Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities: Difference between revisions

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

June 12

impoverish royals

What country has the most impoverish royal families or most egalitarian (not possessing great wealth or spending much)? Not thinking of an African king or tribal chieftain living in a village though. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Due to German mediatization, I'm sure it's Germany. Surely it's not a big deal for most of them anymore (who cares if you're the heir of the Count of Pappenheim?), but they've historically been considered royalty for marriage purposes at least. Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Most of them seem to be only nobles and not royals and most retained their lands and wealth as part of the upper crust of the German Empire between the years of 1814 and 1918.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Although many were "just" counts and dukes, they were "minor" royalty; they were sovereigns of small states, not nobles within a grander state. Nyttend (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure if you want to count this situation, but Soulivong Savang, the heir to the throne of Laos, left his country as a refugee in the early 1980s. Although Laos is now a communist state, the family is still revered by most Lao as "royalty".--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 03:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure whether it falls into your exceptions and I don't know about "impoverished" but the current King of Tonga is a pretty ordinary (humble) guy. He was privately educated like his brother the king but served in their (very small) armed forces before becoming a public servant. He was crowned price in 2006 only because his brother was getting older but had no heirs. I don't think he ever expected to become King. He was crowned in 2012 when his brother died. By all accounts he's still a pretty regular fellow and is often at the local pub watching rugby union with his friends. He was High Commissioner to Australia and I remember stories about him - as brother of the king, crown price and his country's most senior diplomat - driving himself around Canberra in a pretty ordinary car while minor diplomats from tiny countries had motorcades. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Dunno if this is relevant, but the Japanese emperor and his family are practically prisoners of his household staff. They literally decide everything for him, even if he can have his cup of tea, I believe. As a "westerner" I find this really weird, like the metaphorical "tail wagging the dog". Not sure if he's poor though, I don't know about his finances. But if he does have money, I presume he has precious little input into how it's spent. 61.88.210.42 (talk) 08:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Previous Japanese emperors have fared much worse and score quite highly on the indigence rating. This article may be overstating the case, since it has a post-War American axe to grind, but it says (quoting Willard Price - my corrections are in italics); "The year America was discovered (it was actually 21 October 1500) the Emperor GO-TSUCHI died and lay 40 days rotting beside the Palace gates (actually in a room in the palace) because the Royal Family lacked funds to bury him. Finally his son borrowed enough money from a Buddhist priest to pay funeral expenses. The son (Emperor Go-Kashiwabara) was unable to take the Throne because there was no money for the necessary enthronement ceremonies. Twenty years went by before he could be seated. During that time Japan went without an Emperor (not really true), but does not seem to have minded it in the least. One Emperor begged in the streets. One copied poems for a living (maybe Emperor Go-Nara). One sold autographs. One lived in a hut with a roof that would not keep out the rain (possibly referring to Emperor Go-Daigo, who started a civil war in the hope of becoming a dictator)". Alansplodge (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The British have coined the term "Bicycle monarchy" to refer to Scandinavian and Benelux royal families which have discarded historical royal protocols, in order to adapt to 20th-century realities, more thoroughly than has been done in the U.K. If the U.K. royal family hadn't been exempted from "death duties" and most other 20th century taxes, they might be in a humbler or more dependent situation today... AnonMoos (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hm, I interpreted the question as "what country has <the most><impoverished royal families>", and everyone else appears to have interpreted it as <the most impoverished><royal families>". It would help if The Emperor's New Spy clarified which interpretation is correct. Nyttend (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Year of Consul A and Consul B

