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

December 20

Why'd it take so long for books (codex form) to be invented?

In 2 or 3 thousand years of readers, not one of them thought of putting the pages one on top of the other and bind them together, instead of making a really, really long page that had to be rolled up to use (the scroll). It takes alot longer to scroll (haha) to the page you want. Sure only a small percentage of the population was literate and the population was a lot smaller but they were the smartest people in their society and thousands of years is a long time. Seems like it would take more insight to discover the papyrus in the first place. And anyway, the very first time anyone wrote they probably only had to write a little, so one sheet was sufficient. Then he wrote some more and it couldn't fit so which would seem more natural, make another sheet and hold it over the other one or keep gluing sheets to the end until it drops to the floor, thus rolling it up was invented? It can't be so obvious that everyone did it. And if papyrus is naturally roll-ey or something why can't they just heat it with steam or something until it lays flat? Given the effort it would take to write one couldn't they have at least painted the edges of the "pages" of with a repeating color code? Like "hmm, laws relating to slaves stealing?" [[scrolls till the third green line disappears]]? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I suppose they just kept doing what they made in the past until the wax tablet was invented. The latter couldn't be binded into a scroll, so the codex was born. Just a guess. Also take into account that scrolls are still used for religious texts. There is little reason to be innovative here. 88.8.69.150 (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The wax tablet predates the codex by millennia. It may even predate the scroll. --NellieBly (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll add that until you've tried to make a book yourself, you can't really appreciate the difficulty of it. If you can make a sheet of paper you can make a scroll; cutting, shaping, arranging, binding, and (most importantly) preserving books takes more knowledge and skill. --Ludwigs2 02:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Along the same I-don't-really-know-but-I'm-a-guessin' line, I would think that a book is very useful for things you intend to read multiple times, or flip around in. Scrolls are pretty straightforward if you're only reading things once or twice, or sending short messages, or moving in mostly one direction. Given what most writing was for in those days — records of who owed what to whom, and decrees, and laws — a scroll works pretty well, on the whole. Once you start expecting people to read lots of things, like a religious text, a book becomes more useful, but even then, there are still some folks who manage to get by with scrolls in that arena. But I think one of the main points an honest to god history of the book scholar would emphasize is that people didn't use these kinds of things the same way back then as they do now. They didn't keep personal libraries with stuff on the shelves to be consulted frequently or shared. A handful of folks might have, but a handful of folks does not a print industry make. As the technology evolved, the habits evolved, which led to more technology, and so on. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You say that "some folks...manage to get by with scrolls in that arena" but I just wanted to point out that also found at the linked-to article is is that "The text of the Torah is also commonly printed and bound in book form for non-ritual functions." Bus stop (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

---

The spread and popularization of the codex (book) form was very strongly associated with Christians, so maybe the real question is why Christians were so much more receptive to the innovation? -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, since they were all about change, if books had been in use before, the Christians might have insisted on scrolls. StuRat (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That's rather pointlessly flippant... AnonMoos (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

What's flippant about it ? While there are those groups that want to keep things the same no matter what (like Orthodox Jews), there are other groups that believe in change for change's sake. Since the Christians nullified much of the Old Testament, switching the format of the writings is trivial in comparison. StuRat (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Your remark was neither true nor insightful nor amusing == pointlessly flippant. AnonMoos (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

One other thought on the difference, since scrolls lack a binding to crack, do they actually hold up better to constant use than books do ? These days, that's no big deal, just get a new copy when the old book wears out. But, back then, producing another copy, by hand, was prohibitively expensive. (They could also rebind the books, if they caught it in time, before pages were lost.) StuRat (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Getting the book rebound was the usual solution for valuable books. Alansplodge (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Scrolls are a pain in the ass. If you need to have a long work easily indexible (i.e., able to jump to any passage easily) then you need lots of relatively short scrolls. Even a moderately sized work would take an entire shelf that a codex of a few inches thick could accomplish. You could, of course, create really long scrolls, but that would make finding particular passages difficult. Scrolls are easy to make and hard to use, codices are hard to make and easy to use; so once it became desirable to mass-produce books that could be used frequently, codices win, especially once the process could be aided mechanically. --Jayron32 04:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"Scrolls are a pain in the ass." - I disagree. As I'm reading a long text, such as this one, I use my wheel to scroll up and down, rather than the PgUp and PgDn keys. I don't think I'm the only one. — Sebastian 05:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but this is not paper wound around sticks of wood. To scroll, you drag your index finger across a little wheel. Had the ancients been able to wind through scrolls so easily, they may have not had need for codices. Now, take a 500 page codex and put it on a single sheet of paper, wind it around two sticks, and find chapter 17. Then skip ahead to Chapter 25. Then go back to cross reference something in chapter 12. Not so fun with a real scroll. --Jayron32 05:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would keep 35 chapters in one scroll; they're usually kept one chapter per scroll and stashed away neatly in shelves. The only disadvantage of that is that it takes more space to store. But conversely, you can do some things with scrolls that you can't with books. I, for one, always wished to have this as a real scroll, not just in a book. — Sebastian 06:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, we're back at the same problem already noted: One shelf holds one book, or one shelf holds 30 books. The codex wins again. Other than the same sort of nostalgia that drives the SCA types to put on faux chainmail and beat each other with foam-encased PVC pipes, there's really not much demand for scrolls. Indeed, given modern trends, there will someday not be much need for codices in the same regard. In a thousand years, people will feel that deforesting the earth to keep knowledge on paper will seem as antiquaited as scrolls do today. --Jayron32 19:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Carving words on boulders is best... rock is more durable than paper. Granted portability is a bit of an issue, but portability is over-rated anyway... no need to bring the text to the readers when it is easier to bring readers to the text (readers are self-portable). And with a boulder there is less chance of accidentally leaving your important presentation behind in the taxi. Blueboar (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you want to focus on Christianity, it kind of makes sense. Unlike most religions, Christianity actually formally created the bible - i.e. they decided what would go into it and established that as their canon - and that naturally lends itself more to codex form. Other religions tended to pass down their canons in oral history, and scrolls are more functional for quick transcriptions of spoken material. --Ludwigs2 14:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if ancient scrolls carried a message like Be kind, please rewind? Astronaut (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Detectives series Scandanavia England Netherlands Belgium

How many fictional detectives are there in Scandinavian literature of crime or mystery fiction? So far, I know one and that is Kurt Wallander of Sweden. How many fictional detectives are there in British literature of crime or mystery fiction? So far, I know two and they Miss Marple and Hercule Poirot and Sherlock Holmes of course. How many fictional detectives are there in Dutch literature of crime or mystery fiction? So far, I know one that is Grijpstra and De Gier. Is there any fictional detectives in Belgian literature of crime or mystery fiction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.97 (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Fictional detectives is crying out for some subcategories by nationality... --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The British category alone would be huge: Colin Dexter (Inspector Morse), P. D. James (Inspector Dalgleish). In fact, there is a whole category just for the English writers, most of whom have at least one repeating detective character. Bielle (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a similar category for the Scottish writers. Bielle (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't Van der Valk based in Holland? I can't remember, I was only young at the time... --TammyMoet (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm perhaps a little older and remember that indeed it was, TammyMoet.

Detective/crime fiction is a very popular genre in many cultures (and I doubt that most of it is translated between languages), so the answers to the OP's question ("How many . . .") will likely run from at least dozens to hundreds or even thousands for each 'national' literature. Random responders' random suggestions here will not give anything like a true picture - I could (if I had the time) probably compile a list running close to a hundred (mostly British) just from the books on my own shelves, and I'm not even primarily a detective fiction fan (SF & Fantasy being my main interest). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.98 (talk) 13:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

A E W Mason's Inspector Hanaud Kittybrewster ☎ 11:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If we're allowed TV shows, there is Sarah Lund from Denmark in The Killing (Danish TV series). --Viennese Waltz 12:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Lisbeth Salander and Mikael Blomkvist, the main characters in the Millennium series from Sweden. He's an investigative journalist and she's a hacker, which makes them both detectives of a sort. --Viennese Waltz 12:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I thought of them and rejected them. Also a certain French priest. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Agaton Sax from Sweden.
Sleigh (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Inspector Clouseau Kittybrewster ☎ 15:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

He's French. --Viennese Waltz 15:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No, please don't add the tv shows. I only want the novel series that features the main fictional detective like Kurt Wallander of the Wallander series, and Grijpstra and De Gier of the Amsterdam Cops series. 65.92.153.97. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.163 (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The Van der Valk article says "Based on the characters and atmosphere (but not the plots) of the novels of Nicolas Freeling, the first series was shown in 1972". I suspect many TV series will have a similar basis. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Questioner, everyone loves a mystery. Me, I'm thoroughly intrigued as to how you're counting Miss Marple and Hercule Poirot and Sherlock Holmes as 2, and counting Grijpstra and De Gier as 1. If we give you 10 names, are you likely to say "OK, that's 4, now I need 6 more"?  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 16:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Marple and Holmes are English. Grijpstra and de Gier are guys I've never heard of. Poirot is Belgian. Buchan was rascist, not that it is relevant. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That part of the question was about British literature, Kitty. Marple, Poirot and Holmes all came from the pens of British writers (Agatha Christie x 2, and Conan Doyle). It wasn't about the nationalities of the fictional detectives themselves. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. 65.92.155.163|65.92.155.163 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.163 (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Georges Simenon was Belgian so Inspector Maigret qualifies. Sussexonian (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Louis XIIII

Roman numerals#IIII on clocks says "Louis XIV, king of France, who preferred IIII over IV, ordered his clockmakers to produce clocks with IIII and not IV, and thus it has remained." If that is so, did he have his subjects write his number as XIIII, as well? — Sebastian 05:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This is but one of a number of "suggested explanations" for why we have IIII and not IV on clocks. I realise this bit of info is sourced, but it's to a 1947 book and I seriously doubt its veracity if we can't find anything more modern, or alternatively, from Louis XIV's time, to confirm it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Part of why I was asking this was because this bit adds to my mistrust in the source. — Sebastian 06:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The whole "smaller unit to the left = subtraction" convention in Roman numerals (i.e. IV, IX, XL, XC, CD, CM etc.) was more medieval than ancient Roman, and there has been a certain degree of variability down through the centuries... AnonMoos (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, even certain roman numerals like D and M are relatively modern inventions, originally IƆ was 500 and CIƆ was 1000. I think typographers originally started using D and M to refer to these, so as to use less type. --Jayron32 14:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Pyongyang Overwhelmed with Grief at Demise of Kim Jong Il

What to make of these videos: http://www.kcna.kp/userAction.do?action=videoindex&lang=eng&newsyear=2011&newsno=1281141 ?

