybrids' between Gods and humans, but those demi-gods didn't have the full nature of both. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, in some traditions, Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu who, in some traditions, is the supreme being and, in some traditions, Krishna was killed by a mortal with an arrow. Haukur (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This notion of "deity" you are talking about is an extremely monotheistic notion, and so your question doesn't apply to polytheistic religions. I mean, when you ask "has there ever been a person in mythology that's both human and god?", then yes, obviously there have been. There's been lots of them. But when you phrase it so specifically, "is there anyone that's both fully human and fully a deity", you're framing it in a way that really only applies to monotheistic religions

Take Heracles for example. He's a human and a god at the same time. Sure, you can argue that he's not fully a human and fully deity, but he certainly fits the bill. You can argue (and many have) that this whole hypostatic union thing in Christianity is just a variation on the same theme.

As for question two, this again is sort-of out of context if we're talking about polytheism. In Christianity, there's only one god and everything supernatural somehow comes from him. That's simply not the case in polytheism, there's lots of different variations of "deity". Was Medusa a deity? Is the Sphinx a deity? There isn't really an answer, because the monotheistic concept of "deity" simply doesn't apply.

But, for fun, lets explore the possibilities. If we assume that these guys are deities, then the answer is obviously "yes". Medusa was killed by Perseus (by the way, she was the daughter of deity, so it's fair to assume she was one as well) and Oedipus made short order of a Sphinx. But now, lets assume that these things aren't deities. If we can't consider Medusa a deity, surely we can't consider the Giants of Nordic mythology deities either? I mean, they're just hulking guys walking around. But Loki was a giant (a non-deity, by our hypothesis), and he killed Baldr, unquestionably a deity. So it seems that the answer would yes either way.

My point with that little ridiculous argument was "don't come over here with your monotheistic concepts of human and godlike. We polytheists do our own thing! You can't really compare your conceptions of divinity with ours!" Your questions don't have good answers, because it's comparing apples to oranges Belisarius (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't call the question ridiculous - I think my Krishna answer is a fairly reasonable parallel. And while it's true that pagans/Hindus have different conceptions of deity than the Abrahamic religions you should not forget the demiurge and the brahman. Haukur (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I had guessed that the diety/non-diety distinction was a result of the recent focus on philosophical/scientific naturalism, but you're totally right, it's a distinction that really only has importance under a monotheistic mindset. (it's only when you say "there can be only one god" that it suddenly becomes important to pin down exactly who is a god and who isn't) Thanks for broadening my horizons, it looks like I finally have enough reasons to dive into Hellenistic polytheism. --Underpants 23:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, that's very nice of you to say, I'm happy to broaden horizons! BTW, if you wish to broaden your horizons even further, don't just focus on the Hellenistic mythologies, there's a whole bunch of mythologies and gods that no one cares about that's way more fascinating. My favorites are the Aesir, Odin and Loki and those guys, but there are many more. There's Gilgamesh, Anansi, Cúchulainn, Quetzalcoatl and many more. Maybe it's just me, but I find all these guys endlessly fascinating.

Haukur: when I said "ridiculous", I was referring to my own little argument about whether you could consider Medusa and the Sphinx a deities or not. It was sort-of a reductio ad absurdum, but with gods instead of math. The question is not ridiculous at all (look how much fascinating conversation we got out of it!), and your Krishna-answer was excellent, and well to the point. I was just trying to make about how differently people view gods depending on whether they're monothestic or polythestic, that's all :) Belisarius (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Mini-comment: many consider Jesus to have been in voluntary control of the moment of his own death, because of the verse where he said, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit; it is finished" and then "gave up the ghost." So, if one buys that, it wouldn't be a case of an immortal being killed by a mortal. --Masamage ♫ 23:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite sure there are still monophysites around in the Eastern church. You might also find that a lot of people casually hold monophysite doctrine without realising it. See also monothelitism and miaphysite. Steewi (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe no one mentioned Gilgamesh, who was two-thirds god and one-third human, a nice trick if you can manage it. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The article Athanasian Creed explains the views of many mainstream Christian denominations. That creed, at least 1500 years old, says there is only one God. That God exists as three persons. The Son is "infinite," "eternal," "begotten before all worlds from the being of the Father, and he is man, born in the world from the being of his mother." Per the creed, he died, descended to hell, rose from the dead, then ascended to heaven. This creed would logically have had the two persons of God called The Father and The Holy Spirit living, during any time the person called The Son was dead. This creed seems to say that he existed before he was born as a human, and then he was made man, and died, then was resurrected, then exists eternally. A cartoon once depicted the Christian God saying to humans "Don't make me come down there!" Edison (talk) 06:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope I'm indenting in the right place here.Edison, in the Athanasian Creed it says 'He descended into hell and rose again from the dead' and in the Apostles' Creed (in use today) it says, 'He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again'. To understand this we have to go back to the Jews. Jews who followed the Law and by doing so attained a place in Heaven could not go straight to Heaven when they died as Jesus had not opened the gates of heaven. Christians believe that the gates of Heaven had to be opened by Jesus and that this happened when He died. The Jews who had attained a place in Heaven therefore lived in what we call the Limbo of the Fathers until Jesus descended into the Limbo where they existed to 'let them into' Heaven, and this is what He was doing when He 'decended into hell'. The hell referred to here is not the hell where the suffering souls exist. --Joe^Talk_Work 01:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

@Belisarius - This is some real nitpicking, but Oedipus didn't make short work of the Sphinx, she killed herself (leaped to her death) and Loki didn't kill Baldr, he gave the mistletoe weapon to Höðr to perform the deed - and Höðr was a deity. In the main, however, I agree that the question is difficult to apply to non-monotheistic religions. Matt Deres (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

To pick the nits on your nits, the version of the story in Gesta Danorum presents Baldr as a god and Höðr as a human. Haukur (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of both of those two little counter-arguments, but I choose to ignore them :) It's true, Höder (I don't have an Icelandic keyboard, and that was how I was taught his name was spelled, so I'm going with that) was the one who fired the arrow, but lets face it, it was Loki that killed Balder. Höder didn't know what he was doing, and if the case had gone to a modern trial Loki would be the one who would be convicted, not poor blind Höder. And indeed, he was the one who got the worst punishment, even though Höder suffered too (being killed was down-right merciful in comparison to what happened to Loki. And Höder will be resurrected after Ragnarök, so you know, no harm, no foul).

As for Oedipus, it's true, all he did was answer the riddle correctly. It technically would have been more correct to state that he "defeated" the Sphinx, but it's all the same in the end. The Sphinx is dead, and she wouldn't have been had not Oedipus mastered her.

However, my nits are rightly picked. I should perhaps have been more specific, but the stories I mentioned were only incidental to my main point about the different conceptions of deities, and I didn't want to clutter up my argument.

(can I just say how much I love the Humanities Reference Desk! Whenever I start droning on about these things in real life, people just roll their eyes and don't care one lick. But then I come here, and find a whole cadre of people who think these things are just as fascinating as I do! And way smart people, too! I love you guys!) Belisarius (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that Christians only believe that Christ's human nature died on Good Friday (i.e. not his divine nature). However, in the TV drama which Christopher Ecclestone's wiki page describes as a 'religious telefantasy epic' - The Second Coming (TV serial) the Protagonist (supposedly Jesus Christ)'s friend Judy kills both his human and divine natures, and along with Him 'God, Satan, Heaven and Hell - the end of all religion'. --Joe^Talk_Work 01:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ivan Vasilievich

In Leo Tolstoy's short story, After The Ball, the incidents are narrated by one Ivan Vasilievich. Though this person is not shown to be "terrible" at all, is this name an allusion to the actual name of Ivan The Terrible (which was Ivan Vasilyevich)?--Leif edling (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but from the article, "The epithet "Grozny" is associated with might, power and strictness, rather than poor performance, horror or cruelty. Some authors more accurately translate it into modern English as Ivan the Awesome." NJGW (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There are apparently references to the Empress Elizabeth, Tsar Peter the Great, and Tsar Nicholas I in the story, and the vocabulary is "high and courtly" throughout, but only "to turn a provincial ball into a representation of the imperial court as a whole".[8] I can't see any evidence that it was based on real people or events. Ivan as a given name and Vasilievich as a patronymic are both extremely common in Russia, and so it would be very unlikely, without any specific evidence, that a narrator called "Ivan Vasilievich" has anything to do with our "terrible" friend, Tsar Ivan IV. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Finnish War Film & German War Film

Does anyone know the name of a brilliant war film made in Finland in the 1990s? I cannot remember the name, but it was about a small platoon of Finnish soldiers fighting the Russians. Some details: It was all in Finnish. The soldiers were on bicycles. The main character looks like Jude Law. Also, does anyone know the name of a German war film, also from the 1990s, about a German soldier captured by the Russians and sent to work in Siberia. He escapes and ends up walking back to Germany, via Iran. It has '9,000km' in the Japanese title, if that helps. (Sorry, I watched both of these films in Japan). TIA. --KageTora (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

As for the second film, see [9] and [10]. Oda Mari (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thanks, Mari! Now I just need the other one!--KageTora (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Talvisota? If that's the one I half-remember, it is brilliant. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Might be Rukajärven tie. See [11] and [12] too. Oda Mari (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The Finnish film's definitely Rukajärven tie, or Ambush, as some extremely imaginative person saw fit to rename it for the English language release. (The literal translation would be "The Road to Rukajärvi". Rukajärvi is a municipality (as well as a lake) in Karelia, Russia, and it was occupied by Finns during the Continuation War.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That looks like the one, 'Rukajärven tie'! Thanks again! I watched the original Finnish one with Japanese subtitles and thought it was brilliant, but now I have the name, I can look for one with English subtitles.--KageTora (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

US Democrats and US Republicans

I am looking for the link to the Wiki archive question regarding US Democrats and US Republicans. I believed someone originally asked why it seemed that the US Republicans are very conservative and (I think) anti-NAACP while the US Democrats are not. Then someone answered that the Republicans were the ones that freed the slaves. But then someone answered that today's Republicans are defintely not the same ones that Abe Lincoln was a part of and that these are just labels. Does anyone remember or know the link to this? --Emyn ned (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this it ? Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2008_June_21#Who_decided_left_and_right_wing..._ie._social_conservatism_and_fiscal_conservatism_go_hand_in_hand. StuRat (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. Thank you very much. --Emyn ned (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

StuRat (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Legal question regarding polygamy.