According to the ab urbe condita article, ancient Romans typically referred to a year by the names of its consuls, e.g. 20BC was the Year of Appuleius and Nerva (or whatever other names they used), rather than most commonly being 733 AUC. But what would happen when the same pair of men were consuls more than once, or if two years' consuls were different men with the same name? For example, Gaius Fabricius Luscinus and Quintus Aemilius Papus were consuls together in 282 and 278 BC. How would the two years be distinguished? Is this when AUC would come into play? Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It's very unlikely that the 753 B.C. startpoint was in use until long after 282 or 278 B.C... I've encountered constructions similar to "during the second consulship of X and the third consulship of Y" several times, and I assume that's what the Roman numerals after the names mean in List of Roman consuls. AnonMoos (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

That is what they did, even long into the imperial period when it would have been easier to use the regnal date of the emperor. I guess they just hadn't thought of that yet. They only named the emperor in the date if he happened to have named himself consul...sometimes both emperors on both sides of the empire would be the two consuls for the year though. I suppose that is where regnal dates ultimately come from. The names of the consuls probably had no meaning for most people, but the Roman priests in charge of the calendar kept a detailed list, at least in the pre-Christian era. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Does ‘anti‐Latinism’ exist?

I’m doubtful, but some results for ‘Latins’ on Google Books contain generalizations against them, although the exact meaning of ‘Latins’ is not always clear. As far as I do know, discrimination usually takes a specific form (Francophobia or Italophobia, for example). Have there ever been incidences of something broad like this? Curious.--66.190.99.112 (talk) 02:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Certainly anti-Hispanic/anti-Latino prejudice exists. It happens in the US, where immigrants (especially illegal immigrants) from Mexico, Central America, South America, and the Caribbean are perceived to have taken local jobs, lowered the pay scales, overburdened the health care and school systems, necessitated providing Spanish language support in government and business operations, etc. (They certainly provide many positives as well, but I'm only listing the causes of the prejudice here.)

If you mean prejudice against Southern Europeans, yes, there's that too, such as from Northern Europeans who view their southern counterparts as lazy, financially undisciplined, and responsible for Europe's economic woes. StuRat (talk) 03:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

66.190.99.112 -- I think anti-French prejudice is its own thing, and is rarely lumped into an indiscriminate hatred of all "Latins" (though it could be lumped into an indiscriminate hatred of all Catholics). If there's such a thing as Latins-phobia, it would presumably mean an indiscriminate hatred of Spanish-speakers, Portuguese-speakers, and Italian speakers, whether in the Americas or southern Europe... AnonMoos (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There's also the cultural difference, as StuRat mentioned above. Latins (whether in southern Europe or Latin America) are assumed to be relatively gregarious by nature, while northern Europeans and North Americans are assumed to be relatively stoic by nature. Even in the US, southerners are assumed to be more friendly and expressive than northerners. Hence the quip (sometimes attributed to JFK) that Washington, DC, is "a city with northern charm and southern efficiency." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I had heard "northern hospitality and southern efficiency" and attribute that quote to Mark Twain. StuRat (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Why are pastors called "reverend" instead of "doctor"?

Many educated pastors may have a doctorate in theology. Hence, it is expected to call them "Professor" or "Doctor". Yet, people just address them by their religious title, "Reverend" or "Right Reverend". Why? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 04:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Martin Luther King, Jr. was often called "The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You're conflating several things here. 'Pastor' covers, er, a multitude of sins. Church of England priests, for example, usually do not have doctorates. Those that do, are often referred to as Dr X. But (in formal UK usage at least) 'Reverend' is not interchangeable with 'Doctor'. 'Reverend, like 'Venerable', 'Honourable', and so on, is an adjective rather than a noun; titles which are nouns can be paired with surnames: Dr Fox, President Obama, Mr Smith. Adjectives need either a forename or a noun-title as well: The Reverend Mr Jones, the Honourable Lucy Bloggs. So an archbishop will often be, eg, The Rt Revd and Rt Hon Dr Rowan Williams. One's denomination and churchmanship can be a factor, too: in Roman Catholic and Anglo-Catholic circles, priests are often addressed as 'Father Lastname', or 'Father Firstname' if you're on closer terms with them. Calling someone 'Reverend Lastname' is a sure sign of low churchmanship (and is technically wrong) in the Church of England, but is standard and expected in other Protestant denominations. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