I don't think people were that upset about Princess Diana passing! Is this legitimate? Staged? Double-think? The Masked Booby (talk) 07:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If there's one pervasive problem I see in how people talk about North Korea, it's that they apply their own feelings, their own understanding of the world, to North Korean citizens. They've lived in a very, very different environment from any of us, so they are, you could say 'wired up' differently. The result being that people assume they are being insincere, or are crazy, or addled from years of oppression. Suffice to say, I don't think it's that simple. You can hear of older generations of Russians hankering for the days of Stalinist rule; not everyone objects as strenuously to totalitarianism as we Westerners like to think they should. Perhaps there's some comfort in having the boundaries of your life strictly limited; you don't have to think or worry too much, and perhaps you won't be tormented by unfulfilled ambition. Vranak (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

While many people experience spontaneous and demonstrative grief on the death of their country's leader, I would suggest that evidence within that video indicates that the gathering filmed was relatively small by protest standards; there is also some evidence (glasses frames, etc.) that the people in the video are part of the nomenklatura of juche society. The beneficiaries of juche would be more likely to experience grief, particularly as it is an acceptable way for them to express their fears, doubts and insecurities in a time of leadership change. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I fear that both the above replies miss the point. It is perfectly clear from the video that the crying is fake, acted, sham, a put-up job. They were probably told to go out there and pretend to cry for the cameras. --Viennese Waltz 08:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There are people in that video genuinely crying, there are people who've worked themselves up to genuine crying, there are people who've worked themselves up to fake crying, and there are people hoping that the poor quality of their crying will be accepted because of their willingness to cry in public. Go play soapbox games elsewhere. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless one of you is Dr. Cal Lightman, quit speculating about if people are "really" crying or not. The honest question is how many people truly believe the party line, how many absolutely don't, and how many, I suspect the silent majority, play along so they can get along, as with many compelled social norms. Shadowjams (talk) 09:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There were equally extraordinary scenes of grief at the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, a totalitarian leader who was equally demonised by the West (although Iranians have very different standards of behaviour at funerals compared to British or Americans; I'm not sure what Koreans normally do). If the British media's confused and inconstant obsession with Diana (who was demonised as often as praised) can make British people react so passionately to her death, think how much more passionately they'll react if you have a deliberate and orchestrated propaganda scheme telling you every day how wonderful the leader is. Additionally, Kim's death was very sudden, which will intensify reactions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Many people in the Soviet Union were genuinely upset and worried for the future when Stalin died (though not necessarily inclined to great public shows of weeping)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, folks weep when something bad (or even good) happens that triggers that emotion. When someone dies, are you crying over their having died? Or are you crying over having lost them? With loss comes uncertainty. Outsiders might view North Korea as a totalitarian dictatorship, while many of its citizens (as with the USSR) are relatively OK with that, as long as they understand the rules. Once a dictator dies, the rules become unclear, and all kinds of emotions can be triggered, including a real sense of loss. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Also note that, as bad as things were under him, they could get a lot worse. Imagine if a power struggle between generals erupts and they resort to using their nuclear weapons during the ensuing civil war. StuRat (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Depends on who they use them on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a well-written article I recently read on the nature of Kim's style of despotism. The author suggests that North Korea "may even be called the most successful totalitarianism in modern history." As hard as it is for the Western mindset to grasp, personality cults actually do work to some extent. —Akrabbim^talk 20:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

They are only successful if their sole goal is maintaining power. As far as improving the lives of their citizens, say relative to South Korea, they are a dismal failure. StuRat (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's a New York Times article on this topic. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the same thing happened with Stalin died. It is very common in countries where there are strong, state-enforced cults of personality, especially if one is talking about a leader that has been in charge for a reasonably long time. (I'm not sure anyone shed many tears over Andropov, for example.) --Mr.98 (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Name origins

I'm a bit of a Star Trek fan. So when I recently saw Alexander Rodchenko's name for the first time, it reminded me of Alexander Rozhenko. This led me to a couple questions:

1. Are the two surnames pronounced the same?
2. Is there any evidence that the ST character got his name from the writers due to the sculptor?

I've looked in the usual places but haven't been able to find anything that links the two. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 11:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If it's Cyrillic "Родченко" vs. "Роженко", I don't think they'd be pronounced the same in any language that I know about... AnonMoos (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

They'd probably be pronounced approximately the same in Mongolian, where ж writes the non-aspirated /tʃ/. Anyway, if both names are Russian, they'd sound roughly like ROTT-chinkuh and ROH-žinkuh respectively (where ž is roughly the "s" in "treasure" or the "g" in "genre"). --Theurgist (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

to know about humanity and sexual questions

hello sir,

que:1) i am extremely eager to know the exact(perfect) definition of honesty.

que:2)Is sexuality, i mean to watch sexual movies and having sex to the another person (not our spouse) is fair or sin?

i am studied in diploma in mechanical engineering and i am not married but i want to know these questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.99.144.158 (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

See honesty and sexual intercourse. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The answer to your second question will very much depend on your personal morality and, perhaps, your religious faith. These are not questions with simple yes/no answers. --Viennese Waltz 14:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Pornography, Premarital sex and Infidelity mention some of the views. Your IP address is Indian so you may also be interested in Category:Sexuality in India. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Convicting John Doe

If some unknown person gets caught, but not identified, maybe because he does reveal his namel, how can he be charged and convicted? Would the government issue a new name for him? 88.8.69.150 (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

First, I think you meant to write "does not reveal his name". This has come up before, see here for a lengthy discussion based on English law (other countries will obviously vary). I'm fairly sure there was a more recent discussion on this topic as well, but I can't find it right now. --Viennese Waltz 15:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Found it, here you go. --Viennese Waltz 15:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

In at least some U.S. jurisdictions, prosecutors have indicted DNA in the hope that it will someday be matched to a criminal with a conventional identity... <http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2011/dec/20/timeless-evidence-heats-up-cold-case/>. - Nunh-huh 22:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This happened to D.B. Cooper--his real identity is unknown, but he was still indicted in absentia. Meelar (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Bharatiya Janata Party Khalistan movement

Is BJP against the Khalistan independence movement despite they were against the 1984 anti-Sikh riot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.163 (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You know, it is well possible to both A) oppose secession from India and B) consider it morally wrong to massacre Sikh civilians in Delhi. These two positions are not mutually exclusive. I'm not to familiar with the exact postures taken by BJP/Sangh Parivar during 1984, what type of statements the issued at the time, but it should be noted that the BJP/Sangh Parivar was much weaker in 1984 than today. --Soman (talk) 06:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Pro-violence murals in Northern Ireland

Excuse my total ignorance here, but matters Northern Irish are not my strong point.

When the media discusses matters Northern Ireland, they often print photos of pro-IRA murals in Belfast. These murals openly glorify violence and guns. Why are they tolerated by the Northern-Irish government? I can't easily imagine Israel, for example, allowing pro-Hamas terrorism murals to be left long in East Jerusalem without getting covered up. And if it does happen, it shouldn't!

I have no problem with murals promoting a "united Ireland", but I never understood how depictions glorifying guns, balaclavas, and murderous violence are allowed to exist without being disturbed. (I have the same problem with murals glorifying anti-catholic or pro-loyalist violence - I'm not being sectarian here). In most countries, you'd be done for incitement, I would think, if you produced such material. What am I missing here? Why are blatantly pro-violence murals tolerated by the authorities, without being covered over? 203.45.95.236 (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it would in the past have been one battle too far, for the authorities to seek to impose its idea of exterior decoration during the troubles. Sure, it's incitement, but in an era of the armalite and the boobytrap, it's small beer. More recently, in part, they're the status quo and there's a discussion about their heritage and tourist value; however the authorities are, on balance, trying to get rid of the worst. The evidence from recent BBC news stories is mixed:

• 2011 - New paramilitary mural going up
• 2008 - Paramilitary replaced by King Billy
• 2007 - Some general discussion, tracing their history back to 1908
• 2006 - Removal of a loyalist mural
• 2006 - #3.3m for removal of murals

--Tagishsimon (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Many US cities have laws requiring property owners to remove graffiti expressing racial hatred, promoting violence, or promoting gang activity. Paint and paint sprayers are cheap. Slightly more expensive are devices for removing paint with mild abrasives such as walnut shell powder. If the murals stay up, then for some reason the authorities must want them there. Edison (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

As Tagishsimon says, it's not a question of the authorities "wanting them there". In the charged atmosphere of Belfast, the authorities had to pick their battles, and they would presumably have chosen not to remove them because to do so could have inflamed the situation. --Viennese Waltz 16:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ironically at the height of the Troubles when the worst violence was being carried out, the murals were rather crude affairs such as a roughly-scrwaled Brits Out on a wall in nationalist areas with a Union Jack or badly-rendered King Billy-on-his-white-horse adorning loyalist neighbourhood walls and gables. Now they are often elaborate and more professional. Then again, back in the 1970s and 1980s Belfast had very few tourists (apart from the occasional intrepid Scots-Irish-American on an ancestor hunt). I can remember how people stared at me in the early 1980s when I snapped pics of murals in Belfast!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep they're a big tourist attraction now and bring in good money. One can book holidays to look at all these attractions. I don't think anyone has set up a theme park yet though ;-) Dmcq (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The argument could be made that those murals are commemorating history, rather than inciting new violence. StuRat (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There are also Unionist murals in Northern Ireland, e.g. [1][2]. You could also compare it to Marching season in Northern Ireland, a Protestant recreation that is often seen to incite violence and sectarian tensions, and which has proved very difficult to ban or mitigate. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Teeny tiny books

Ages ago (maybe 15 years), I saw a doll that had a tiny real Good News Bible, complete with illustrations. I suppose it might have only been the New Testament, but it was still impressive at about 5 cm high and completely in proportion. Is there a term for such tiny editions of proper books, that I could use as a search term? It was most impressive because it didn't seem to be simplified: just printing very small and yet readable if you had good eyes. 86.163.212.160 (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

We have a Miniature book article, and also there is this article, [3], which has a lot more info--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Book size indicates that the standard name may be something like "Sexagesimo-quarto", i.e. 1/64th of a full standard printed page, about 24 inches (61 cm) by 15 inches (38 cm). --Jayron32 19:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in some of the information in the article Queen Mary's Dolls' House. Somewhere I or my parents possess a copy of an abbreviated but nonetheless quite conventional dictionary which, if memory serves, measures about 3x2 cm. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.13 (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Arguments for Anti-Homosexuality

What are some arguments people may have to deny homosexuals gay marriage or to say that homosexuality is sinful? 64.229.180.189 (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

For:

1) People should be free to do as they wish.