I've been meaning to catch up on the show Big Love for quite some time now, so I marathoned through the first season this weekend. I enjoy it very much (the cognitive dissonance you get from watching that show is enough to give you an aneurysm), but I have a question about it:

In case you haven't seen it, it's about a "modern" polygamist named Bill living in Utah with his three wives, Barb (his first wife and the only legal one), Nicky and Margie. They live in the suburbs in adjoining McMansions, and Bill rotates the nights he spends with each of his wife (so every wife gets every third day with him at night). Everyone is grown-up and everything is consensual.

My question is this: is he actually breaking any laws? I don't mean in the libertarian sense ("they're grown-ups, they should be allowed to do anything they want!") that what they're doing shouldn't be illegal, I mean does there actually exist a law in the state of Utah or the United States that they are breaking? My point is, he's only legally married to one of them, she's the only one that the state of Utah considers his wife. He doesn't have three marriage certificates. He's not cheating on his taxes. Beyond that, what can you really legislate about? I mean, from a legal standpoint, if you can convict him, you really should be able to convict any adulterer, right? How can the state just go in and tell him who he has to sleep with? Isn't there an amendment and a recent supreme court case that specifically states that as long as everything is consensual and with grown-ups, the state should butt out of what people are doing in their bedrooms? Belisarius (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, technically adultery is illegal in Utah. It is a class B misdemeanor as defined in Utah Code Sectoin 76-7-103. Also see the section on bigamy. Part of the bigamy definition also defines a bigamist as a married person who "cohabits with another person." So Bill may only have one official marriage, but authorities in the show could use the cohabitation definition against him. Laenir (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

In practice, no Utah sheriff would arrest him, and no Utah prosecutor would charge him. --Carnildo (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am curious as to whether these polygamous groups have brought a U.S. Constitutional challenge under the Free Exercise Clause. If I am correct, the Court ruled on this in the past. Would a renewed challenge work? Some crimes are so heinous that they are not protected as a religious exercise. Certainly, though, polygamy as a crime is attenuated for the adults. Times seem to be changing. I believe the state has a right to protect children, though. 75Janice (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC) 75Janice

Sherbert v. Verner#The_Sherbert_Test -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Guns for roses

So some police departments in the US swapped working guns for a rose and $100 in vouchers.[13] I'm not American so I have some questions: how much is a typical second hand gun worth? is it hard for people to sell second hand guns themselves? thanks 121.72.165.27 (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Price varies, like anything else, based on as-new price and condition. You can get new "junk gun" for as little as $50; this discrepancy has been exploited in the past, where licensed gun dealers have gone to police buyback events with a big box of brand new junk guns and made a profit from trading each one in. Secondly, legally, most (all?) states have laws that control how handguns are sold and require paperwork for both parties in the transaction - so if the gun isn't legally held, it' can't legally be sold. Of course there's a black market in guns, but given the price of legal handguns the price of illegal ones on the black market isn't very much. I guess prices for things like Ak-47s and machine guns, which are much more difficult to legally own, will thus command a much higher black market price (and you won't see too many in the cops' tradein). 87.113.5.56 (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I would love to see police officers armed with roses and vouchers to give out. DuncanHill (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Federal law (as I misunderstand it) is not concerned if you sell a gun casually, provided that the buyer is not prohibited from possessing it and selling guns is not a regular business of yours (this is the "gun show loophole"); there may also be a requirement that both parties be resident in the State where the sale occurs, I don't remember for sure. If you make a business of selling guns, then you need a Federal Firearms License; a condition of holding this is that you go through all the paperwork hoops. The State of California forbids gun transfers except to or from a FFL holder (but this doesn't stop California politicians from campaigning against a nonexistent loophole!). I once heard two acquaintances agreeing to a fiction that their transaction was taking place in Nevada. —Tamfang (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you might be right on that they have to live in the same state. Is it the Sherman Antitrust Act, or something like that? Anyway, being a resident of Canada, I really don't know for sure. Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 22:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Why Antitrust?? I think it's the Gun Control Act of 1968; Lee Harvey Oswald bought his rifle by mail, so obviously we can't have that. —Tamfang (talk) 01:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking for a Science Fiction book I read ~17 years ago.

I read a book when I was ~10 years old (~1992) and for the past several years have been trying to find it again. The book was about a young man who was playing a flavor of "laser tag" and was achieving a high score. When he achieved that high score he was recruited by a group of aliens (of different species that were recruited in the same manner) that wished to utilize his skills on the battlefield. I thank you for your time, have a great day!

Could you be referring to the novelization of The Last Starfighter? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I was just coming to post Warriors of Kudlak, but that was an episode of The Sarah Jane Adventures, not a book from 17 years ago. --LarryMac | Talk 21:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely right I wrote that prematurely, I thought I had erased it :|

You did, but you blanked a lot of other stuff too, so I put it back because I thought you made a mistake :) Sorry! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sort of sounds like Ender's Game, though the details are different. Ed's guess is good, too. --Masamage ♫ 22:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You're thinking of Space Demons by Gillian Rubinstein. There is a sequel called Skymaze. Steewi (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If it helps at all I remember a sequence in the book where one of the aliens that was recruited confused the enemy by firing from multiple locations to make it seem like they were surrounded. Thanks for the help so far guys! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.247.227 (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it could be Only You Can Save Mankind by Terry Pratchett? Although I don't think that was laser tag, so maybe not...Duke Of Wessex (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ender's Game was my first thought after The Last Starfighter, sounds like a description of the battle room. Just remember the enemy's gate is down! Lanfear's Bane | t 15:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Chateauneuf castle

hello, I would like to know if someone at Wikipedia can expand on the Chateauneuf castle in Saint Germain en Haya, preferably if it can have its own article outside of the Chateau at Saint Germain en Haya article, also I have some questions about the Chateauneuf, and would like to know if there is some historian I could contact to talk to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maracx (talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia has an article, "Château-Neuf de Saint-Germain-en-Laye", which I will now attempt to translate over to the English Wikipedia. (I assume that you meant "Laye". I'm going to scold you now for asking such a hard question and giving us bad information through carelessness.) If you look at the talk page for the article "Château de Saint-Germain-en-Laye" you will see banners for several WikiProjects, including France and European History. The links in those banners will take you to the project pages where you can ask what you like on their talk pages. This link will turn blue when I've started the article: Chateau-Neuf de Saint-Germain-en-Laye. --Milkbreath (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Milkbreath, the OP is Mexican and en Haya may be not French. Btw, the article has a date typo @ 177 that needs fixing. Looked for it but didn't turn up anything. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

LGBT holidays

Does anyone know of any lists of LGBT-related holidays or days of note - the type with birthdays of notable figures in the LGBT community, dates of key LGBT rights laws or treaties being put into effect- that kind of thing. Thanks. Sam 23:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs)

List of LGBT holidays? Timeline of LGBT history only shows years. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's precisely what I was looking for! D'oh, I can't believe I overlooked that page.

February 18

Cambodian Kings.

Norodom Suramarit says he was king 1955 - 1960 and that he was Norodom Sihanouks father.

Norodom Sihanouk says that he was king from 1955 - 2004.

Sisowath Monivong says that he was king from 1927 - 1941, when he was immediately succeded by Norodom Sihanouk

doesnt take much to see there are some serious incontinuity issues here...

Okay, it seems there are some overlaps, abdications and other things. I get N. Sihanouk made king by the French at 18 which must be 1940 or 1941. When he abdicated in 1955, his father N. Suramarit took over until his death in 1960. S. Monivong was Sihanouk's grandfather. Looks like the succession was preempted by the French putting Sihanouk on the throne hoping for a puppet king. He didn't comply[14]. Then again succession may have been from the grandfather to the grandson because Suramarit was Monivong's son-in-law and only became king when Sihanouk abdicated in his favour. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Percy Shelley's politics

I just read Percy Shelley's The Mask of Anarchy in which originated (?) the famous phrase “We (originally: Ye) are many — they are few.” While I see no reason this couldn't be applied to any popular uprising, I've often heard in reference to socialist and/or anarchist causes. And yet, quite centrally, Anarchy in the poem is one of the horsemen, claiming “I am God and King and Law!” This seems like an attack against anarchy and, perhaps, other egalitarian forms of government. The verse: “For he knew the Palaces/Of our Kings were rightly his;/His the scepter, crown and globe,/And the gold-inwoven robe.” seems to fit with other anarchist literature I've read, as well. The next verse, beginning, “So he sent his slaves…,” does (emphatically) not fit with what I understand of anarchy. (How could Anarchy hold slaves?!)

While the articles here indicate to me that Shelley was anti-tyrannical, they don't seem to indicate what sort of politics he espoused. Furthermore, how ironic would it be for an anarchist to borrow the phrase, "we are many -- they are few"? What did Shelley mean by the term Anarchy, anyway?

Thanks — gogobera (talk) 05:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Not quite the same, but makes me think of - because none of us are as cruel as all of us. Lanfear's Bane | t 11:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You might want to explore the periodical literature, for example: Redfield, M. (2002). "Masks of Anarchy: Shelley's political poetics." Bucknell Review: A Scholarly Journal of Letters, Arts and Sciences, 45(2), 100-126. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Librsh (talk • contribs) 11:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't really until a few years after Shelley in the 1840s that Pierre-Joseph Proudhon redefined anarchy as a political ideal worth trying to achieve, before this anarchy mostly held negative connotations. So Shelley is really criticising an anarchic state that can kill its citizens without due process of law. Also, divining Shelley's political views from that poem is not going to be easy as he wrote in in anger and in a hurry after the event and the imagery is deliberately chaotic and can often be rather surreal. Shelley's politics are often simply described as radical as he was typically against much of the conventions of the day but his political ideas had not settled down into some fixed system and there was not really a clear creed around for him to follow at that time either. meltBanana 14:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't know anything about Shelley's specific beliefs, but the closest thing to an anarchist theorist in his time was William Godwin, and he ended up marrying Godwin's daughter. However, Godwin apparently didn't use the word "anarchy" in a positive sense... AnonMoos (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all. One of these days I'll learn my history; it seems that a time-line understanding of the political ideas in question would've gone a long way toward knowing what was going on. And, Librsh, thanks for the reference. Bane, interesting comparison since, in this case, it was the few being cruel to the many. — gogobera (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

phil? plato dubois douglas ect. ideas related in america today

how was democracy seen by these philosophers(plato, dubois, douglas, Aristotle, Hobbes, and Locke) and what are some view of theirs are present in our current day America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.62.35.34 (talk) 08:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a huge and unformed topic, but you might start by perusing the classic book The Liberal Tradition in America by Louis Hartz... AnonMoos (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like homework.10draftsdeep (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you ask about Plato, W. E. B. Dubois, Frederick Douglass, Aristotle, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke? Because we do have articles on each of them. They also all wrote books. You could read them to get their own philosophies in their own words. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be difficult to answer your second question without speculating (which we aren't here to do) since many of the listed philosophers died hundreds if not thousands of years before America was even a glimmer in England's eye. Livewireo (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Poetic Technique

I've seen several poems where there are intertwining narratives, usually with one written in italics, that alternate stanzas within a poem. I can't think of an example at the moment - if one occurs to me I'll add it here. Does anyone know what I mean? If so, is there a specific term for this technique?