In many American Protestant churches, a pastor will ordinarily be addressed by his first name, at least by one of his own flock. --Trovatore (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's true across most varieties of Anglicanism too - but it implies a certain degree of familiarity. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay. So, basically, Reverend is the adjective title, while Doctor is the noun title. Roman Catholic priests are called "pastors" too, and they do so officially by signing their names as "Pastor of [insert Parish name here]". What do you mean by "pastor covers a multitude of sins"? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry - a bad joke on my part. "To cover a multitude of sins" is an idiom meaning that an expression covers (and conceals the complexity of) a wide range of things. In the RC case, 'pastor' is being used as a synonym for 'parish priest' - in the Church of England, those are usually vicars or rectors. In all those cases, those are just job titles, and so you wouldn't put them right before any part of your name. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

They don't even wear name tags with their titles on them? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The only religious officials I've ever seen do that are the (extremely youthful-looking) Elders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought the "pastor covers the multitude of sins" comment was referring to how low-ranking the pastor is in the church hierarchy, which may be socially associated with a "multitude of sins" while the higher-ranking religious officials are thought of as more pious and pure than everyone else. Never mind. Me and my imagination. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

No, that isn't the use of those terms. Doctor can only be used by people who have a doctorate degree, such as a Doctor of Theology or similar degree (such as a Doctor of Sacred Theology or Doctor of Pastoral Theology or Doctor of Divinity). People who do not have those academic degrees do not use the word "Doctor" in their titles. "The Reverend" is usually applied to a person who has been ordained. One can have a degree and not be ordained (thus not all religious doctors are "reverend") and one can be ordained without a doctoral degree (thus one can be a reverend and not a doctor). A pastor is usually meant to be a religious leader of a congregation (other ministers are not usually considered "pastors") and, of course, one can be a reverend and not be a pastor (though the reverse is not necessarily true: Usually all pastors are ordained). A minister need not be any of these, though often are. --Jayron32 16:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I know of at least a couple of men who were trained as medical doctors (not necessarily Doctors of Medicine) and worked as GPs, and later became priests. I assume they could continue to used their Dr title. My state of Victoria has a Premier who was formerly a veterinarian. He has a masters in veterinary science, but not a doctorate, and also an MBA. He's regularly referred to as "Dr Napthine". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There may also be cultural factors. In the UK, PhDs by far outweigh DDs, even in the clergy, and it is generally considered rather vulgar for PhDs to use the title "doctor" unless they are working academics. Outside academia, the term "doctor" is reserved for medical doctors and those with earned (as opposed to honorary) "higher doctorates" (DD, MD, DLitt, etc.). This is to some extent a class-related issue - notice how Gordon Brown is always "Mr Brown" in interviews, while Vince Cable prefers to be known as "Dr Cable", instantly telling the alert listener that he has less gentle origins. I've only had one pastor who was known as "doctor", because he had a DD (and was a noted exegete and lecturer); the others were all "mister", even where they had PhDs. RomanSpa (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

One thing I love about the American South is that, if they know you have a Ph.D., they do give you your "Doctor". You don't have to ask; it's just what they consider correct. --Trovatore (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's nice to know that at least they're polite when they offer us all their delightful Southern hospitality. RomanSpa (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Now, that is really uncalled for. Apologize at once. --Trovatore (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The south has made a fair amount of progress since those days (with the possible exception of Texas). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not much better, Bugs. You can find bad things everywhere. It's no excuse for anti-Southern or anti-Texas bigotry. --Trovatore (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Orthodox cathedral identification

Could somebody identify the church in this image? The description says it's in Thessaloniki, but I'm having trouble finding an exact match for it. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Agios Pavlos Church http://www.freeimages.com/photo/1265484 and https://www.google.co.za/maps/@40.63796,22.962239,3a,75y,224.04h,89.66t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sjBtJLo7BFU0ylsYmyDbrQA!2e0!6m1!1e1 196.214.78.114 (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --Lazar Taxon (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria

How was Samuel Mills Damon and the Republic of Hawaii received at the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Struggling to parse your question. Do you mean procedurally, actually or ethically? Or how was he received by the public? As in, how (was he allowed to be) received? How (in what form and with which titles) was he received? Or, how (with regard to enthusiasm) was he received? St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

? His reception (details....). Period.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's a contemporary description.