2) Homosexuality is (at least in part) biologically inherited, so that means "God made them that way", and they should therefore do as God wants.

3) Might reduce diseases like AIDS, by encouraging long-term relationships rather than one-night stands. Since AIDS can spread beyond the gay community, this affects the health of all.

4) Many of the general arguments in favor of marriage also favor gay marriage, like "provides for social stability (especially in the context of raising kids)".

Against:

A) Tradition.

B) Religion. Nearly all religions teach that homosexual acts are immoral.

C) Might "convince" people to become gay who otherwise wouldn't. (There's not much evidence to support this, although persecution of homosexuals may keep them "in the closet".)

D) Might lead to adoptions by gay couples. Of course, this argument presumes that this is a bad thing. StuRat (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

What's your basis for saying that nearly all religions teach that homosexuality is immoral? Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all do, but that's hardly surprising considering they have a common origin. In what way does Buddhism (the world's 3rd largest religion) or Hinduism (its 4th largest) condemn homosexuality? Admittedly I don't know much about either religion, but Buddhist texts don't seem to mention homosexuality at all, and don't emphasize procreation as the purpose of sex: http://www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana/Archive/T/Trembath/buddhismAndHomosexualityTrembath.html. Our Hinduism and sexuality article claims that Hindu myths have portrayed homosexual acts as natural and joyful, and many Hindu temples have depictions of same-sex intercourse. And if homosexuality contradicted the religions of the Greeks or Romans, they certainly hid it pretty well. --99.237.252.228 (talk) 09:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It's even more complicated. Most religions preach against extra-marital heterosexual relations also. It has to do with procreation vs. recreation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There's also the problem of the patriarchy, which is a foundational assumption for many traditional religions. In a culture in which it is assumed that marriage is a union of woman and man, each of whom have different and clearly defined duties and roles, and in which the man has authority over the woman, the entire concept of marriage is subverted by the existence of unions of equal partners. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Women "submitting" to men is a timeless concept, yes. Those who most vociferously oppose gay "marriage" also tend to oppose feminism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The court's ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (popularly known as the 'Proposition 8' ruling) is a surprisingly fascinating read for a legal document, and I recommend it to anyone interested in this issue. It includes the following list of reasons presented to California voters for making the marriage of same-sex couples illegal:

• Denial of marriage to same-sex couples preserves marriage;
• Denial of marriage to same-sex couples allows gays and lesbians to live privately without requiring others, including (perhaps especially) children, to recognize or acknowledge the existence of same-sex couples;
• Denial of marriage to same-sex couples protects children;
• The ideal child-rearing environment requires one male parent and one female parent;
• Marriage is different in nature depending on the sex of the spouses, and an opposite-sex couple’s marriage is superior to a same-sex couple’s marriage; and
• Same-sex couples’ marriages redefine opposite-sex couples’ marriages.

The ruling goes on to explain, in detail, why these reasons are either not supported by data, or are not consistent with U.S. law. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

A supposedly "liberal" U.S. Supreme Court ruled a few decades ago that the draft, although appearing to be a violation of the slavery/involuntarily-servitude amendment, was valid because of the constitutional power of Congress to raise armies. The courts can get creative when they approach a case with preconceived assumptions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

---

We have an article Anti-LGBT rhetoric... AnonMoos (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Some may draw a distinction between being against gay marriage and being against all forms of legal recognition of same-sex unions. There are some who say that they are against a "redefinition of marriage" even if they are OK with civil unions. When Canada was debating going from civil unions to gay marriage, one Conservative opponent said, "When women got equal rights, they didn't change the definition of the word 'man'" or something along those lines. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone recently made a lovely point about this on PostSecret. <soapbox> But seriously, as to "sin" and "arguments" against same-sex marriage, I tend to agree with people like B. R. Myers, who puts it very neatly: religious people have every right to call homosexuality a sin, but if they want to argue from religion, they should stay there. If they venture out into reasoned debate, it's pointless to argue against them, because whenever they feel they're losing the battle in the open field, they will just retreat back into the citadel of Revealed Truth. So when religious people tell you homosexuals suffer from depression or spread disease or whatever, just don't listen to them. They don't really care if it's one way or the other.</soapbox>--Rallette (talk) 07:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

One argument that hasn't been mentioned is the naturalistic argument. It goes something like this: the purpose of our genitals is procreation. To use them for other purposes is unnatural and betrays their biological purpose. This argument fails because of the naturalistic fallacy. --99.237.252.228 (talk) 09:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, the phallus fallacy ? StuRat (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Rather a weak argument for a variety of reasons: It would be the rare man that doesn't also use his genitals for urination, so the religious view that morals demand that genitals be monofunctional ought to be a non-starter. - Nunh-huh 17:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

[I feel like indentation has been butchered in this discussion, so I have not indented at all. But this is in response to the original question.] As far as I know, there have been many different arguments that homosexual activity (i.e., sexual activity between members of the same sex) is wrong or bad. I shall mention two with which I am familiar. Here's a basic argument from an ascetic on ethical grounds which has come in a different formulations for some time: A1) If something is not right, it is wrong. A2) Seeking pleasure is not one of the right things to do. A3) Homosexual activity is done only for pleasure. Therefore: A4) Homosexual activity is wrong. Premise A2 could be established in a number of ways (Revelatory, i.e., God commands it; Formalist, i.e, it is a contradiction in the deontic modality to make pleasure seeking your maxim; Consequentialist, i.e., seeking pleasure results in less utility overall; Intuitionist, i.e., seeking pleasure does not have the basic, intuitable "good" quality; etc.)

The other argument I shall mention is a Natural Law type argument. This has also come in many different formulations: B1) What's good is what is natural, and what is bad is what is unnatural. B2) Homosexual activity is unnatural. Therefore, B3) Homosexual activity is bad. Premise B1 could be established in a number of different ways. For example (something like this is given by Aristotle): C1) The good of a thing is not instrumental for some other aspect of that same thing, but rather the good is for what everything is done. Therefore, in other words, C2) The good of a thing is the final end of a thing that performs its natural function. Therefore, C3) The good is natural, and, conversely, the unnatural is bad. Premise B2 could also be established in a number of different ways. The following has been given ad nauseam: D1) The physical structure or evolutionary history of things can demonstrate their natural function. D2) The physical structure and evolutionary history of the penis and vagina are such that it is clear their natural functions are (in part) the conjoining in sexual intercourse. D3) The physical structure and evolutionary history of the penis and vagina are such that is is clear that neither's natural function is to be conjoined with or masturbated by other body parts or things. Therefore, D3) The natural function of these organs is (partly) heterosexual intercourse, and, conversely, their natural function is not homosexual activity.

Keep in mind that such arguments have wider implications for sexuality than just these conclusions drawn for the case of homosexuality. If you want to delve more into these issues and for counter-arguments to these, try Google searches on, for example, "natural law homosexuality", "asceticism homosexuality", "homosexuality hedonism", "homosexuality pleasure ethics", "homosexuality plato ethics". Thanks for reading.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

December 21

Who was the first child born into a European family in an American Colony?

I have read there is controversy over the first child born in America. Who was the first child born into a European family in an American Colony? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjt1126 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

See First white child#North America. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Which covers the subject well if you mean American as in U.S. If you meant born in the New World, the article has a large blank space for South America and the Caribbean. This would be a good article for one of those improved by the reference deskers tag if we can pull out some sources and expand it. Rmhermen (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Letter Zyu

I carried an article from the Russian Wikipedia. Want it removed, although I have sources. Please help in the refinement. Bad know English, so all the right issue. Thank you in advance. Странник27 (talk) 12:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

See #Zju-27.2C_Zu-27_or_Sic-27 above, article nominated for deletion in en and ru WP. --84.58.203.106 (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Rmhermen (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

In the Russian wikipedia it is not removed. If you leave it there, this is the reason to restore it here? Странник27 (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason the English article is being removed is because it is incomprehensible. I tried to read it, and it took me some time to understand what it was even about (and even then I am still not too sure). What you need is a Russian-speaking Anglophone to translate the Russian article for you - which is probably what you mean by 'please help in the refinement'. There are some here. Hopefully someone will come along. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I need help in translation Странник27 (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It would probably be a better idea to post this on the language desk, then, along with a link to the Russian article. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking for info on painter Lauritz Holst

Does anyone know the biography of the painter Lauritz Holst and examples of prices for his works? I would be very grateful for all information. Thank you. --88.206.150.90 (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Biography of Lauritz Holst (Danish). --84.58.203.106 (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

And there's a list of recent auction results for his paintings at findartinfo.com. --Antiquary (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

North Korea

After the unfortunate death of the great leader of the North Korean people Kim Jong-il, is there any possibility of weakening of military power or dilution of Juche ideology? --Detrrd (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. After change, there is always a possibility of more change. -- kainaw™ 15:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

A possibility? Yes... Is it likely? We don't really know. Only time will tell. Blueboar (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

POV or troll, or really bad north korea propaganda machine. All of which are equally childish. Shadowjams (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Who is that comment addressed to? Neither the comment nor the response seems POV or trollish to me. --99.237.252.228 (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Juche ideology already seems to have been somewhat diluted by Songun ideology over the past 15 years, but it did few people any good... AnonMoos (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

religious beliefs concerning man made perfumes

i worked many years ago with a man named Dan. due to Dan's religious beliefs, he was not allowed to use any items that had unnatural or man made perfumes. this included deodorants, mouthwashes and toothpastes. it also included clothes detergent and dryer sheets. the soaps he used were man made and not sold commercially. do you know the religion, or belief, that prohibits the use of man made perfumes in daily cleanliness activities? -steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparty08 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I deleted your double posting. I cannot answer the OP's question, but I would like to attempt to clarify that the OP probably meant his friend used natural soaps, not sold commercially, rather than man-made ones, as the OP specifically states that man-made ones were against the religion. Unless I am wrong. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Talmudic regulations ban use of anything that may be considered "anointing", such as deodorant and perfume, but not all the time. It is only banned during certain times, such as Yom Kippur. Outside of religion, I know many people who wish they were teenagers in the 60's that claim they have religious reasons to avoid being clean. Luckily, most of them are huddling up in the "occupy" gatherings now so I don't have to catch their odors as I walk down the street. -- kainaw™ 18:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