Thank you,

Daniel (‽) 19:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I've seen this too. I googled intertwining narratives poem to see if a separate term for this appeared, but no luck – however, that search did provide many examples. Another one from my own collection is Rupert Brooke's On the Death of Smet-Smet, the Hippopotamus Goddess, which alternates the voices of "the Priests within the Temple" with those of "the People without". The People's words are italicised. (But the Priests' words are not, for some odd reason, in Egyptian type, but Roman. What was Brooke thinking? In his defence, maybe the poem was set in the period when Egypt was ruled by Rome.) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a short story by John Sladek which contains IIRC thirteen nested levels, the outermost one of which is the word 'SHIT' shouted by a character in some of the others. I don't recall the name, nor whether he had a term which described the technique. --ColinFine (talk)

Maybe off topic since you're asking about intertwining narratives, but there is call and response though the article is a tiny stub. It's also liturgical as per Brooke's use and reminds me of modified Greek chorus. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help; I shall have to invent a term, if I do use it. Daniel (‽) 20:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

NYSE and NASDAQ

Are there any large US businesses (similar to Walmart size) that do not participate in any stock exchanges? --Emyn ned (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a list of privately held companies from 2007. The 2008 list should be available, but I'm pressed for time right now. --LarryMac | Talk 20:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Topping that list is Koch Industries, with revenues approaching 100 B US$ and 80,000 employees. Wal-Mart has revenues of just over 400 B US$ and 2.1 million employees. So what exactly do you mean by “similar to Walmart size”? It's lonely at the top; there aren't many corps, public or private, that are so large. — gogobera (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that after the federal government, Wal-Mart is far and away the largest employer in the country. I don't think that any other company, publicly traded or not, comes even close to them. Even such massive companies as General Electric and General Motors don't approach 1,000,000 employees... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Judaism and the Second world war

OK everybody knows that about 5.1 million Jewish people were killed during the second war and they were liberated by an allied victory. My question though is what would have happened to the Jewish faith internationally if their had been a Nazi victory. Would they have been completely annihilated? Or would the international community have banded together to try and protect them. I know this is hypothetical, and thankfully the allies won, I'm just interested in peoples theories on the matter. Thanks, Hadseys 22:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The Ref Desk tries to avoid theories about alternate universes. There are a number of good fiction writers who treat the subject. Try Harry Turtledove's In the Presence of Mine Enemies. ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and normally people believe that it was 6 million Jews not 5.1.--Mr.K. (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe there are legitimate claims to be made between 5 and 7 million. No one knows the number within 900,000. --Sean 00:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It would have been weakened certainly, but not annihilated unless the Nazis could have somehow conquered the U.S. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

A little pedantic, maybe, but the Jews were killed during The Holocaust, that's not quite the same a the Second World War - it started a few years earlier. --Tango (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Jews were repressed in various ways before the war started, yes, but if we're talking specifically about the systematic mass killing of Jews, then that didn't start until well into the war. Algebraist 00:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess it depends on your definitions. There were certainly Jews killed before the war (Kristallnacht, for example). I don't know if there were enough killed before the war to make a difference to the statistics. --Tango (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Algebraist said systematic. Before that, it was ad hoc. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

First, the Nazis made a distinction between the Jewish race and the Jewish religion. It wasn't so much that they were against the religion as they were against the race. For example, if a Jew converts to another religion, he/she would still be a Jew to the Nazis. Nazis were obsessed with "blood". Second I think it is a common misperception that the Nazis wanted to kill every Jew on the planet. Maybe some of them did, but it wasn't their general policy. Their aim was to get rid of the Jews who lived in Europe (or perhaps the territories they controlled). By 'get rid of' I don't necessarily mean kill. It could also mean relocation (voluntary or forced). But other countries had their own problems with antisemetism and weren't exactly friendly to Jews either. For a while, they considered the Madagascar Plan. After that proved impractical, they started the systematic killing of Jews. When Himmler ordered the roundup of the last remaining Jews in Germany, their non-Jewish relatives staged a protest and the Nazis uncharacteristically backed down. By the end of WWII, there were still some Jews free (for lack of a better term) in Germany. Of course, I haven't really answered your question. Most if not all Jews in territories conquered by Germany and Italy would have been killed. I'm not sure what the Japanese policy was towards the Jews. But internationally, most Jews would have been safe. The idea that one country can conquer the whole world is hugely impractical. It's unlikely that Germany could have conquered the United States, for example. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The Fugu Plan gives an insight into the Imperial Japanese attitude towards Jews, and for a wider view there is the History of the Jews in Japan. More germane to the original question is our article on the International response to the Holocaust. Lantzy ^talk 00:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Latin American Human Rights Award?

Hi. Is there a such thing as a "Latin American Human Rights Award" or a "Honorary Award of the Latin American Human Rights Organization"? I'm struggling with two vague sources in a foreign language. Punkmorten (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything reference to either of these terms. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights covers Latin America, so they may have an award scheme. I couldn't find any trace of the 'Latin American Human Rights Organisation', which would lead me to suggest that there is not an 'Honorary Award of the Latin American Human Rights Organization'.MarquisCostello (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Could there be one, or something like it, with a Spanish name? I don't know enough Spanish to check. // BL \\ (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

February 19

"Reciprocal" marriages

Hi! If Family A's brother (John A) and sister (Jane A) are married to Family B's sister (Jane B) and brother (John B) respectively (John A-Jane B & John B-Jane A), what is this type of marriage called? Are there any social taboos or biological/social advantages concerning this type of marriage? Thanks! --Shibo77 (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if the marriages have a name, but the offspring of them would be double first cousins. --Tango (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of any social taboos to these sorts of marriages. I have them on both sides of my family. My mom has two brothers that married a mother and a daughter. On my dad's side, two of my grandmother's aunts married two of my grandfather's uncles, making THREE close marriages of this sort. In smaller communities, with relatively small numbers of distinct families, it would not be unusual for several close members of the same families to intermingle in that way. As long as there is no close consanguinity usually there isn't any taboos. This article describes identical twin brother marrying identical twin sisters, which they call "Quarternary marriages", so that may be the term you are looking for. It claims there are only about 250 recorded cases of this happening world wide. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What would be the probability that their respective children (double cousins to each other), would be identical, or at least be so similar in appearance as to be virtually identical? (Male-male and female-female only, of course). -- JackofOz (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Double cousins of identical twin pairings have the same consanguinity as true siblings do, so they would probably look like siblings, if not perfect twins. See Double first cousin for a discussion of this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Good. Thanks, Jayron32. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There was a time when such marriage might have been forbidden. Before Henry VIII married his brother's widow, he got a Papal waiver. (Consider the phrase sister in law literally.) Incest was defined rather differently before Gregor Mendel! —Tamfang (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Different situation entirely. There would have been no problem if Henry VIII had married Arthur's wife's sister. The problem in that case was that Henry wanted to marry his dead brother's wife, not his dead brother's wife's sister... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Which is actually mandatory in some cultures. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

An interesting variation of this used to happen relatively (no pun intended) often, back when siblings were often spread out over many years and widows and widowers were plentiful. Two brothers (say 20 years apart in age) might marry a widowed mother and her daughter, or some variation like that. Widower Samuel Adams, for example, was remarried to Elizabeth Wells, and his daughter married Elizabeth's brother. Not unusual, but it does bring6 to mind the old novelty song, I'm My Own Grandpa. —Kevin Myers 14:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I know of one biological advantage first hand. A child I know was diagnosed with Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome, was classified as a SCID-kid, and was basically kept in isolation most of his life (i.e. as a "bubble boy"). He had three double-first cousins, of which two were perfect bone marrow matches. He got a transfer and is now a (mostly) healthy boy. If not for those double-cousins, the chances of finding a suitable (let alone perfect) match would have drastically decreased and he would almost certainly be dead. Matt Deres (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested in the article on Prohibited degree of kinship. I'd summarize it here to answer your question but I'm afraid my mind's still spinning from reading about "wife's son's daughter" and so forth. ---- smurdah^{[citation needed]} 18:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Siblings marrying siblings is a rather common practice in Western societies (as any amateur genealogist could tell you), but I'm afraid I don't know of a particular term for it. One reason for the practice (at least in the past) is that the first pair to wed have already overcome the sometimes-strict religious rules against consanguinity of married couples, so the second pair who have the same ancestry need not worry about that impediment. However, just a few days ago I heard a report on BBC radio of a couple in just this situation who have long been prohibited from marrying in the Greek Orthodox church because it is considered "incest". Here [15] is a link to a news report of the case. Thylacoleo (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it true that the Mongols never lost a battle to a European force?

^Topic says it all. 76.6.56.157 (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Our article Mongol invasion of Europe notes that some did. Under "Later campaigns" it notes that the Poles defeated the Mongols at Krakow in 1287; but that it was something of a Pyrrhic victory for the Poles. It also notes unsuccessful raids against the Lithuanians in 1275 and 1277, and that a force of Mongols was defeated by Ladislaus IV of Hungary in the mid-1280's near modern Budapest. Then there is, of course, the Great stand on the Ugra river, where Ivan the Great defeated the Golden Horde and ended Mongol suzerainity over Russia. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If not, you'd need to explain what caused the Mongols to leave Europe. StuRat (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It was the death of the Khan that made them leave, as they all had to go back to Mongolia and elect a new one. This happened three times, apparently. On the thrid occasion, the Mongols didn't bother returning to Europe, presumably because of a new policy by the new Khan. It had nothing to do with whether we beat them, or not.--KageTora (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

So an empire collapsed due to a lack of absentee ballots ? StuRat (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

mount everest

how is this site used by the chinese population? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkuba4 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As a start, there was of course the 2008 Summer Olympics summit of Mt. Everest.MarquisCostello (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Frozen assets