A Looker-On in London, by Mary H. Krout, 1899 - Chapter 24 - The Diamond Jubilee

Page 301, '...the Premiers of the Colonies arrived and were assigned to apartments reserved for them in the Hotel Cecil; foreign envoys presented their credentials and were quartered in other hotels and palaces, the guests of the Queen...'

Page 315, 'The foreign envoys, Japanese, Mexicans, Chinese, Spanish, French, German and Italian were magnificent in uniforms heavy with gold and glittering with jeweled decorations. Among them was the representative of the little Republic of Hawaii, as gorgeous in his gold lace and chapeau and as imposing as the representative of all the Russias - a splendor that vanished with the annexation of the islands of the United States, to return no more.'

Page 316, 'In the midst of all this bravery of uniform the simplicity of the American envoy, Hon. Whitelaw Reid, had a marked impressiveness. He, too, represented a rich and powerful nation, but he alone of all those dispatched to England to do honor to the head of the British Empire, wore neither medal nor decoration. In the plain morning dress of a gentleman he was all the more remarkable, among the three envoys who shared his carriage - the representative of the Holy See in his clerical robes of scarlet silk, the Chinese and, strangely enough, the Spanish envoy - an oddly assorted quartette, all the more striking from the events that were even then impending to disturb the friendly relations of Spain and the United States. Mr. Reid was received with the utmost cordiality, sharing the applause that was given with special enthusiasm for the Queen and Lord Roberts.' --Bill Reid | (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Well done Bill Reid, you should write a book called Teach Yourself How to Answer a Refdesk Query. Alansplodge (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Nigeria = world's scam headquarters?

Practically every internet scammer I've come across seems to be based in one country: Nigeria. Or at least a hugely disproportionate number of them. Be it romance scams, 419 scams (advance fee fraud), selling bogus stuff on the net, etc etc. If there's a scam, Nigerians can be trusted to be front and center in it. And, of course, they ALWAYS ask for payment by hard-to-trace Western Union or Moneygram, NEVER a bank account.

My question is: What is it about Nigeria in particular which breeds these scammers and scams? I don't hear any other African country coming close. Which factors are unique to Nigeria, as opposed to other parts of Africa, which allow this situation to thrive?

(As a secondary issue: Personally, I think Western Union and Moneygram should shut down service to Nigeria until the situation improves, full stop. It wouldn't stop the scammers, but it would make life somewhat more difficult for them, forcing them to use third-country accomplices. I suspect more of the money sent by these two services to Nigeria is scam-related or dirty money, than "clean" and legitimate cash. The scammers would likely be far harder hit than the few "legitimate" Nigerian recipients. Am I missing anything with this suggestion?).

No, I haven't personally fallen victim to a Nigerian scammer yet, thankfully, but they've made plenty of attempts. My spam folder is clogged with them. 61.88.210.42 (talk) 07:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