What kind of office would tolerate someone who eschews personal hygiene? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

One in Europe ? :-) StuRat (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

References, anyone? BrainyBabe (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Sex offender's "the talk" with neighbours

http://xkcd.com/796/

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1635#comic

I've seen "the talk" parodied many times in many different forms of media, but I have never actually seen the original version. I'm assuming (please correct me if I'm wrong) that like the Miranda warning each state has their own guidelines and each officer has their own idiosyncratic way of administering it. Can someone shred more light on exactly how "the talk" works? Specifically I'm wondering about things like:

1. Sex offenders have (usually) 10 days to inform the authorities when they move to a new residence, but who decides the date and time to perform "the talk"?
2. How many neighbors are covered? Is it something like "every household within 100 yards"?
3. Does the sex offender have to announce their crimes? As in, is it "I'm a sex offender convicted under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3124.1." or just "I'm a sex offender."?
4. Has "the talk" been superseded by the online sex offender registries?99.245.35.136 (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I doubt "the talk" happens very often, if at all, in real life. The law is there to discourage sex offenders from living anywhere. Pais (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Megan's Law and Sex offender registry might be of help here. I'm sure this is regulated very differently at each state and country. 88.8.69.150 (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe the offender is expected to approach his neighbors and verbally tell them of his history. I believe he informs the relevant authorities of his plans to move somewhere, and they do mail-outs or a letterbox drop to the surrounding streets (and, likely, any nearby venues for children, such as schools or childcare centres). There are times when one must self-declare one's criminal history, such as when seeking certain types of employment. I don't believe this is the case with neighbors, however. 58.111.186.225 (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of its accuracy, the personal approach to neighbors is popularized with the character "The Jesus" in the 1998 film The Big Lebowski. (We don't yet appear to have provided the OP with a good referenced answer.) -- 203.82.91.131 (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

MLA citation style

Hi, I have two questions regarding the MLA style which is frequently used in the Humanities. 1. How do I notate foreign languages in citations? 2. How do I cite a specific page along with the whole page range of a journal article? Many thanks, --Eisfbnore ^talk 21:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not necessary to notate foreign language titles in MLA citations. As for your second question... you shouldn't need to do that. What is the situation that requires that? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the swift response. I think you misread my first question though: I was wondering how to inform the reader that the source is in another language than English (like the |language= param in the cite templates). Re the 2nd question: I often want the citation to tell the reader that the information is located on a specific page in a journal article. However, I also want to cite the whole page range. For instance, in the Broder Knudtzon article, I want the reader to know that the text in the source which supports the text in our article is located on page 159, but also that the whole page range of the article goes from 155 to 166. --Eisfbnore ^talk 11:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't happen to be near my MLA style manual at the moment, but to the best of my recollection neither situation is addressed. If the title of a book or article is not in English, the reader is expected to infer that the text of the work is also not in English (though I believe that romanizations of Chinese, Japanese, etc., titles can be provided in brackets following the titles). For information from a specific page in an article, the number of that page is all that's used. Deor (talk) 13:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. I often cite articles in Norwegian biographical dictionaries, which almost always only have the biographee's name as the title. Hence, it is not possible to tell the language from the title. On a different note, if I want to cite the page range together with the specific page, shall I simply write "155–166 (p. 159)"? --Eisfbnore ^talk 13:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Do not the biographical dictionaries themselves, which should be named in the citations, have recognizably Norwegian titles, though? Deor (talk) 15:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Doh! Didn't think that far. Sorry for the stupid question & thanks for the response. --Eisfbnore ^talk 15:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Back to the second question: in MLA style, the inline citations cite a specific page, but the entry in the "works cited" section cites the entire article range. You don't mix them up. For example:

Boise proved that x = y (Boise 234).

...

Boise, Randy. "Why x = y." Wikipedia Studies. 12.3 (2011): 230-240.

Etc. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I had almost forgotten that the MLA style uses parenthetical referencing together with the "works cited" section. --Eisfbnore ^talk 21:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That's one style treated in the MLA handbook; but unless they've recently dropped it, the main style treated therein is footnote style, which is what I thought you were referring to. Deor (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to the footnote style with citations directly in footnotes without the "Works Cited" section. Anyway I've converted the citation style in the Broder Knudtzon article to shortened footnote style with works cited; do you think it conforms with the MLA style manual? --Eisfbnore ^talk 23:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Your references to Vol. 5 of the biographical dictionary lead me to believe that the entries may be ordered by patronymic rather than forename, so I would invert "Johannsen, Lorentz", etc., if that's the way the articles are headed therein. Other than that, the critical thing is that a reader can easily find the information referenced, and your references serve that purpose well. Wikipedia allows any citation style that does so. Deor (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That half trillion

of the ECB, is it money that they had as a reserve or money that they "printed" (I mean, electronically) right now? If the latter is the case, would that mean that any euro was devalued? 88.8.69.150 (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The ECB, like any other central bank, spends by creating / printing money. It spends in order to buy something. If it buys another currency, it will naturally tend to devalue the central bank's currency in terms of the other currency. The Swiss, for instance recently did this in order to keep the Swiss franc from appreciating & rendering their export industries uncompetitive. If the ECB purchases Euro-denominated securities, if it went on forever, and encouraged spending by the institution issuing the securities, it could cause inflation. But if done within reason, not necessarily. It may just support sensible, productive & necessary government spending, say. Europe is very, very far from inflation. Unfortunately, in return for the fiscal support of governments which is necessary under the Rube Goldberg Euro currency system, the ECB, Eurocrats & some Euro governments demand austerity policies which make everything worse, more unstable & all of the Eurozone states' debts less payable.John Z (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, don't forget, depending on which economist you ask, expansionary monetary policy isn't always inflationary and inflation doesn't always mean a devaluation in the exchange rate. 121.222.14.147 (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Deeming it to be a formatting error, I've added an "f" to your redlinked "inlationary", if that's OK? Feel free to revert if not. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.130 (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Money creation may be a useful article. Note that there are 2 main ways of money being created: either by the central banks printing money or by commercial banks lending more than they actually have (fractional-reserve banking). Since commercial bank lending has been greatly depressed by the financial crisis, there's a lot of room for the central banks to create money without it increasing the overall wider money supply in an inflationary way. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so far for the answers. But there's a point still not clear to me. Imagine that the ECB had dollars, a scenario which is almost sure, and bought euros with those dollar for whatever reason. It would end up with a euro reserve that is not composed by euros created by the ECB itself. Does this position exist at all? Do they have an account in their bookkeeping for "euros bought back" and another for "euros created by us, digitally"? I do think that releasing these "bought back euros" into the market should have a different effect than those "euros created by us, digitally." 88.8.69.150 (talk) 13:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

December 22

Economic questions

1) which of the following is an explicit cost of production? A) wages paid to workers B) the electric bill C) purchases of raw material D) Only answers A and B are explicit costs because the purchases of raw material is only an opportunity cost. E) Answers A,B, and C are all correct.
2) When marginal revenue is postive, total revenue _________ when output increases and demand is ________ A) increases; inelastic B) decreases; elastic C) does not change; unit elastic D) decreases, inelastic E) increases; elastic
3) A cartel is A) a market with only two firms B) another name for an oligopoly C) a market structure with a small number of large firms. D) a group of firms acting together to raise price, decrease output, and increase economic profit. E) a market structure with a large number of small firms.
4) In the prisoners' dilemma, each player is _________ regardless of the other player's actions. A) forced to confess B) going to go free C) better off denying D) forced to deny E) better off confessing
5) A Nash equilibrium is defined as A) earning normal profits in the long run. B) forming a cartel with strong penalities for cheaters. C) each player taking the best possible action given the action of the other players. D) each player taking the action that is best for all the players. E) relying on other game players to realize the benefit of cooperation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.175.183 (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like homework, in which case:

A) Do your own work.

B) Post it here, along with questions about the PARTS you don't understand.

C) We will post any corrections and requested explanations.

D) All of the above.

The correct answer is D. :-) StuRat (talk) 02:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Googling the key terms in each question, or a bit or wikipedia research would answer all these questions relatively simply. 86.144.23.155 (talk) 08:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Christian converts

Has there been any figures in history that have consecutively converted to all three of the main Christian denominations: Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

In that exact order? Would they have had to convert to the first one from an unspecified fourth religion/no religion? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I cannot think of any prominent figure. The combo seems quite unlikely/unusual. My (completely unscientific) impression is that in current context: Both Catholics and Orthodox quite often turn to Protestantism (as evangelical protestant churches run a lot of missionary activities in ex-USSR, Latin America, Philippines, etc...). Protestants rarely turn Catholics (I know of a few cases very individuals convert to Catholicism to 'go back to the roots' theologically speaking, but it more of individual spiritual quest than a collective process). Conversions to Orthodoxy would be very rare.

Religion acquired by marriage is a different issue though, but I think even there there might be a difference between the exchange Catholicism<->Protestantism and Orthodoxy<->Catholicism/Protestantism. For example, would a West European Catholic woman marrying a Russian or Serbian man actually get herself baptized as Orthodox? I think it would be quite rare.