I'm trying to find Wikipedia's information on the idea of 'frozen assets' in banking/economics. I've searched for 'frozen assets', 'assets frozen', 'asset freezing', 'freezing assets', 'frozen', 'freeze' and checked the page Asset but with no result. Where can I find this information? Normally I have no trouble finding stuff on Wikipedia, so this suggests some redirects or additions to the disambig page might be needed. 131.111.245.195 (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a page on Asset forfeiture, although this is not quite the same.MarquisCostello (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Try "Frozen Accounts". The first ghit was [16]. // BL \\ (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Castle inheritance

hello there my name is elisha neville and my fathers name is richard neville we have heard for a few years that a castle has been handed down to him in male generations and after reading about the neville history is quite convincing i was wandering if you had any more information on the history you can contact me on #### thankyou very much for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.179.153.84 (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed your email address. manya (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about your specific case, but be wary of anyone trying to tell you that you've come into an unexpected inheritance - that's unfortunately a very common internet scam. It generally goes like "you've inherited xxx, but you need to pay lawyers/taxes/bribes to get at it"; in these cases there's no inheritance, and your payment (and identity info) just lines the scammer's pocket). 87.112.89.175 (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I would be careful, but the Neville family do have castle-owning relations. How did you come into the knowledge? I'd first check this 'castle' exists; preferably by finding it. Then ask the current owners about it - even if it is a scam, I'm sure they'll want to know that their property is involved. If you've (or your father) inherited it, you must be a blood relative of the previous occupant, so they'll know if your inheritance is a possibility. I'd suggest also, though, if it's been on the back boiler (letter a couple of months ago), then it's almost certainly not real - no-one would leave such a building like that for any period of time. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 12:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The name of the castle would make this more intreresting for us others.--Wetman (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

How did you hear about it? If it was any way other than the previous owner's solicitor contacting you, it's probably nonsense. --Tango (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're probably talking about Warwick Castle. I would have thought the present owners might have something to say about an "inheritance"! Oh and if your Dad thinks he's descended from Richard Neville, then he probably is: many people with English ancestry can trace their descent back to the Nevilles, myself included. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Teenage behaviour

What can I do to convince my 14-year old neice that I have no interest in the actual content of her text messages, MSN messenger conversations, emails, blogs and documents on the family computer or her cell phone? As I'm the family expert on all things "technical", she quite often asks me for help with the computer or cell phone, but if something is left on the screen a strange paranoia suddenly takes hold - turning the screen away, furious clicking to exit programs, covering the screen with her hands, and so on. Is that normal behaviour for a 14-year old girl or should her parents be worried? Astronaut (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds entirely normal to me! DuncanHill (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, perfectly normal. It might help if you make a point of looking away while she hides things or, if you have hold of the mouse, minimise the windows yourself straight away. Of course, it is possible that she's hiding something specific that her parents do need to be worried about, unlikely, but possible. A certain amount of monitoring of children's internet usage is recommended. --Tango (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say you're stuck between upholding a PC version of doctor/patient priviledge and you role as uncle/aunt. If she has a problem you need to fix - let her show you/take control first and then when she is comfortable she can hand it over to you to work on. Apart from that the above make sure you look away (and not just your eyes - make it obvious you're not trying to look) and that'll help. As DuncanHill said it's entirely normal behaviour - desire for privacy and fear of embarrassment are probably two of the biggest defining factors of what it is to be a teenager. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah that's a relief. Even though she makes all the right comments when internet safety is discussed, as a responsible adult I was getting worried. Astronaut (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If you really want to embarrass her, tell her you've been discussing her behaviour with millions of strangers on the internet. DuncanHill (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) No need to do that. She doesn't want me to see anything of what she's writing, but is quite happy to put at least some of it in a blog for her friends (and millions of others around the world) to read. Crazy eh? :-) Astronaut (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't agree with the advice you're getting. The kid has enough friends; she needs somebody who loves her looking to protect her. Would you be OK with her sloping off to the local streetcorner to hang out and chat with a mix of criminals of all ages and persuasions? Be afraid, be very afraid of the internet. Watch her like a hawk, and it doesn't matter whether she thanks you later; you're not doing it for any reward other than knowing you've done what you could to help her reach adulthood intact. Although her behavior might be nothing more than teen weirdness, what you've described sure looks exactly like guilty conscience and furtiveness. Am I the only adult who remembers being that age? You try to get away with things, and kids today have more avenues. The kid can have privacy when she earns it by openness and when her brain is full-grown and when she gets married or has her own place. Put a keylogger on her computer (but never, ever read her diary). Protect her. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

She's your niece. You have a responsible-adult role, but you do not have parental role; you may not invade her privacy. If you are going to spy on her, be sure to lie to her; she's going to resent the hell out of you when she finds out, so you may as well delay it as long as possible. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As you say that you are the computer expert of the family and that you have no desire to spy on her, maybe you could tell her about public-key encryption? --Aseld ^talk 01:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

February 20

Please Help!

Hello, I recently joined Wikipedia in order to ask this question. I tried to find it, but could not, and I need it to finish a report...

Why did Eric Arthur Blair used "George Orwell" as his pen name?

Pease help me! Knitemare217 (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Our article George Orwell contains the lines

He returned to teaching at Hayes and prepared for the publication of his work now known as Down and Out in Paris and London which he wished to publish under an assumed name. In a letter to Moore (dated 15 November 1932) he left the choice of pseudonym to him and to Victor Gollancz. Four days later, he wrote to Moore, suggesting these pseudonyms: P. S. Burton (a tramping name), Kenneth Miles, George Orwell, and H. Lewis Allways. He finally adopted the nom de plume George Orwell because, as he told Eleanor Jacques, "It is a good round English name."

Algebraist 00:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that "George" was for the patron saint of England and thus quintessentially English, and "Orwell" was for the River Orwell in Suffolk, which was a place he held in some affection. I've done some googling and discovered several sites that agree with this (eg: [17] [18] [19]), but none of them provide an authoritative reference for this assertion, so it should be used with care if at all. Karenjc 15:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Chinese Catholics

1. What do Chinese Catholics do as regards to having children?
2. Is the One Child Policy enforced on foreigners living in China?
3. How does the Catholic Church in China address the first problem?

Vltava 68 00:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The one child policy (further relaxed in the last couple of years) has never applied to non-Chinese citizens, even alien-residents. The Chinese government has no control with that respect on non-citizens. Steewi (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There are many exceptions to the one child policy. It does not apply to ethnic minorities, for example. Some of these minorities, such as the Hui or the Jews, are generally at least partly defined by religion - though I don't think Catholicism is counted as an ethnic minority. A Chinese citizen of foreign extraction would, in the usual case, be an ethnic minority and thus not be subject to the policy. Chinese citizens who have previously lived abroad are permitted two children. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. How would this affect an ethnic-Han Chinese married to a foreigner?--KageTora (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The status of Roman Catholicism in China is complicated (see Christianity in China for an overview); Catholicism has been in China a long time due to Jesuit and other missionaries, but the PRC government regulates religion, banning sects it doesn't like and tightly controlling the rest. Hence Catholicism in China is officially controlled by the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, rather than being under Papal authority. The article on the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association says the CPCA approves of abortion and artificial contraception in contrast to Vatican teaching. The Vatican seems unwilling to break ties with Chinese Catholics even if they obey the CPCA, but the Vatican doesn't accept the Chinese government's authority over Catholicism either. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Terrorist Attack on Big Ben

Hi friends I read on 20minutos (Spanish newspaper) that terrorists whoa attacked London in 2005 also wanted to attack the Big Ben and the Buckingham Palace. My question is... if they achieved it, would any person die in the Big Ben?, Are people working there?. I read the article of the Big Ben but there's no mention about attempted terrorist attack in July 2005. Thanks and forgive spelling mistakes. Greetings all! --190.49.118.197 (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Big Ben is in the clock-tower at the Houses of Parliament, so it would be an enormous terrorist attack and whilst it might be that it was low in terms of number of people it would be huge in significance - it would be an attack on an icon. Add in that depending on the 'time of day' there would be potentially thousands of tourists that could be injured/killed by falling debris etc. Of course to understand the terrorist policies you have to consider that they focus heavily on symbolism and the knock-on effects that an attack would have. You don't have to kill thousands to get the attention and spread fear to millions of people. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, depending on the nature of the attack, you might wipe out several hundred MPs - that would be a pretty successful terrorist attack. --Tango (talk) 10:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There would also be the knock-on effect of BBC Radio 4 losing the bongs before the news. AllanHainey (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

^{Of course, Radio 4 have used other bells before as stand-ins during building work, maintenence etc. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 15:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)}

IT would also be very difficult to rebuild Big Ben to how it was, and the effect of an attack on the original buildings of the Houses of Parliament would also be irreparable.MarquisCostello (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Depending on the scope of the attack and resulting damage, These Guys would have to find another Quarterback  :) Cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that dude's tough. He played the Super Bowl with a broken rib. However, I don't even think he could take on a 747... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

China

Would it be fair to say that the reason China has been united throughout most of it's existence is because the ethnic and geographic layout of East Asia? 72.200.101.17 (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

On the ethnic perspective, it depends on the time at which you take the snapshot of said layout. Historically, what is today "China" was inhabited by a whole range of diverse groups, most of which eventually became assimilated into the Han. Even today, there is great internal division amongst them. What has held the nation together is probably not so much their "ethnic" makeup as a cultural unity which has developed over the centuries and even today is incomplete. I would say the written Chinese language is one of the most important unifying factors. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I would also say that the original premise is somewhat faulted. The idea that China has been united throughout its existance is a faulty premise. Consider that Modern China includes territories which historically are not populated by the Chinese (Han) peoples, including Tibet, Manchuria, Uigur lands, etc. etc. Also consider that for large amounts of Chinese history there have been competing Han Chinese states, including such time periods as the Warring states period, the Three Kingdoms period, the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period, the Sixteen Kingdoms period, the Southern and Northern Dynasties period, the Xinhai Revolution, the Chinese Civil War period, all represented times when there was no single monolithic Han Chinese state. Just watch the animated gif titled File:Territories of Dynasties in China.gif and you'll get an idea about the ebb and flow of Chinese history... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, if you define a core central China excluding peripheral territories, then you get a zone roughly equivalent in area to Europe excluding Russia and northern Scandinavia, or roughly equivalent in area to the Indian subcontinent -- yet over the past 2,200 years, this core China has been politically unified considerably more often than than either Europe or the Indian subcontinent, and in some respects is more culturally unified, too (in terms of having only one major written language, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Cavemen in literature

When did the present stereotype of a caveman first appear? (By that I mean a group of people living in caves, wearing furs, carrying clubs and saying "Ug". Not meaning 'modern people' who choose to live as hermits in a cave.) In particular, would folk emigrating in the 1840s on the Oregon trail be familiar with the stereotype? -- SGBailey (talk) 08:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think they'd be aware of the sdtereotype because it doesn't fit at all well with Biblical beliefs - as practised by almost everyone on the trail, and probably to the characters to which you refer. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 11:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Neanderthal remains were the first real discovery of fossils significantly different from modern humans, but significantly more connected to modern humans than to apes; however, this wasn't really understood until 1856-1857 (and even then, some claimed that the Neanderthal skeleton was that of a "deformed Cossack" soldier from the preceding century!). Remains of fully modern humans from before the origins of agriculture (ca. 10,000 B.C.) weren't discovered until 1868 (Cro-Magnon). -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

So do we have any idea when / where the stereotype evolved? -- SGBailey (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Conan Doyle's The Lost World was published in 1912 with ape-men fighting humans; Edgar Rice Burroughs copied this idea for The Land That Time Forgot in 1915. I can't find any references before about 1912.

IMDb seems to point to a genre of caveman movies in the 1910s, listing D. W. Griffith's Man's Genesis (1912)[20] and Charles Chaplin's His Prehistoric Past (1914)[21]as well as Brute Force (1914)[22], The Cave Man (1912)[23], and later Cave Man (1934)[24]. From the descriptions, Griffiths's characters can't talk (handy for a silent film), and use sticks and stones for weapons, while the hero of Cave Man acts like Tarzan, another source for primitive life, and fights dinosaurs. Stills from Man's Genesis[25] and His Prehistoric Past[26] show the wearing of furs and grass, although Chaplin still has his bowler hat.

Caveman, Category:Fictional prehistoric characters and Category:Prehistoric people in popular culture may have some more information. There seems to have been a genre revival in the early 1960s: The Flintstones began in 1960, two years after B.C. (comic strip). One Million Years B.C. was made in 1966. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if caveman stereotypes might be influenced by circus strongman imagery, particularly as regards the brute strength and one-shouldered fur costume; but I can't find anything earlier than the early 20th century, e.g. Abe Boshes in an undated image[27], so the circus performers may have been influenced by caveman movies. The Circus Historical Society[28] would be the place for research. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There have been heraldic "wildmen" or "woodwoses" in European iconography for a long time, often shown as bearded and carrying huge clubs, but they're not uniformly depicted as brutishly subhuman (in fact, often they're shown as fine physical specimens influenced by classical depictions of Hercules), and they have no real association with caves, that I'm aware of... AnonMoos (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If I recall, the idea of "cavemen" specifically dates from the mid-19th century, coinciding with the widely-reported discovery of Neanderthal remains in Europe. Europeans of that period were fascinated with the idea that even "civilized" people like themselves had a pre-civilized, "barbaric" stage of life where they were essentially brutes. Tracing the evolution (har har) of this particular trope would be quite interesting, as it is one of those things that everybody "knows" today but nobody really knows why they know it, but it was well-established by the time people like Darwin and Galton were writing on the evolution of men. Darwin in particular draws on this idea in Descent of Man as a way to counter the accusations that Europeans and "savages" from other parts of the world were not the same species (he shows that civilization is just a layer over the basic barbaric frame). I don't think Americans in the 1840s would have been aware of the idea, though. I imagine it made its way into cheap Victorian literature a lot earlier than the "classics" described above. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I've edited some of the fruitful thoughts above into Wikipedia's weak article Caveman. Anyone interested might want to improve it further. It needs your help--Wetman (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks wetman. -- SGBailey (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It might not be a stereotype - see Cerne Abbas giant 89.241.159.20 (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Stereotypes can be based on real difference, rather than just imagined ones. Just because some images show this type of 'caveman' does not mean it isn't a stereotype, because there are bound to be cavemen that don't ift into that group. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 13:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

How is a piece of seventeenth century graffiti relevant here? Algebraist 10:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Succession

Duchess of Saxony, yes or no? This should be a title for the pre-Windsors, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.164.27 (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Victoria was a Duchess in Saxony. All British royals descended from Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, including Elizabeth II but excluding her descendants, would've also been Dukes and Duchesses in Saxony if George V hadn't renounced all German titles for himself and his descandants. If The Duke of Edinburgh hadn't renounced his princely titles, Elizabeth II and her male-line descendants would've also been Princes of Greece and Denmark. Surtsicna (talk) 08:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

So why doesn't Wikipedia mention this in their styles, only casually glance over the issue in relation to WWI? Surely, some standardization is in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.164.27 (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Victoria never used the titles of Duchess in Saxony and Princess of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, because she acquired them when she was already Queen of the United Kingdom. She used her highest, monarchical title instead of courtesy titles acquired by marriage. Her children rarely (if ever) used the titles of Duke in Saxony and Prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha because their British royal titles ranked higher than their German ducal titles. We can mention that they held those titles, but they surely didn't use them. Surtsicna (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm just wanting to see all titles, not just regnant, but even the honorary. HM the Queen today has all of these articles about her wonderful titles and positions, but you'd think we'd see this title included for the Albertine period of the BRF, what with the inclusion of all the French titles for the government back in the day, as they are listed on Wikipedia. I myself know much less about the German titles and situation, the whole present establishment descended from Sophia of Hanover. It would help me and others less familiar with this brand of the modern Monarchy. I know the title is in her article but the circumstances of the German dynasties with respect to their Continental holdings, are all rather hazy. I know much more about the French dynasties and their Continental connections with England, but maybe it's just not that interesting in this case. I don't know why Victoria inherited when there was a legitimate male heir to the throne. This is bewildering. The same thing happened to the Windsors, with Elizabeth instead of some male Windsor. It's like Parliament is increasing the Royal turnover rate for dynasties, so none of them are dyed in the wool elements of the establishment. Consequently, it is rather tiring to cultivate sympathy for nobodies on the throne, although I'm a hopeful monarchist.

There are some articles which list all titles of a deceased British royal - List of titles and honours of Mary of Teck for example. Why did Victoria succeed? Victoria succeeded because her father was the eldest of the younger brothers of William IV and William IV had no children at all. Since Victoria's father was dead and she was his only child, she was the representative of him and his line. Ernest Augustus of Hanover was younger than Victoria's father and so Victoria was "older" than him in the eyes of cognatic primogeniture. Since the throne of Hanover was restricted to men only (just like the French throne), Ernest Augustus succeeded there as William IV's closest male relative. In the United Kingdom, however, women can succeed if they have no brothers - this has been a rule since the 12th century. Victoria and Elizabeth had no brothers and therefore they were both rightful heirs to the throne. Surtsicna (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Female succession was accepted from the 12th century, but it was not the rule – in the sense that Victoria definitely preceded her uncles and male cousins without controversy – until much later. —Tamfang (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The male line was still in existence and still is today. It's quite strange to hear tabloid reports of the present heir to Hanover in Germany, instead of acknowledge that a male heir is desired to prolong a dynastic hold on the throne. It's not like the Tudors here, in this situation. What becomes of all the male Hanoverians and Saxons? This is just Parliament's stranglehold on the Monarchy and they've been doing it since they booted Jamie from the Throne, so there is no intention of a change any time soon? Is there an actual stipulation or clause written somewhere, that forces each dynasty to do this, a contract of Constitutional Monarchy? The Throne is divorced from reproductive pass/fail, but is wholly arbitrary? It couldn't go either way, could it? I want to know if this is as official as the ban on Roman Catholicism.

Yes, but cognatic primogeniture doesn't care about the strict male line. Agnatic primogeniture does. The UK follows and has always followed (just like it's predecessors followed) cognatic primogeniture: if a person has no sons, then that person is to be succeeded by the eldest daughter. The parliament has not plotted against the monarchy or whatever you're trying to say and I hope you won't edit the article to reflect your opinion. Let's continue this discussion here please. Surtsicna (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

All right then, you want to say Parliament had nothing to do with forcing Henry Tudor onto the nation by marrying Elizabeth of York, even though there were viable claimants in both Houses of Lancaster and York that were of the Plantagenet dynasty? You're saying Parliament didn't interfere and demolish the Plantagenets by skillful use of the Tudors? I'm not necessarily addressing the Commons on this issue of royal right, but the Lords want concessions out of the Crown and will only get it for so long as they dictate the succession. What I'm getting at, is that England very clearly was an agnatic primogeniture succession country until the "solution" to the Wars of the Roses. I could not imagine any dynasty handing over their power so easily, unless the parliamentary establishment put handicaps on the succession. There is no law of the land that could prevent agnatic succession in the UK before the Williamites redefined the Monarchy and the natural desire of a Royal Family is to prolong their own kind for as long as God allows.

Oh, I hate conspiracy theories so much. England has not practiced agnatic primogeniture since the Norman conquest. You forgot that Matilda was designated heir of Henry I and that both Stephen and Henry II based their rights on their mother's succession rights. The parliament doesn't dictate succession, nor does the Cortes in Spain (and Spain practices and has always practised cognatic primogeniture). The throne is not held by a dynasty, it's held by the rightful heir. Henry VII was not forced to marry Elizabeth of York. He was monarch by the right of conquest and his marriage to Elizabeth simply strenghten his children's succession rights. The parliament has nothing to do with succession to the Crown or a peerage title. Surtsicna (talk) 10:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Really not sure what you mean by that last sentence -- Parliaments in the British Isles were involved a number of times in resolving disputed claims about noble heirships, and what are the Act of Settlement 1701 and the Royal_Marriages_Act_1772 if not parliamentary acts? AnonMoos (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I mean that Parliament doesn't change the succession law to suit a particular dynasty. Anyway, what's disputable about Victoria's accession? What's disputable about Elizabeth II's accession? Surtsicna (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you would have Francis II instead of Elizabeth II if the Act of Settlement 1701 hadn't been passed by parliament, as well as the fact that if the Royal_Marriages_Act_1772 hadn't been passed, then a lot of the illegitimate children of Victoria's father's elder brothers might have been legitimate children of Victoria's father's elder brothers ... AnonMoos (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The IP was asking why Victoria ascended when there were males from the House of Hanover and why Elizabeth II ascended when there were males from the House of Windsor. Jacobites were not mentioned. Surtsicna (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Female succession in Spain goes back quite a long way, but since the Bourbon succession it has been excluded at least sometimes. —Tamfang (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Every Bourbon King of Spain had a male heir, except for Ferdinand VII, who was succeeded by his eldest daughter Isabella II - therefore, agnatic primogeniture was not applied in Spain since the Bourbon succession. Surtsicna (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

So, you are telling me that dynasties willingly abdicate their power to other people? That's not the English history I know. Monarchs wouldn't even give in to their own blood, much less one not in their family! Whig history tends to besmirch those who refuse to give up their power to new people they could control, but it is telling that Parliament owes the Magna Carta to the French and yet, Parliamentarians like to rewrite our history to make it seem like the Dutch are the fountainhead of freedom, since William of Orange and the Bill of Rights. Did you notice how both the Catholic and Protestant English hated the Stuarts? The Catholics tried to blow up the King and replace him with his daughter, Princess Elizabeth, who would be married to somebody they liked better, while the Protestants themselves used the very same daughter to promote Sophia of Hanover. The via media Anglicans were willing to use a Caroline descendent like Mary or Anne, so long as they were married to a husband they approved of. They did their damnedest to get rid of a native dynasty with a foreign ideology, only to import a foreign dynasty with a native ideology. Above all, they would not abide by a Royal Family of legitimists who would have a canonized ancestor like Charles the First. This is Parliament's intervention in the Monarchy. You are obviously reading some other country's tradition.