People also change religions during wars and conquests. There could be people in the Balkans having done the shift Orthodoxy->Catholicism, then to convert to evangelical Protestantism. --Soman (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, all the major denominations recognize each others baptisms. So there is no new baptism if you convert from e.g. the Anglican to the Catholic Church (as, IIRC, Tony Blair did). Baptists differ, of course, but they are less than 5% of Christians. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think most Baptists recognize other denominations' believer's baptisms, but may not recognize infant baptisms. But it's hard to generalize over Baptists since each congregation decides for itself what rules it's going to follow. Pais (talk) 11:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The mother of a friend of mine went the opposite direction: baptized and raised Protestant, she later converted to Roman Catholicism and later still to Orthodoxy. But she isn't a "historical figure". Pais (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

There is definitely a trickle of protestants converting to Orthodoxy in order to "go back to the roots", just as there are such converts to Catholicism. The relative rates probably depend on whether the Catholic or the Orthodox church is more common where you live. 84.231.149.57 (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I started with Newt Gingrich (Lutheran → Baptist → Catholic) and browsed through the categories until I found the parent Category:Religious converts. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

... at which I find List of people who made multiple religious conversions, which includes Tom Hanks, of all people, who made Greek Orthodoxy his 3rd religion. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Rod Dreher, a columnist and blogger, springs to mind. Meelar (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

citations

I need help finding sources and references for St. David School (Richmond, California), is there a good place to search?LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

In general: Local newspapers. The biographies/autobiographies of famous alumni. Publications by local government giving education statistics. Books and journals giving local history, such as publications from local historical societies (particularly if they're produced by well-known publishers rather than self-published). However, these sources may not be online.

Other sources, like a school website, may be used for uncontroversial facts in conjunction with more reliable third-party sources, but you can't rely on self-published sources alone. Wikipedia:Verifiability will tell you what's not valid, but not what you might use. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Quest plot

I am currently reading 20 Master Plots and How to Build Them by Ronald B. Tobias. It is one of the best books I've read so far on fiction writing and am thoroughly enjoying it. The first of the 20 "master plots" is termed "Quest"; at the end of this chapter, he gives a checklist and all the points in the checklist make sense to me, except this:

3. Consider bringing your plot full circle geographically. The protagonist frequently ends up in the same place where she started.

To serve what purpose? Indeed, many of the fictional works using this type of plot device do bring the protagonist back eventually. Dorothy comes back home in The Wizard of Oz, for example. Perhaps it is to give the reader a sense of closure? --BorgQueen (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

In many cases (not really in the Wizard of Oz movie, however), to demonstrate how the main character has developed, or how the main character's status has changed, since first setting out... AnonMoos (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

In addition to showing how the character has changed, returning to the same location can show how the world has changed. In particular, because so many fictions begin "at home", and then travel to dangerous and exotic places, there's the risk the reader/viewer doesn't care that much, thinking "bad things happen in other people's lands, not here in the safe homeland". Having the protagonist return home and find their comfortable home is destroyed packs more of a punch than just travelling somewhere and finding someone new that's already in a devastated condition. For example, the characters in The Lord of the Rings return to The Shire (the epitome of the comfortable Heimat) to find the war they've been fighting has damaged that too. Similarly No One Lives Forever 2: A Spy in H.A.R.M.'s Way (a great example of good storytelling in computer games) follows a common pattern of having the protagonist work in a secret base, where training is done and to which the protagonist returns after dangerous missions. But at one point the base is attacked, and the formerly safe territory becomes a battlezone. It's much more poignant that the (very similar) battles in the other locations in the game, and it re-enforces the sense of place and highlights the character's interaction with the world. Even a decade after NOLF2, few games of the same genre do this (the incomparable Deus Ex does, to great effect, and its sequels try to), and many (like the otherwise great Bioshock) propel the player through location after location without much feeling that this location is important or that the character would care much about it. Testovergian (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point, thanks. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It gives a sense of closure to the narrative. A lot of quest stories can be just one thing after another, and they need something to make a conclusive ending. Think of Homer's Odyssey where the adventures are largely unconnected. How would you know it was finished if he didn't make it back home? If it's just a story about people trying to reach some random place, that's less satisfying, but the desire to get home is very basic. And even if it's not about getting home it still provides aesthetic unity (compare Aristotle's idea of unity of place, where all the action has to take place in the same place; the circular quest loosens that but doesn't break it entirely). --Colapeninsula (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellent answers, Colapeninsula and AnonMoos! --BorgQueen (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems necessary to mention There and Back Again.  Card Zero  (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Or even our article on monomyth. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

See the article "framing device". Gabbe (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Word for Male Orgasm in Pre-Tudor England

Hello! I am wondering if anyone knows what the English called male ejaculation in pre-Tudor England. I know that in France, the common expression was the Le Petit Mort, and that the English adopted it, but I think that would have happened around the reign of Henry VIII (he was so eager to compete with the royal courts of France and Spain, while his father, Henry VII, did not have a court in the same sense-- too expensive.) The reason I ask is because I am writing a novel about Shakespeare and so le petit mort comes up quite a bit. In Margaret George's fictional autobiography of Henry VIII, she has a scene where Mary Boleyn (who spent many years in the French court and supposedly had an affair with King Francis) teaches young King Henry about the le petit mort, and Henry, in George's fictionalized account, says something about the "English word" and the contrasting definitions (and thus a different way to understand the nature of orgasm.) But "Orgasm" did not appear in the common vernacular (at least according to the OED) until the mid 1600's . . . almost 200 years later. So. What would have been the word for orgasm in pre-Tudor England? I hope this question makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.97.183.38 (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a duplicate of Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Word_for_Male_Ejaculation_in_Pre-Tudor_England_._._. - please don't ask the same question on more than one of the Reference Desks, as people may waste spend time answering on one, only to find that a similar answer has been given on the other. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

How can I remove this? I'm so sorry for my blunder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.97.183.38 (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Let it stand, it will be archived eventually. It's not a major problem, just a friendly hint for the future. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Just coming out of the blue: I was just depositing infra a question about Henry Ward Beecher & I got my eye caught (as we say in France) by that crucial issue. I'd add that 1°: proper spelling is la petite mort (mort is feminine) 2° saw the expression used in books as late as Colette (around 1900-1930) , & heard it mainly used by women : wouldn't do to have males admit that they almost fainted in the arms of a dame from the pleasure inflicted upon them, wouldn't it ?

So long, & t.y. Arapaima (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Norman D. Hill

Who was Norman D. Hill? All I know is that he took a photo of Haalilio in the 1840s.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

New Mexico birth certificates

A simple question, I hope. Would the birth certificate of someone born in New Mexico in 1962 be available to members of the public, journalists, etc? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

From http://www.vitalrecordsnm.org/birth.shtml:

New Mexico Birth Certificates are restricted access records.

State law restricts access to the registrant's Immediate Family members or those who represent tangible proof of legal interest in the requested record.

Immediate Family means any of the following: mother, father, sibling, child, current spouse, or maternal or paternal grandparent. Paternal grandparent is eligible if father is listed on the vital record.

Note: Birth certificates become public records one hundred (100) years after the date of birth.

Hope this helps, --Trovatore (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Trovatore. Exactly what I needed to know. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

December 23

Religious divisions: leadership vs dogma

The major divisions in Islam started as a dispute over who would be Muhammad's successor. The major divisions of Mormonism started with the dispute over the succession to Joseph Smith. At least two of the divisions within mainstream Christianity started with disputes over the authority of the Bishop of Rome as supreme leader of the church. Compared to this, how common is it for a religion to split based on questions of dogma rather than leadership? --Carnildo (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Happens all the time as well. See Protestantism for such a split regarding Chritianity. --Jayron32 01:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The Protestant Reformation was due to issues like corruption and the desire to escape Rome's secular control, as well as doctrine. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It's rather a strong contrast between Islam and Christianity that until relatively recent times almost all major Christian divisions involved a doctrinal element (so that the Catholic-Orthodox split was ostensibly about the filioque clause, etc.), while most major Muslim divisions were much more about who had the right to lead the Muslim community (as ruler, not just religious leader) than abstract questions of doctrine as such. I don't know that one is worse or better than another -- depending on whether you think it's sillier to dispute "about a vowel" (as the homoousianist vs. homoioousianist controversy is sometimes claimed to have been), or to hold active current grudges about 7th-century political conflicts (as is involved in the Sunni-Shi`ah split), etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad ruled most of Arabia on his death, so the issue of who succeeded him was of more importance than who succeeded e.g. Martin Luther. When Christian religious authorities held temporal power or were close to kings, there were Christian schisms based largely on power, e.g. the Western Schism in the 14th and 15th centuries, and the English Reformation which was partly a reaction against Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor's designs for influence in England (he was the nephew of Henry's first wife Catherine of Aragon). Although this is getting away from the original question. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you're asking about smaller religions as well, but all Bahá'í divisions have started over leadership. As for Christianity, doctrinal tensions have always abounded, but at least in the early Church, they seem to have usually been resolved easily enough. Acts Ch 15 records a debate over circumcision, and in Galatians 2, Paul even accuses Peter of hypocrisy for refusing to associate publicly with Gentiles, but I've never heard of the argument going much further. See Judaizers for more. More relevant might be the Donatist controversy, which produced a genuine split with Rome over a matter at least partially concerning doctrine. Here, though, one sees that doctrine and personalities are impossible to fully separate anyway, since the dispute was about the validity of sacraments administered by (allegedly) sinful priests. It's one thing to say they disagreed about the sacraments, and another to say they argued about who could confer them. IBE (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is Arianism, which kept the Church occupied for a while. This and similar differences of Christology really kept the church(es) occupied for quite a long while. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The Syriac Orthodox Church, Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, Armenian Apostolic Church and other eastern churches split from Rome over similar issues about the dual nature of Jesus following the Council of Chalcedon.

The various modern divisions of Judaism are largely based on doctrine. And the number and variety of different Schools of Buddhism make Christianity look doctrinally unified - the history is rather vague and Wikipedia's articles aren't very good but doctrine played a part in many schisms. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a slight issue with the original question — church government is a doctrinal matter in many Christian denominations. Catholic theology of church government depends on the existence of a Pope with supremacy over all other clergymen, while Orthodox theology of church government teaches that it's not appropriate to have a single clergyman atop everyone else. Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a theory I remember reading a long time ago (can't for the life of me remember where), that suggested that any original teaching will only hold together as long as the original teacher lives (because the original teacher is the only one who understands it fully). after his/her death, his inner core of followers will divide along differing interpretations of that original teaching (based on the limited understanding of those inner-core members), and those divisions will gather differing crowds (because the third tier of followers understands the teaching even less, and is more susceptible to the authority of the second tier), and after that these divisions will solidify into clearly defined sects with divergent dogma. It's an interesting theory - every religion I know about shows some signs of it - but until I can remember the source you'll have to take it with a grain of salt. --Ludwigs2 04:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you reckon it's happening in Scientology yet? HiLo48 (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Already happened: see Free Zone (Scientology). AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Amazing. I wouldn't have expected it. That supports Ludwig's theory very well. HiLo48 (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is supports Ludwig's theory in particular, rather than more general sociological and anthropological observations of the issue: successful religions are often (almost always?) founded by a charismatic individual (often an 'outsider') who rebels against existing dogma, and/or the political/religious establishment. Charisma only lasts while the founder lives, obviously, and if the new religion has been successful, it will have become 'the establishment' - so the cycle can begin again. If I remember correctly, an Islamic scholar (I can't remember his name) wrote on this very subject some centuries back. If you're interested in the subject, there is masses of material available, but I'd recommend getting hold of Peter Worsley's The Trumpet Shall Sound: A study of "cargo cults" in Melanesia. Dated, and flawed in some ways, but a fascinating analysis of the dynamics of 'religion-building' in an unfamiliar context - and the unfamiliarity actually helps in gaining insight into the underlying processes, at least in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Who will become president of the United States if....

Let's say, that for some reason, the President, Vice President, and all the people who may succeed the president were aboard a plane, and it crashed, killing all on-board. Who will become president now? Also, what if they were all at the Capitol, and there was a nuclear explosion, again killing everyone? Who will become president? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The nuclear explosion killed everyone, eliminating any need for leadership at all. →Στc. 06:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

But what if they died in a plane crash? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

And by everyone, I meant everyone in the Capitol and its vicinity, not everyone in America.... Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobody knows the answer to such a question. The succession is defined only to a certain extent, and even that is designed to account for some extreme, not to mention extremely unlikely, scenarios. Beyond that ... chaos would reign. Somehow it would all get sorted out. Eventually. Exactly how, is anybody's guess. If would depend on a host of unknowable and imponderable factors, about which only novelists and film makers get to dream up solutions. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The succession article acknowledges the lack of clarity on that nightmare scenario. I'm sure that hasn't stop constitutional scholars from speculating about it. The OP should google the subject and see what he can find. There's something to consider, though: The American governmental structure has a number of layers. Assuming it was not an act of war, but just a tragic accident that all 600 or so top officials were somehow on that oversized plane, or cruise ship, or whatever, the individual states and the communications systems would still be intact. All 50 states could immediately have individual sessions to appoint replacement Reps and Senators as per the laws in their states. Now you've got a Congress, and the law of succession kicks in, the Supreme Court is re-filled, etc. Within a day, or maybe even in a few hours, you've got a theoretically functioning government again. Obviously, lots of work remains to be done. But chaos need not reign. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually chaos would reign o'er all seeing as I would become president.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Because of the uncertain result of our last federal election, Australia didn't have a working government for around month. Things proceeded very smoothly. Dunno if the same would apply with the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

didn't have a working government for around month - that's not really true. See Caretaker government of Australia. Prior to every election, the government assumes caretaker mode until such time as a result is known. Sometimes it takes a little longer for a result than usual. During these times, much of the ordinary business of government does go into abeyance, but important appointments that cannot wait, and any other major decisions that cannot wait, are made, usually with the Opposition being informed. I mean, if we'd been attacked by terrorist bombs or swamped by a tsunami just after the election, they wouldn't have just thrown their hands into the air and said, "Sorry, nobody can do anything until the election result is known. You'll all just have to fend for yourselves". There's virtually no time when we don't have a government. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You think that's bad? See 2010–2011 Belgian government formation and 2007–2011 Belgian political crisis. No government for 541 days! After a while, being in Caretaker mode becomes awfully tricky - particularly when you're dealing with major crises such as that currently affecting the eurozone. Yet for the most part, Belgium didn't go into meltdown, and the crisis was eventually resolved. 58.111.186.225 (talk) 18:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

For the OP, I did try googling for what the UN's official role is in such situations, but couldn't find anything specific. I think it's safe to say the army would step in, the UN would try to help, and terrorists would try to exploit the situation using any and every means at their disposal. But unless they were the ones who crashed the plane, they would be unprepared to take advantage of it, so there would be a mess for a while, and order would be restored. Beyond that, we don't know, that's why you get to make movies about it - no one can prove you wrong when you speculate about the unknown. I think John Goodman would run the country for a while, then Peter O'Toole would take over. IBE (talk) 08:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

In countries whose government is a system rather than a cult of personality, a quick return to stability is much more likely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Since the situation described is somewhat of a long shot (not only would the hypothetical disaster have to affect all of the 19 people specifically named in the United States presidential succession, but would also have to account for the fact that at least one of those people would almost certainly not be in the same place, as per Designated survivor), the answer you're looking for is probably contained within one of the works listed in Fiction regarding United States presidential succession. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You might also find this report (PDF) interesting. It deals with a hypothetical situation exactly as described, with many Cabinet members, Senators and Representatives dead or disabled, and confusion over who has the physical capabilities and/or authority to lead the country. Effectively, the answer is that after a few hours and days of faffing around, during which time the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives declares Martial law, enough people with the good sense and authority required to deal with the situation have gathered, and unite behind a former Secretary of State to guide the nation through the immediate crisis until the next election. Basically, in the absence of anything else to do, people will Just Get On With It (TM). - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

For a very similar scenario, see this section of the Jack Ryan article (warning:spoilers) --Dweller (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the hypothetical is realistic. The secret service is careful to ensure that those in the line of Presidential succession do not travel together on one single plane - One of them always travels separately (or remains behind) so if something did happen, there would be someone who will legitimately assume the Presidency. Blueboar (talk) 13:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you need the secret service for that? Sounds like a pretty easy task, not to get 19 people together into something, indeed, getting 19 people together, no matter who, might be more difficult than how it looks like. Anyway, the answer to the hypothetical questions is: there are still US-governors, which could get their state business running, and form a council to run the US. 88.8.69.150 (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

See the Lincoln assassination for why. Even back then decapitation attacks targeted several levels of leadership. Rmhermen (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably Eric Cantor. The presidency would go to who ever is elected the next speaker. As cantor is probably the most powerfull member of congress, he could get himself elected speaker and their by become president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.55.52 (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Getting back to the question, the states through various means would appoint new senators who would chose a President Pro Tem who would get to act as President. Note the states can't appoint members to the House of Reps on an emergency basis, though it's been debated. Hot Stop ^UTC 15:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• It should also be noted that any succession beyond the VP is untested, and therefore an open question anyways. Even succession by the vice president was a messy and controversial matter the first time it happened (see John Tyler ) and was not resolved legally until the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, passed in 1967, well over 100 years after it first became an issue. Given the issues that Tyler faced when he became President, any succession involving the Speaker of the House or a Cabinet member or the like is quite likely to result in a constitutional crisis, having something written into law doesn't mean that what is written is sufficient. --Jayron32 00:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

There's also one possibility that wasn't previously mentioned. The Constitution (between the original document and the amendments) lays out ways to get new people in all the offices in question without the standard elections, except for the president. In such a situation, special elections could be held for the House and governors could appoint new senators, and it would be possible (and given the situation, probably rather likely) that one of the first actions of the new Congress would be to pass a constitutional amendment to provide for a special election for president in such a situation; note that the president doesn't play a part in amending the Constitution. Given the obvious problems of having no executive, I strongly suspect that the state legislatures would speedily approve such an amendment — there's no constitutional minimum time for the adoption of a constitutional amendment, so if everyone agreed that an amendment was needed immediately, it could be adopted just about immediately. Nyttend (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

But the Senate would first appoint a pro tem who would then become president and no need for any amendment. Rmhermen (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you're all over-looking the most obvious result. In every case I know of where a sudden power vacuum has appeared in governance without any clear system in place (and that happens more frequently than you know in out-of-the-way nations), the military has stepped in, at least pro-tem. If the major players are all taken out of the picture at the same time, the army is the only organization that has the scale of coordination necessary to ensure a nation continues functioning as a cohesive whole (not to mention that any act which took out all of the top players would almost certainly be interpreted as an act of war requiring military intervention). With luck the army will maintain order while the slow process of rebuilding civilian command occurs; without it, think permanent military junta. --Ludwigs2 04:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if it would work that way in the US. The US military seems like a different sort of organization in its domestic role than the militaries of junta states were, even before the juntas. The US Army is just not a politically very powerful entity on the domestic level — they take domestic instructions, rarely give them (other than "please give us money for this cool jet"). My guess would be whatever state government of whatever was the most well-positioned state after said crisis would probably hold a lot of power. Anyway, I think the bottom line is, it hasn't happened before, it isn't clear what would happen. In most cases where that has happened in the US so far (e.g. the first succession to the Presidency by the Vice-President), people just sort of made it up as they went along, and codified it later. I'm sure people would muddle through as they always do. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Was Henry Ward Beecher colonel in an USCT regiment ?

Hello Learned People !

I just translated from WP de to WP fr the deutsch article about William N. Reed (first & only colored lieutenant colonel during the A.C.W., dead 39 years old after the battle of Olustee) , & was puzzled to read that "Dienst im '1st North Carolina Colored Volunteer Regiment, das nur aus farbigen Freiwilliger bestand. Der Regimentskommandeur war Henry Ward Beecher. Reed wurde Oberstleutnant...".

Has Henry Ward Beecher really been a colonel in an USCT regiment ? I read in WP en Edward A. Wild that Wild helped a half-brother of Mrs Beecher Stowe to join the USCT ...

Thank you beforehand for your answers. T.y. Arapaima (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It was Col. James Chaplin Beecher (1828-1886) who commanded the 39th United States Colored Troops (First North Carolina Colored Volunteers)[4]; he was a half-brother of both Harriet Beecher Stowe and Henry Ward Beecher.

Henry Ward Beecher and his sister Harriet Beecher Stowe were children of Lyman Beecher (1775-1863) and his 1st wife, neé Roxanna Foote (1775-1816). James Chaplin Beecher was the son of Lyman Beecher (1775-1863) and his 2nd wife, neé Harriet Porter (1790-1835). Lyman Beecher married a 3rd time, to Lydia Beals Johnson (1789-1869). - Nunh-huh 22:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

What significance does voter registration have in the US, and is your registration public?

I was reading this article (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/23/trump-dumps-gop/?hpt=hp_t2) and was confused by a couple of things.