Just so you know, the reason why Matilda was heiress, was because there was no legitimate male of the Norman dyansty, so they'd obviously have a husband from another dynasty come in, but the Londoners wanted Stephen because Normandy didn't like Anjou, so they were trying to keep Geoffrey Plantagenet out of the picture. You are misreading the situation. It is obvious that one would have to rely on a maternal right of succession, if there were no paternal one to speak of! Henry Tudor was a conniving Parliamentary aristocrat who took over the Throne and ran it like a public office. He had the full backing of other Parliamentarians who were tired of fighting French wars for a dynasty which facetiously used a maternal succession right as justification for a century of war, when it was really just retaliation for not having autonomy over French territories, the Crown wanted to be held in right of the King of England, rather than in homage of the French Crown. This very same Angevin dynasty of Plantagenets fought amongst themselves for power and their conflicts were defined by the relation of their fathers to Edward III, although the ultra-Parliamentarian Yorkists also invoked the maternal succession from the Mortimers to Lionel of Antwerp. The Lancastrians were moderate Parliamentarians, only enough to depose Richard II's absolutism and regain the power John of Gaunt held. In a sense, the Yorkist succession was of the same type, that of regency and ultimately of usurpation.

@Surtsicna: The parliament has nothing to do with succession to the Crown or a peerage title - that's not strictly true, as the case of George VI succeeding Edward VIII shows. Had the UK parliament not decided that Edward had abdicated (they get to decide, or at the very least confirm/agree/approve, because British monarchs cannot unilaterally abdicate), then Edward would have remained king until his death in 1972, and only then been succeeded by Elizabeth II. And, of course, parliament could theoretically change the succession laws tomorrow (subject to the Commonwealth Realms' concurrence). Parliament and parliament alone has that right. No monarch does. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And, besides succession to the throne (which follows law set by parliament), Parliament is the only means by which succession to a peerage title can be changed. - Nunh-huh 22:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I wasn't clear enough. Yet I don't understand what the IP wants to know. Succession is cognatic rather than agnatic. Fullstope. The parliament doesn't change the succession law every once in a while to suit someone. Do you think that the Parliament conspired to change the dynasty when it gets too powerful or whatever the IP tries to say? Surtsicna (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm stating that the succession must be cognatic only by duress from Parliament, to eliminate the concentration and entrenchment of Royal power in one family. The Monarchy has traditionally tried to run its affairs in the French manner, which means Salic Law. Of course, Edward III purposefully made this an issue for his own succession in France, but that was because he wanted to even the odds. The same tactic was chosen by Richard, Duke of York in his deposition of Henry VI's rights in favor of his own by invoking both male and female lines to his own benefit. The natural form of an hereditary monarchy, is to deplete all legitimate males when all efforts have been made to secure a male inheritance, then move onto a female of the most recent generation. Electoral monarchies rely on aristocratic intervention and caveats on who can succeed, whether the Throne will go to a male or female, or this or that new dynasty, from inside the country or a foreign choice. Surtsicna, you must have little understanding that England was once an hereditary kingdom, but became an electoral oligarchy over time, so even as the Monarchy was invested with central powers, Parliament had the trade-off of counsel and direction behind the establishment, for the choice of the Stuarts and subsequent rejection of them is a prime example of this. On the royal.gov website, the transition from Olde England to Great Britain is done with James, so they admit it just as well. The Monarchy had already been debased to being possessed by "New Men" in the form of the Tudors, who rose as "favourites" of the "corrupt" Lancastrians. The Tudors went from simpletons to royal majesty in less than a century and their record as leaders betrays these humble origins.

Anyways, I was hoping for more coverage of the Germanised establishment which prevailed since the Stuart twilight. I know but a little, that it mostly consisted of mercantile class connections and a few foreign dignitaries held in high regard. The process began under the Stuarts, with the Palatines and then the Dutch and onward. Mary of Teck was Swabian and her retainers came to Britain, but I confess to know rather little about these people in the "New Monarchy", even whilst learning much more than I used to about the old French establishment. I guess it's because the French have been absorbed into the English, but the new German establishmentarians are still too close to the Monarchy for their sort to mix and mingle with the English commons. The original point of discussion, was to find more exposure on the relationship of the UK to post-French Continental holdings of the Monarchy (her being Duchess of Saxony is one example of this). I think we all take it for granted about the knowledge we have on the Angevin Empire, but as to the Principality of Orange, for instance, I know next to nothing in its relationship to the UK in the time of William III, but I suspect Louis XIV tried to annex that territory for France. As I said before, this is all vague for me and I bet for most people who aren't related somehow to the present establishment of Great Britain, because they identify by default with England alone. One would probably have to be part of the new in-crowd to relate with the concept of Great Britain and its remade Continental relationship. We might all connect with Britannia, but that was so long ago. So by now, you see that German electoral monarchism is the norm for Great Britain, but the old hereditary establishment died with England.

Oh right...the first instance of Parliamentarians unrelated to the Monarchy dictating the succession in their favour, rather than engineering it in the case of the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485, was when the Duke of Northumberland made the dying Edward VI pass over his own two sisters in favour of Lady Jane, so that Guilford Dudley would eventually be made king. While Edward's father Henry VIII stipulated (with a notorious male preference) that the the Throne would first go to Edward, then Mary and Elizabeth, followed by a descendant of Henry's own younger sister Mary, he explicitly forbid the Scottish succession of his older sister Margaret. Parliament overrode this restriction and invited James VI of Scots anyways, but eventually regretted it and that is why the Civil War happened. Parliament has been Kingmaking in some form or another, ever since the Wars of the Roses, but it's only been a legitimate power of theirs upon the election of James Stuart, because they did not have a Royal Writ and didn't need one. Now, Parliament does it all the time, even where Royal Consorts are concerned. Their first interference in choice of consort, was removing Anne Woodville's family, followed by engineering any number of Henry VIII's marriages, then protesting Philip II of Spain and eventually Henrietta Maria of France was objected to and part of the reason for war with their king. Then, as mentioned, Parliament made William of Orange and George of Denmark their favoured husbands of the hated "legitimist" dynasty of the Stuarts, but you can already see that, despite the seniority of Margaret Tudor, the Stuarts were only as legitimate as the Tudors were at Bosworth. Parliament objected to Maria Fitzherbert and Wallis Simpson. 68.231.164.27 (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't comment on Mrs Fitzherbert, but I doubt the bit about Wallis Simpson is true. It wasn't the parliament that objected to her, it was the government, and the PM, Stanley Baldwin, in particular. Baldwin told Edward that his choice of wife would never be accepted by the British people. That was what put the kibosh on him marrying her if he wanted to remain king. Afaik, parliament per se never expressed an opinion on the matter, one way or another. That would have been a waste of parliament's time in any case, because they don't get to approve or disapprove a monarch's choice of consort, well, not these days anyway; so objecting to it, or, for that matter, agreeing with it, would have had no effect. But they were happy to rush through the legislation altering the succession laws, allowing him to abdicate rather than continue to reign without "the woman he loved". -- JackofOz (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The PM and all related bureaucracy are Parliament.

Pamphleting cars

Does anyone know of any locale that penalizes the placement of pamphlets on vehicles' windshields? Is there any reason passers-by may not remove such pamphlets? Thanks in advance. Imagine Reason (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Targeted littering. Remove at will and recycle.--Wetman (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing the pamphlets from windshields and dropping them on the ground would probably not be an acceptable alternative, however. But you could remove the pamphlets and toss them into the nearest trash can. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Commedian Mitch Hedberg said it best when he noted "Whenever someone on the street hands you a pamphlet, it's like he's saying to you 'Here, you throw this away'..." --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"Seven of the top 20 millionaires in the Sunday Times Rich List owe their fortunes to online gambling"

Or so says Roy Hattersley, a British politician, in The Guardian newspaper. Yet a quick look at said list http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/specials/rich_list/rich_list_search/ shows that nobody in the top twenty five has any mention of gambling. How can the big difference between what a reputable politician says (and whose party I incidently support) and the reality be explained? 78.146.66.185 (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Did Hattersley say which of the top 20 he was referring too? MarquisCostello (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The above quote was all the detail he went into. He did not mention any names. 89.241.159.20 (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "top 20 millionaires" is rather odd too... the top 20 are all billionaires (strictly speaking, a billionaire is a millionaire, but you would normally use the more precise term). It sounds like he didn't have the faintest idea what he was talking about. When and where did he say that, by the way? If it was at a time when he wouldn't have been expecting to discuss the topic, he may just have said what he thought was true and hadn't fact checked it. Rather irresponsible, but perhaps not malicious. --Tango (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

@ Tango: the "when and where" are both in the column linked. // BL \\ (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What column linked? The only link I see is to the rich list... --Tango (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Tango. I was so certain that the link had been there (though you are quite right that it is not) that I searched the history looking for the elf who had made the switch. Forgive my aging brain cells. I must have done a search and found it that way. Here is the link [29], with my sincere apologies. // BL \\ (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

People lower down the list like Anurag Dikshit (94th=), Russell De Leon and Ruth Parasol (97th), Vikrant Bhargava (289th), have made their fortune from online gambling, but Dikshit at 94th is the highest.[30] Branson, who runs virgingaming.com (and bit for Britain's National Lottery), is the only one in the top 20 I can find with gambling interests, though many own large property portfolios which may include casinos; Philip Green is a keen gambler[31] and Sean Quinn plays poker with a £5 maximum[32]. Hattersley's elderly, eccentric, and often a little bit confused. To be charitable, online gaming has suffered over the past year or 2, with US authorities clamping down, so if Hattersley had looked at a list of say new billionaires in 2006 you might have seen more internet gambling millionaires.

Saw question on conjoined twins and had a thought

If there was a pair of conjoined twins, and one of them committed a serious crime (say physically punching someone), is it legally possible that their twin would have to go to jail simply because they are inextricably connected to their twin? I mean one could make an argument that they were there and thus an accomplice, but its possible they were physically unable to prevent the crime despite trying.

Please note that I am not asking for legal advice, this is a purely hypothetical legal paradox. 65.167.146.130 (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

See Chained for Life. If a movie director can't decide, I wonder what chance the rest of us have.// BL \\ (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to be crass or insensitive, but if they're conjoined isn't the question immaterial? I would conjecture that, like the film hints, this is uncharted legal ground and would amount to a precedent-setting decision or two. Wolfgangus (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed at the refdesk before. See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2007_August_21#Conjoined_twins. (There are links in that discussion to 3 earlier related discussions, too.) Karenjc 15:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Identify the crown

Could somebody identify this crown? I found it during a google search and didn't recognise it. It's the one in the top left corner (it's no use clicking for the larger image as it comes up as an error). It is presumably British due to the fact that it links to the website of the British monarch's site. The monarchy have relaunced their website and this image is not to be found amoung the crown jewel gallery... Thanks so much for any help! ;) --217.227.116.32 (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I did a similar google search for 'crown of wales' and i believe this is the crown of King George I of England, dated 1715. A google image search for 'crown of king george I' brings up this picture. MarquisCostello (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I second that opinion; this seems to be the State Crown of George I. - Nunh-huh 23:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

February 21

When did Kitty Lange Kielland die?

And before you say January 8, 1914 just as the article says bear with me a moment. The Swedish and Norwegian Wikipedias list it as October 1st, 1914. Yes, I wrote the English article, but I no longer have access to the book I used and I know suspect I read 1/8/2008 in the American way (Month/Day/Year) and not the way it was meant (Day/Month/Year). I've checked around the internet, but can't find anything conclusive. Anybody have anything? Thanks! --Falcorian ^(talk) 01:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

October 1, 1914. Citation: Marit Lange and Thea Miller. "Kielland, Kitty." In Grove Art Online. Oxford Art Online, http://www.oxfordartonline.com (accessed February 21, 2009). --Milkbreath (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --Falcorian ^(talk) 04:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions related to the development of civilization

What was the problematic nature of the term "civilization"? How have a variety of social biases influenced our understanding of western civilization over time?

What were the culture and abilities of our hunter-gatherer ancestors?

How did the Neolithic Revolution establish the necessary preconditions for the development of civilizations?

Which historians defended this statement: "Egypt was in many waysa typical Neolithic civilization; its geography made it distinct"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.220 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 20 February 2009

Out out courtesy, and assuming good faith, I have combined your related questions into one topic for ease of responding. I have to say that these read exactly like homework questions. While I am sure many people here would be willing to help you with things, we don't really just answer your homework questions for you like that. Have you researched the appropriate Wikipedia pages, like Hunter-gatherer, Neolithic Age, Neolithic Revolution, etc.? - Eron^Talk 02:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not homework questions and other websites will do. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.220 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 20 February 2009

Pre-Socratics

With the Pre-Socratics, western thought emerges from mythology into an attempt at accounts of reality that can be evaluated according to a new standard: rationality. What were the difference between these Pre-Socratic philosophers when it came to the way tradition is replaced by reason as the measure of the Greeks understanding of reality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.220 (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

From one point of view, the pre-Socratics were the first ones we know about who were dimly groping towards science by trying to explain complex phenomena as arising from basic principles or laws of nature. Unfortunately, from the relatively little we know about many of them, their debates were often about such things as whether fire or water was the first and most fundamental element... The article pre-Socratic philosophy is mainly a list of names. AnonMoos (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Plato's allegory of the cave

What was the Plato's allegory of the cave? What was the theory of Forms or Ideas it is based on? How does that theory relate to a theory of knowledge on one hand and what kind of educational practice does it produce? Any other websites about htis will do.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.220 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 20 February 2009

I recommend you start your homework by reading Allegory of the cave. - Eron^Talk 02:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I recommend that you watch the movie "The Matrix". 118.71.169.174 (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

First Legal Tender Approved by US Congress

In the March 2009 issue of Popular Mechanics, pp 53, there's an ad for "Silver Dollars of the American Revolution" - ie Spanish Silver Dollars, that claims "Congress Chose This Silver Dollar as Our First Legal Tender" and goes on to say that the Contintental Congress approved it as such. This articleclaims that coin served as the unofficial national currency of the colonies for much of the 17th and 18th centuries, while none of the seemingly pertinent wiki entries, such as the Coinage Act of 1792 or This one on the dollar coin or any entries on the Constitutional Congress make any mention of the Spanish Silver Dollar as the first approved by Congress.

So does anyone know of a reliable source to back up this claim, made by a site called GovMint.com? Thanks Wolfgangus (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Both of our articles on Dollar coin (United States) and on Spanish Dollar mention that the Spanish Dollar (aka Piece of Eight or Real de a Ocho) was legal tender until 1857. I have not yet found that 1857 act which ended its use... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The act was 11 Stat. 163 (text here). --Cam (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

OK but neither verifies the ad's claim, that the Spanish silver dollar was the first legal tender for the newly created country; unless this is very loosely interpreted, i.e. it was accepted as legal tender among the colonies and became an ad hoc legal tender following the First or Second Continental Congress. Is this sound? Wolfgangus (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Coins from many foreign countries were accepted as legal tender in the American colonies, but the Spanish dollar was the most common. The first legal tender issued by the Continental Congress was paper money (or bills of credit) known as Continental (currency), which was based on the Spanish system and theoretically backed by Spanish dollars. This is perhaps what the ad is referring to. Finding more info on Continental currency will probably help you find the answer. —Kevin Myers 04:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I can work from this. I appreciate the help from both of you. Wolfgangus (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

British pound sterling was still used in post-revolution America to pay for things, for one. Edison (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

American Pound Sterling

Why didn't the Founding Fathers choose an American version of the British currency? -- 16:34, 21 February 2009 68.231.164.27

There were persistent problems with a scarcity of precious-metal circulating in the British north American colonies, and coins of a number of different countries were in de facto use (as mentioned in a previous comment). So it was very easy for the U.S. to start from scratch in creating a new currency, if desired, and several figures (such as Benjamin Franklin) wanted to do this for various reasons, including decimalization... AnonMoos (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. Why didn't they go the whole hog and have a metric system for weights and measures as well? -- JackofOz (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

By the time the metric system was well-established and gaining momentum in use in France, political relations between the U.S. and France were intermittently very tense and strained (see XYZ Affair, Quasi-War, etc.), and grand reform schemes originating in France were rather politically controversial and suspect within the U.S. Currency decimalization was presented as a homegrown reform (not dependent on foreign influence). However, the U.S. actually did adopt the metric system in 1866 (non-exclusively), in matters concerning the federal government (see Metrication in the United States). AnonMoos (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I was just today reading a book about Zebulon Pike and his explorations of Colorado. In several of his journal entries, he makes extensive notes on the weather and uses Centigrade temperature. However, he also uses standard length measurements (feet, miles, etc.) I expect that for some time, both metric and non-metric systems were in use throughout the U.S. For probably random and arbitrary reasons, the non-metric system "stuck". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That gets me thinking about metrication in the US. In the 1960s, Benson & Hedges, a British cigarette maker, marketed a 100mm cigarette in the US, prompting rival Liggett & Myers to produce a cigarette "a silly millimeter longer", the Chesterfield 101. Who says cigarettes are nothing but harmful? The "100" in cigarette names is 100mm, but I'm not sure how many Americans know that these days. Americans know two liters when they see them, though, thanks to Pepsi in 1970. Soldiers brought the "klick" back from Vietnam in the 1960s, but it never caught on, and Americans still can't picture a kilometer very well, I think. The Olympics has forced the meter upon the US, and Americans know it's about a yard but don't use it in everyday talk. The hippies got pot in "keys", but they sold it by the ounce. All in all, America's resistance to metrication displays remarkable stubbornness when you consider the inroads it's made and the pressure from without. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Irish state of Ulaid

Ulster in light

Ancient Ireland with Ulidia in blue

Hi, Ulaid is a precursor to the Irish province of Ulster. It is somehow entangled with Ulidia which is a small north east portion roughly covering counties Down and Antrim. Is it fair to say that Ulaid is roughly the same in boundaries as Ulster? What is the relationship between Ulaid and Ulidia? Anyone suggest a book or website that details these two? ~ R.T.G 11:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This source [33] seems to state that the terms Uladh, Ulidia and Ulaid were used interchangeably in ancient texts. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Comments between horizontal rules moved here from Obama puppy section

Thanks for just putting those maps there without a warning - I have a phobia of maps, especially ones showing islands or water. Very considerate.--Wovit! Wovit! (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have a phobia of sarcasm. Thanks for using it without warning. Very considerate. What's that? You had no way of knowing and it's not something anyone could reasonably expect? Well, you're still a bad person for doing it, I'm sure. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Did Barack Obama's daughters ever get their puppy?

If so, where is the Wikipedia article for it? US Presidential pets are apparently notable enough for their own articles.--Wovit! Wovit! (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This op-ed suggests they are waiting for warmer weather before getting one [34]. Exxolon (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

has any work in philosophy ever caused historical change?

Hi, are there any good examples of any book or system of thought in philosophy having a definite causal effect on history? People often talk as if philosophy has been influential, and the preponderance of philosophical works on "great books" courses suggests an assumption of its wider importance, but I'm looking for a fairly concrete example. Thanks, It's been emotional (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The Communist Manifesto seems to be an fairly concrete example. The text established a new method of political thinking a new ideology, which was to have an effect on the later history of so many countries.MarquisCostello (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The Analects of Confucius exerted (and continue to exert) a massive influence on the course of Asian history. Adam Smith continues to influence economic policy. The works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in particular The Social Contract, were a major cause of the French Revolution, and his novel Emile had a major effect on pedagogy in France and elsewhere. Jeremy Bentham influenced the development of the modern penal system and the welfare state, among other things. The work of Georges Sorel may be partly blamed for the rise of fascism and Nazism, as it fueled anti-parliamentary extremism in the years before the Second World War. LANTZY^TALK 19:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

All of the fine examples listed above could be categorised as writing on economics, or politics, or sociology, and so forth. Similarly philosophical writings about the shape of the earth or the order of the heavens get called astronomy, writings about how many prime numbers there are get called maths, and writings about the death penalty and who should get a kidney transplant get called ethics. So the cynic might argue that "philosophy" is the name we give for thinking and writing about stuff for which we haven't (get) found a worthwhile application, and if some prior thought was found to actually have use, we'd promote it to being a proper science. So by that definition the answer to you question is a resounding "no!", for if something had ever caused historical change, we wouldn't call it philosophy. Of course I'm being rather contrary here, but when you find someone claiming "there is no use for philosophy", you'll find they're using a tautological definition of philosophy which defines it as only including useless things. Mimetic Polyalloy (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Vietnam war interview

Hi, I am looking for a video clip from the Vietnam war in which an American officer is being interviewed outdoors. He insists the North Vietnamese are nowhere nearby but immediately afterward there is gunfire and a wounded soldier is carried through the frame. Not sure if it was Tet, Hue or Saigon. Haven't had any luck with my searches on youtube. Thanks!--75.157.250.4 (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

A descendant of John Sedgwick, one assumes. --Sean 15:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Name of science fiction story

Hi, I am trying to find a series of science fiction books on Wikipedia, but I can't remember the name!! The name of the series is simply a year in the 17th century (I thought it was called "1639", but I checked that year and can't find it there). All I need is the correct date and I should be able to find it.