It said that Trump changed "his voter registration Thursday from Republican to unaffiliated", and that "the change was made with the New York State Board of Elections".

What is the significance of registering your party affiliation? If you do register it, is it public? Why would anyone register rather than just be private about it. Sancho 22:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, this isn't something that can be answered for "the US". It's entirely a state question. In states with a closed primary system, you generally need to indicate a party in order to vote in that party's primary.

In California, at least, it's a matter of public record. Don't know about New York. --Trovatore (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

A follow-up, then: why does the state have an interest in tracking how parties hold their primaries? It seems like that should be a matter internal to the particular party. If a third national party was created, would it be bound to select its presidential candidate in a manner prescribed by the individual states? Sancho 22:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, now you're getting into the fundamental weirdness of the whole idea of the party primary election. On the one hand, in theory, parties are just groups of like-minded people who agree to pick a common person to support. At the Federal level they aren't very formally part of the process at all; the Constitution, for example, doesn't mention them even once.

So it's a bit strange that state governments hold elections to determine what's really an internal matter for parties. The perception, though, is that if you don't do that, then the candidates get chosen by party bosses in a "smoke-filled room" and the public has no input until the general election, by which time there may be no one they really want to vote for.

So the primary system has a fundamental internal tension; it's a weird sort of bastard child of two incompatible models, but not too many people really want to get rid of it.

As far as third national parties, well, there are several, and no, they are not bound to pay attention to the primary system. Neither are the Republicans and Democrats, for that matter — if they want to pick their candidates by some purely internal procedure they are at liberty to do so. Presumably they think the political cost would be too high (assuming they actually want to do it). --Trovatore (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

As for why the states or federal government would want to track how parties hold their primaries, at least part of it has to do with the history of party primaries being used as a tool to exclude racial minorities from participation in the political process up to the mid-20th century. For more, I'd recommend starting with our article on white primaries (and the Supreme Court decision that banned them, 1944's Smith v. Allwright)--from there, you might want to read up on the solid South. Hope this helps! Meelar (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC) P.S. I used to work with voter files regularly, and this matter does vary significantly depending on what state you're in. One reason that people might want to register publicly is as a form of social signaling, the same as putting up a yard sign for a candidate; it's an active topic in political science.

We also should mention that some states have caucuses and not primaries at all. Even your "vote" is public then. I am not sure if you can do cross-party voting in states where you are required to register your party. We know Obama will get his party's nomination so Dem's vote on the Republican primary to try to get a weaker candidate for the opposition. Rmhermen (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

True, although this time around the GOP is doing a pretty good job at that task all by themselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Taking part in another party's voting procedures in order to advantage your party? Your votes being on the public record? ... This is all head-scratching stuff for me, all so completely foreign to my concept of how these things are done. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Primary elections in the U.S. lie in a fuzzy territory between government and private organization. After all, political parties are NOT government agencies, and so are not bound by basic rules regarding elections. The U.S. does have a strict secret ballot for any official elections, but the "Primaries" are about political parties choosing their candidates to run in the official elections. How a private organization decides to choose its candidates is entirely its own business. The federal government generally doesn't get involved. Additionally, because of the sort of divided federalism that exists in the U.S., each state's own political parties are semi-independent from the national-level parties, and thus run their own business seperately. That's why every state runs a different primary election, each uses different voting systems, sometimes different parties in the same state will run a different sort of election. Take a look, for example, at Texas. The Texas Republican primary, 2008 was run completely differently from the Texas Democratic primary and caucuses, 2008. These elections are run, not by any government agency, but by the political parties. That's why they work "weird". --Jayron32 02:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Who provides manpower, locations and other resources to hold primaries? The parties, the state or a combination? PrimeHunter (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It varies WILDLY as to which state. The idea of a formal election primary came about from the progessive movement of the early 20th century in the U.S., and to this day, not all states have "caught on". Iowa, for example, still has the Iowa caucuses, and information is located in that article as to how those are run. In some states, primary party elections occur in conjunction with other official elections, so there may be semi-state sponsorship. In others they are wholly independent from the states. --Jayron32 03:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps Iowa also wants to remain first and could get into a ridiculous rescheduling war with New Hampshire if they changed to a primary. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

In California, which is the only state I can really speak on, the state does run the primaries, in that the state government decides when the primaries will be held. Because California's primary was so late in the process compared to other states, most party nominees had been chosen by the time that California's primary came around, so a few years ago, the state legislature moved the California primary up so as to have greater influence on the nomination. But, since the Democrats control the legislature, and because Obama is the foregone conclusion candidate of the Democratic Party, the state legislature moved the primary back this year to June, where it usually was, thus denying the Republicans in California from having much influence in the Republican nomination process. In addition, a state proposition passed a couple of years ago making the California primary an open primary. Thus the top two vote getters will move on the general election, regardless of party. The state also runs non-partisan elections at the same time, so as not to waste money by holding a different election at a different time. Such positions as judges, who are non-partisan, and water district board members, etc., hold elections at that time. Because of the top two moving on to the general election, it's likely that in places like San Francisco, the top two will either be both Democrats, or a Democrat and a Green Party candidate. In places such as Orange County, it's possible that both candidates could be Republicans. The primaries are also used to choose general election candidates for House of Representatives, Senate, and state legislature. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. How can California send delegates to the Republican national conference with the intention of voting for a Democrat? The Democrats aren't running for the Republican nomination... --Tango (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

That's because California doesn't use a party primary system (apparently), instead it uses a two-stage election, whereby the first election (called the Primary) establishes the top two candidates to run in the second electrion (the General election). This isn't disallowed by any principles that I know of. --Jayron32 15:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the new version of the California primary (which hasn't actually been used yet; it's that new) does not apply to the presidential race. It's hard to see how it could.

The new version is not so much a primary as it is two-round voting; parties have no formal role, except that maybe your party affiliation gets listed on the ballot. In principle, we could also do two-round voting for the slate of electors California sends to the electoral college. But if we did that, then it's a plausible scenario that the two candidates who make it to the general election are not the same as the national candidates from the two major parties. In fact, perhaps neither of them would be. In which case California might wind up choosing a slate of electors pledged to a candidate who's not really in the race, and that could easily throw the election into the House of Representatives for the first time since, if I recall correctly, 1824. --Trovatore (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a consortium of states which are attempting to sidestep the Electoral College by pledging that, if enough states agree (a majority of the Electoral Votes), the state's Electors will pledge to vote for the Presidential candidate who receives the most votes nationwide, even if they don't get the most votes in the state. California is one of those which has pledged to do that. This hasn't come to pass yet, becuase not enough states have agreed. There's probably a Wikipedia article on this, but I have no idea even how to look for it. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

See National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. --Tango (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

If that compact were to be come reality, it would alter some of the details of the question, but I still don't see how it would make it viable for California to use two-round voting for the presidential election. You could still wind up with a situation where California's general-election ballot has two candidates for president, neither of whom has a chance at the national level. --Trovatore (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this kind of brings up what I think is a potential flaw in the National Popular Vote idea. I'm sure it's legal, at least if approved by Congress under the Compact Clause. I'm not sure it's enforceable. Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't expect a state legislature to back out of the agreement after the popular election, because it would bring too much criticism, but legally I expect they could.

So let's suppose that California extends two-round voting to the presidential election, and then in some future election, let's say Anna Eshoo and Jerry Brown are the top two finishers in the first round. But nationally, the Democrats pick Bill Richardson and the Republicans pick John Huntsman (both excellent choices btw).

Then in November, Californians are shut out of voting for either Richardson or Huntsman, and go for Eshoo, who has no chance of winning the national popular vote. The total national popular vote favors Huntsman, but if you added Eshoo's votes to Richardson's, he would win.

Wouldn't there be huge pressure on the California legislature to back out of the deal, and appoint a slate pledged to Richardson?

Our article does not seem to discuss the enforceability aspect. --Trovatore (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

That is getting into the realm of unpledged electors, faithless electors and just plain errors, instead of primaries. Rmhermen (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what it has to do with faithless electors. The Constitution gives state legislatures a direct grant of authority to choose electors. There's no limitation on how they do it, but also no indication that any commitment they make on how they do it can be binding. --Trovatore (talk) 06:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I see a mix of "red" and "blue" states in that consortium, and if they stop and think about it, one presidential election could be enough to cure them of this notion. Let's suppose Obama gets more popular votes than Romney, but Romney wins some particular red state in the list, and that state's electoral votes swing the election to Romney instead of Obama. However, due to the consortium, that red state's electors would be compelled to vote for Obama even though their citizenry wanted Romney. That would go over like a lead balloon. People forget that it is the states which elect the president, not the individual citizens. It was set up that way in the constitution for the same reason the bicameral congress was set up: to provide a check against the large, populous states from totally overwhelming the smaller ones. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. These answers have been helpful and interesting! Back to my original question, Trump would have been able to run as an independent regardless of his registration in the state of new york, correct? Sancho 21:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on New York election law, but I think you're almost certainly correct. It would be extremely weird for a state to stipulate that, if you're registered with a party, then you can run for office only as a candidate of that party. Having said that, I don't know any specific reason that such a law would be unconstitutional. --Trovatore (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, wait a minute, I forgot we're talking about the presidential race. I'm sure it would be unconstitutional for New York to restrict Trump from running in other states. I don't know under what clause, exactly, but it's just part of that corpus of things that it's understood states can't do. At most they could keep him off the ballot in New York. --Trovatore (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm also 99% sure that Trump could run as an independent, regardless of his party registration, and I'm pretty sure that preventing him from doing so would infringe on his First Amendment rights. That kind of law, restricting participation on electoral participation, is right at the heart of the First and it would be tough to mess around with. Meelar (talk) 03:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

He could, but if he was a party member running an unendorsed campaign against his party's "official" candidate, wouldn't he risk being expelled from the party? When Joe Lieberman didn't get the Democratic party nomination for the 2006 Connecticut seat, he did indeed run as an independent. 58.111.186.225 (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

In the United States, there's no tradition of people being "expelled" from parties. Most people who consider themselves to belong to a particular party have no formal affiliation with the party beyond their voter registration, in states where you state a party on your registration, and none at all in states where you don't. So there's nothing to be expelled from.