The story is of a circle of land in modern-day US that was switched with an identical circle of land in 17th century Germany, and goes on to tell the story of the American people that were then trapped in the past... a pretty awesome story, no? Jonathan ^talk 19:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to 1633 (novel)- there were also books entitled 1634 and 1635. Regards, MarquisCostello (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The first book in the series was 1632 (novel). It's available from the publishers as a free e-book, see the link in our article if you're interested. The series is Assiti Shards series, and that's part of a larger body of work called the Assiti Shards series -gadfium 21:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Louis Font, Donald Duncan, and Howard Levy

Why don't we have articles about these people? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably because nobody's got around to it yet. You could start them off yourself if you wanted to. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Because their notability is rather suspect. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

inflation

why should inflation happen if the government printed just enough money to pay its foreign debt or to purchase from a foreign company or country?

Because that money just comes from nowhere. By printing more money, all you're doing is making the existing money worth less.67.169.118.40 (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the concept of money as equivalent to physical currency is old and antiquated and not at all applicable in the modern world. Modern monetary theory rests on the total supply of money, which has little do with how many bills are printed and coins are pressed in a given nation. It used to, maybe 100 years ago, but since most "money" exists solely as entries in computer spreadsheats. Inflation is controlled mostly by the amount of money that banks will lend out relative to how much money they keep on hand to cover those loans. As banks make greater ratio of loans to capital on hand, inflation tends to increase, since more money is on the market. However, when banks stop loaning cash, people stop spending, and money is taken off the market as it sits around in bank accounts. Since the supply of money is now decreasing, inflation slows down, and you can actually get price deflation, since money is now scarce so its value rises relative to the products it can purchase. Governments can control this sort of money supply by lowering base interest rates; for example, a central bank can lower the rate IT uses when it loans money to commercial banks, thereby theoretically encouraging those banks to lower their interest rates, and encouraging them to loan out more money. This is sort of the modern equivalent of "printing money"; but it isn't the same thing as firing up the printing presses and producing more bills, since bills themselves represent a small portion of the total money on the market. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

A "dollar" is just a representation of 1/13-trillionth of the US economy. If you print more money, you're not increasing the size of the economy, so now that dollar represents less of the economy than it used to. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that money isn't simply going into a safe or something, either. It's being given to businesses and governments, who will then spend that money, thus putting it back into the economy. And the more money is circulating, the higher inflation is. So while printing more money seems like a good solution, it only causes problems in the end. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 02:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the U.S. Government themselves: [35] there is $829 billion dollars of U.S. currency in circulation. That represents about 0.829 trillion dollars out of a 13 trillion dollar economy, or roughly 6 percent of the total "money" in the economy. Printing more dollar bills will have little to no effect on the overall supply of "money" in the economy. The "money supply" is no longer controled by printed bills; its controlled by the central banks, in the U.S. the Federal Reserve Bank which controls the interest rates with which it will loan money to banks, and to an extent by the Fed's ability to buy up U.S. government debt (Treasury Bills and Treasury Bonds), further driving down the supply of "money". If the Bureau of Printing and Engraving knocked out a few million more Benjamin Franklin notes this year, it would have little effect on the total supply of money, and thus would not do much for inflation. Again, inflation in the modern world is controled by the supply of money (well, as it was in ALL times) however, in the modern world, money is not currency. Money is mostly ledger entries in computers. Increasing the numbers in those ledger entries is much more effected by the Monetary policy of central banks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Printing money and adding money out of thin air to computer ledger books is the same thing essentially. Both increase the money supply and both can cause inflation if done irresponsibly. Wrad (talk) 04:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes; but sometimes causing inflation can be a rational, intentional policy, sometimes the most responsible course. See Krugman's reissued book on the return of depression economics; there's a real chance it could be the wisest thing in the near future in the USA.John Z (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the question is whether the actual printing of money is likely to have a major effect. Given that printed currency represents 6 percent of the money in the U.S. (and this is a high estimate, since most of the currency printed in the U.S. is used outside of the U.S. and likely not part of the U.S. economy), increasing this number to like 7% will have a slightly inflationary effect. Just not a significant one. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. See quantitative easing (which is nothing more than a euphemism for "printing money"). --Tango (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

February 22

British Royal Crest as displayed on the locomotive Duchess of Sutherland when the royal family is aboard...

Can you give me some information about the crest on the locomotive in your picture, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LMS_Princess_Coronation_6233_%27Duchess_of_Sutherland%27_at_Crewe_Works.jpg ? More specifically, what does the R stand for in the crest? I thought it might mean Regina, but a British woman told me that it means Royal. Can you help out?

• EIIR stands for Elizabeth II Regina. Regards, MarquisCostello (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

See Royal Cypher -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

New York/Law & Order blue paper

In Law and Order, whenever a motion or suit is served on someone it is encased in blue paper. What is this called, and why is it used? EdwinHJ | Talk 00:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hindus in Rome

Is there any historical record of Hindus traveling to the Roman Empire? What about Buddhists? LANTZY^TALK 00:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The main exposure of westerners to eastern religions in classical antiquity was in Bactria (a Greek-ruled kingdom on the northwest edge of the Indian subcontinent), where there were apparent Greek converts to Buddhism like Milinda and Greek converts to Hinduism like Heliodorus, while the ruler Kanishka wrote ΒΟΔΔΟ (i.e. the name of Buddha transcribed as "Boddo" in Greek letters) on some of his coins... AnonMoos (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the existence of the Greek Bactrian kingdom was what aroused my curiosity in that direction. But I am specifically interested in Rome. Did Hindus ever set foot in the Roman Empire? Also, was any classical Roman writer aware, however dimly, of Hinduism or of the Hindu pantheon? LANTZY^TALK 02:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably some did arrive from time to time, but not in such a way as to create significant historical traces, as far as I'm aware. The Greeks were certainly aware of Hindus, but mainly as "naked philosophers" and ascetic forest hermits... AnonMoos (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

See Gymnosophists... AnonMoos (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Bi bigamist

A hypothetical situation: A man marries a woman in Texas. On vacation in Boston, he marries a man. It stands to reason that the commonwealth of Massachusetts would consider him a bigamist. But would the state of Texas? LANTZY^TALK 01:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I remember reading a standard law textbook case from many years ago where a scoundrel, who was married, married an innocent young girl to have his way with her, then claimed the marriage was null and void because he was already married. The courts, although bigamy was illegal, ruled that he was married to both women, since otherwise he would benefit from his misconduct, so he had to support both women. Might a court in a conservative state do similar logical legerdemain? Edison (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

But Texas would be in a very tight spot. If it charged the man with bigamy, would it not essentially be recognizing same-sex marriage? LANTZY^TALK 02:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

My reaction was that if any state had jurisdiction to prosecute the man for bigamy, it'd be Massachusetts. But on checking on online copy of the Texas penal code, section 25.01, I find it's illegal in Texas if a married person "purports to marry or does marry a person other than his spouse in this state, or any other state or foreign country, under circumstances that would, but for the actor's prior marriage, constitute a marriage". So indeed it seems the only issue is whether they have to recognize the same-sex marriage as a marriage. (I note incidentally that the law only says it applies to US states and foreign countries -- apparently if his bigamous marriage took place in Washington, DC, he would be safe from prosecution in Texas!) --Anonymous, 07:22 UTC, February 22, 2009.

All those defense-of-marriage laws and amendments have been to fend off the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution. It would really ultimately depend on how the U.S. Supreme Court interprets that provision of the constitution... AnonMoos (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm surprised someone hasn't tried it, or something similar, just to force the court's hand. LANTZY^TALK 02:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Bahrain- Music and Clothes

I am studying Bahrain in my social studies class and cant find a lot of information on what their native clothing and native music is. If you know of any books or websites that has any good information on these items please let me know!

For music, the article Music of Bahrain may be of use to you. Regards, MarquisCostello (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternatives to drone attacks

The US has allegedly used drones to target militants in Pakistan. Are there any realistic alternatives to this option? ExitRight (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am likely missing the point: what is the problem with using drones qua drones? I am not partisan in this, but the word "alleged" suggests a problem. // BL \\ (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It's just that most media say alleged. ExitRight (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well they could use manned aircraft/vehicles or (unmanned) missiles as alternatives, but drones seems like a way of maintaining control without endangering US personnel. -- SGBailey (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe the reason drones are preferred in this case is due to their long loiter times. --Sean 16:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason the media say alleged is that the US is not officially admitting it, because they don't want to be too open about illegal violation of another country's sovereign territory. Algebraist 10:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, this allows for plausible deniability in case Pakistan wants to claim they were the ones who launched an attack. StuRat (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Indian Buddhists

Which ethnic groups of India have Buddhist followers?

Many are Dalits (see Dalit Buddhist Movement), but that is a social rather than an ethnic distinction. For more, see History of Buddhism in India. LANTZY^TALK 03:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hindu, Christian and Buddhist President and Prime Minister of Bangladesh

When will be the time that Bangladesh will have its first Hindu president of Bangladesh, first Christian president, first Buddhist president, first Hindu Prime Minister, first Christian Prime Minister and first Buddhist Prime Minister? or Is it against the constitution? -- 03:36, 22 February 2009 74.14.117.39

First of all, the Reference desk cannot predict the future, so we can't tell you when such a thing will happen. The Constitution of Bangladesh prescribes equality before the law, but it is also expressly non-secular, placing "Absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah". It could be argued that this excludes the possibility of a non-Muslim president or prime minister. In any case, practically speaking, it is very unlikely that a non-Muslim would achieve such a high political office in a country where 90% of the people practice Islam. LANTZY^TALK 03:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

IDENTITY OF SANJOY, A CHARACTER OF THE MAHABHARATA

I want to know as detail as possible about Sanjoy, the remarkable character of the Mahabharata, who described the War of Kurukshetra to the blind king, Dhritarastra.

Well, we have Sanjaya, as a start. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

We have an article on the character, at Sanjaya and we also have an article on Mahābhārata and on the Bhagavad Gita, which describes the war, and on the Kurukshetra War itself.

I hope this helps! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)