Now, if you're an elected legislator, the party in charge of the house can certainly decline to recognize you as a member of the party for the purpose of committee assignments and so on. Is that what you meant by "expelled"? --Trovatore (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I'm wrong in that case, at least as far as the U.S. is concerned. Here in Australia, there is such a thing as formal party membership, complete with membership applications and fees. You need to have at least 500 members to register a party. Lieberman reached a deal allowing him to keep his chairmanship of the Governmental Affairs Committee. But if you want a position of any sort in the party apparatus, I think you'd be mighty unlikely, as a rebel, to get it - unless you have bargaining power, as Senator Lieberman happened to have, given the hung senate at the time. 58.111.186.225 (talk) 19:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

December 24

Anonymous Authors

I'm looking for information about book authors who remained anonymous. How did they communicate with the publisher? How did they get paid if their bank account can't be anonymously attributed to them? etc. Thanks, 17:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.226.68 (talk)

They are not anonymous to their publisher. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone has to know who they are. So either the publisher or a go-between of some sort. Or the money is left in a sack somewhere, but that seems unlikely. ;-) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

In some cases, they may not have been paid for their work. Somebody writing something "subversive" under an oppressive government might have operated the printing press personally and left copies where others would find them. These days, with the Internet, anonymous online posting is far easier (like what we are doing right now). StuRat (talk) 06:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. And what about examples of pen names or books of anonymous authors? 85.250.163.208 (talk) 12:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The famous Chinese novel Journey to the West was anonymously published in 1592. The author remained unknown until the early 20th century. A Chinese scholar connected the book with Wu Cheng'en in the 1920s. However, modern scholarship has cast doubt on the connection. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 15:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

For a more recent example, Joe Klein published Primary Colors anonymously and kept it that way for seven months in 1996 before being unmasked. Meelar (talk) 17:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

James Cook's feather cloak(s)

Does anybody know how many Hawaiian feather cloaks of Captain James Cook exist in museums around the world. And is the one currently in the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa the same one as the one that was in the Australian Museum in 1899?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Der Holle Rache

This is probably one of the most difficult arie to sing, and the F₆ has tripped up many a soprano. Of the recordings of this aria I've listened to in every one there is something around this spot (right after 'so bist du meine Tochter nimmermehr') that is not right - the soprano either "squeaks" on the high F or else hits the F but at the expense of some of the surrounding notes. Are there any recordings available online of this aria being sung perfectly or near-perfectly? If so, I'd appreciate links - even if I might have heard the recording before. Thanks. 24.92.85.35 (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this aria, but a similarly difficult aria is the Mad scene from Lucia di Lammermoor. Our article says that Maria Callas and Dame Joan Sutherland performed this role with distinction, so I wonder if they also recorded the aria you're looking for? --TammyMoet (talk) 11:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I assume you've checked out our article Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen, which says that Edda Moser's recording was chosen for Voyager 1, so it must have been considered pretty special. It also mentions the notorious Florence Foster Jenkins, whose recording is worth hearing for the novelty value of its utter awfulness, but for no other reason, I promise you. Also have a look at The Magic Flute discography for the names of some noted singers of the important roles. It's not complete, but it's a start. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's the much lamented Lucia Popp doing it admirably (it says Cecilia Bartoli but that's wrong).

PS. Those reading this thread may not know the aria under its incipit, but might know "The Queen of the Night's Aria". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

December 25

Count Ciano

In my country (Serbia) there is a saying "like Count Ciano" when you are describing someone whos living a very rich and extravagant lifestyle. Its a very old saying, used mostly by older people and I tried to find its roots but I couldnt, because count Ciano seemed to have led a normal life. I've find out on the internet that he visited Serbia (then Kingdom of Yugoslavia) many times before the war, so I understand why this saying stuck, but I dont understand why was he considered special so that people used him as an example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.243.16.208 (talk) 01:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

My impression, seconded by our article, is that Galeazzo Ciani led a "high-profile glamorous life" until his dramatic fall from grace and execution. I'd never describe his as a "normal" life! - Nunh-huh 04:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Arguments against 'religion provides support' or 'religion provides a sense of community'

I am interested as to whether anyone can direct me to (or provide me with) counterarguments to the above oft-stated dictums along the lines of 'religion is a force for good because it helps support people through difficult times' or 'religion is a force for good because it provides a beneficial community in which to live, help one another, etc'. Personally I am extremely strongly on the side of Hitchens, Dawkins, Grayling etc., but satisfactory counterarguments for these two suggestions (or perhaps one suggestion, if you see them as the same thing) have so far eluded me, and I am reluctant to maintain an extremely strong opinion that the world would be better off without religion when I can not refute these arguments. Could anyone provide me with or direct me to some thoughts to this end? I am aware that perhaps there simply is no good counterargument, but I would certainly like to see the best efforts generally heard in these debates.

If possible, I am more interested in seeing arguments posited which are not of the form "Well that's true, but still - look at all the bad things that religion does" (i.e. counterarguments against religion as a whole, which have no specific reference to the above alleged benefits of religion): I suspect I have seen them all and they do not counter the specific points which still cause me concern, merely religion as a whole. However, I accept that there may not be many such arguments. Either way, many thanks for your help! Mathmos6 (talk) 03:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

You could argue against the conditional: if something helps support people through difficult times, then it is a force for good. Or against the conditional: if something provides a beneficial community in which to live, then it is a force for good. To do so would probably mean taking up a relativist position regarding morality.

You could also argue that religion in fact doesn't support people through difficult times, or doesn't provide a beneficial community in which to live.

You could also accept that perhaps these arguments are valid: that religion does have aspects that are "good". I assume your arguments against a belief in religion don't hinge on it being completely and 100% bad. Sancho 05:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that, while religion fosters a sense of community for those within the religion, that it alienates those outside the religion. This is similar to how it tends to reduce violence between individuals of that religion (or sect), while increasing violence between members of that religion (or sect) and others. Which could lead to the conclusion that the best way to reduce violence everywhere is to kill off everyone of any religion other than your own. StuRat (talk) 06:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Mathmos: you're in a very hard place, because your argument runs across divergent cognitive styles. I'm not particularly religious myself, but I do recognize the power of religion for a certain style of thinking. Religion (on a lower level) adds a significant measure of stability and comfort to the lives of people who would otherwise be plagued by ideation that they are not able to understand and not prepared to accept. On a higher level, it gives people a kind of peace and appreciation for life that's difficult to find in the secular world. Yes, Marx was right when he said that religion is the opiate of the masses; Marx simply didn't appreciate the value of opiates.

To get to your specific point, though, the counter-argument to the 'Religion is a force for good…' arguments is to point out that religion is not unambiguously good. Religion is a 'comfort zone', and as with any comfort zone people who are pushed to the edge of it can act out in terribly unpleasant ways. I don't think I need to point out what these unpleasant ways are (everyone can think of examples, and pointing it out is overkill). However, that argument only goes so far: if you run across someone who understands the limits of that comfort zone and keeps him/herself centered in it, they will merely acknowledge that you are right and smile in (what you will interpret as) an infuriatingly indulgent way. Someone once quipped that religion appeals to the ignorant and to the wise, but those of us who are merely intelligent can't tell which is which. Dunno if that's true, but… --Ludwigs2 06:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that it's best to concede that religion does provide benefits (sense of community, etc) but argue that religion as such isn't necessary to get those benefits. For example, even an atheist could find value in a non-religious community group (like the Kiwanis or something similar). So argue that religion does provide certain benefits, but that you can get thoe benefits without adopting supernatural beliefs. Meelar (talk) 10:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

If my memory serves me correctly, Dawkins covers this problem in The God Delusion. (See The God Delusion#Religion and morality.) Have you read that book? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

My standard answer is that if it's just a social good you're looking for, you can get that with a bowling club or a community service group. You don't need all the negative stuff or the nonsense for just that. And you can't just look at the positive social aspect without paying attention to whatever negatives might come from it. The mafia ran soup kitchens too. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

It's important to keep in mind that for a long time, religion was "all we had". There are so many options today that religion has lost its once-pervading importance. Just today, this USAToday article[5] points out that a large percentage of folks are apathetic to both conventional religion and to atheism (which, in itself, resembles a religion). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

It only resembles a religion in the sense that it's a belief about God. Atheists don't have a common church, set of beliefs, priests, prophet, or holy book. You don't see atheists congregating every weekend to hear propaganda that reinforces their beliefs, or denouncing gays in the name of atheism, or attempting genocide in the name of atheism. --19:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

People who argue that religion provides a source of support/community are arguing from a modern, liberal, Western, post-Enlightenment perspective. Even in this modern world, religion is more often a source of division than support. If you're gay and every Sunday, you hear a sermon denouncing gays and claiming that every new gay rights law is a work of Satan, would you feel supported? If you're Muslim and hear Islamophobic comments by the religious right, does that strengthen your sense of community with Christian Americans? If you're a Maronite Christian being massacred by Muslims during Lebanon's civil war, or a Muslim being massacred by Christians during that same war, how much community support do you really feel?

You might say that religion offers support, as long as you believe in the right religion, the right politics (no supporting abortion/gay rights/euthanasia, for example), the right morality (no free sex, no watching porn), and never question the validity of any of this. First of all, I'm not sure it's feasible to change your political, moral, or religious beliefs just to fit in to a religious group. Second, if support is what you're seeking, I'd suggest relatives, friends, classmates, co-workers, and colleagues. Alternatively, join a fraternity or a club that aligns with your real beliefs. Even my religious friends don't depend entirely on people they met in church for support; in fact, the people they most often turn to are relatives and classmates that they met outside of church. --99.237.252.228 (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Democratic roosters

Is anyone aware of images (either here or at Commons) featuring roosters as the emblem of the Democratic Party? I'm looking for something in which the rooster is the center of attention; something like File:Cleveland-Thurman.jpg, in which the roosters are hiding near the top, is far from what I need. I'd also be interested if someone could find a PD-old or at least PD-US image online that could be uploaded; I looked but didn't find any. Nyttend (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

When was the regency?

The articles of Matilda of Flanders, Matilda of Scotland and Philippa of Hainault states that they were regents during the absence of their respective husbands on several occasions. But the articles does not say when exactly they were regents. When was this? Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Hawaiian Islands

Does there exist any map of the islands of Hawaii (other than Maui Nui) during their volcanic peaks when they were active volcanoes for the other islands west of Maui and into the Hawaiian seamounts?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)