One issue to address: it's not true that most scams originate from Nigeria (although disproportionate number does): according to our article on 419 scams, "in 2006, 61% of Internet criminals were traced to locations in the United States, while 16% were traced to the United Kingdom and 6% to locations in Nigeria." No longer a penguin (talk) 08:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Corruption in Nigeria might provide some clues.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Some years ago, it was reported that most of the world's spam originated in Boca Raton, Florida. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Are they actually based in Nigeria, or is it just guys (who could be anywhere in the world, really) saying that they're in Nigeria and need your help (and bank account) in order to transfer/launder some dubious monies due to some political situation/war or other - because it's a country that many people aren't going to be particularly familiar with? Yaknow, reducing the likelihood of the mark calling bullshit over the backstory at an early stage. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's quite the opposite. People are so familiar with "Nigerian" scams by now that only the most gullible bite the hook - it's a way of selecting the most promising targets. If they were truly interested in a country that people are not familiar with, then a country of 100 million people is not the best choice (there are plenty of tiny oil rich states around).No longer a penguin (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Like the wonderful world of Antarctica. Untold billions of barrels, population 0. Once 2048 rolls around, the first person to plant their flag will be unbelievably rich. It could be you, if you get in line right now. (Just send me the money, I'll mail the ticket.) InedibleHulk (talk) 11:14, June 12, 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, these flights don't land and provide no parachutes, so planting a flag might involve falling very quickly and stopping very suddenly.129.178.88.82 (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

All investments carry risk. For merely double the cost of the flight, I'll also throw in this handy decelerator and 1,847 meals. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:35, June 12, 2014 (UTC)

Another point: "more of the money sent by these two services to Nigeria is scam-related or dirty money, than "clean" and legitimate cash" would need one hell of a citation. The reason these services are not stopped is that they are widely used for legitimate purposes (even in these countries), not least for remittances by expats.No longer a penguin (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Off topic, but what amazes me is the people who go on TV current affairs shows and tell the world in glorious detail how stupid they were by falling prey to these scammers and lost their life savings. Spending a few hundred or even a few thousand dollars on some scheme might be understandable if you could afford to lose that much, but giving them access to all you have, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars? that's insane behaviour. These are generally conservative people who have a good work ethic, always pay their bills on time, advise their kids and grandkids not to talk to strangers, and know not to put all their eggs in one basket. They wouldn't invest all their savings even in a single bank or institution that has government-backed and watertight security, so what induces them to give it all to a stranger that they never even meet in person, "because he sounded like a nice man"? If I ever did that, I'd be too ashamed to even tell my closest friend, let alone the entire country. Maybe they feel the need to warn others, and are prepared to pay the price of ignominy on top of their heavy financial cost. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• My assumption is that the frequency of scams originating from Nigeria has much more to do with the laws in Nigeria. Either they are lax enough to not control this industry or the authorities can easily be paid to look the other way. As opposed to scamming being some sort of cultural norm that is bred into Nigerians. Bali88 (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It really annoyed me some years ago when they were setting up a university the huge number who just wanted become lawyers. They didn't want to become engineers or doctors or teachers any of the other useful things one might think would be a good idea. Thankfully that problem at least seems to have fixed itself as people have seen how many jobs there actually are for lawyers but I wonder what a lot of the unemployed ones actually do. Dmcq (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: "but I wonder what a lot of the unemployed ones actually do." - they sue each other. If there is only one lawyer in a town, he will go broke... add another and they will both thrive. Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

What to call the Republican right and left

The term "conservative" has a fairly long history, and the Republican party has long claimed it. But now it seems to have been taken over by the right wing Tea Party, and you often hear the "left wing" of the party referred to as the "establishment" Republicans. Surely this faction doesn't like that label. What do they/might they prefer instead? --Halcatalyst (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The use of left and right in American politics is utterly pointless anyway, as by global standards all parties are far right paleoconservatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.254.110 (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Labels that often come up sometimes refer to specific Republican leaders and their ideology. So you may have someone refer to themselves as a "Goldwater Republican" or a "Reagan Republican" to distinguish their ideology from the current Republican party platform. (I haven't heard "Gingrich Republican", but I assume it's only a matter of time.) Regarding the current Republican establishment that (internally) opposes the Tea Party, they're still establishment, so I'm guessing they're resisting giving themselves a more specific label than just "Republican", lest they be considered "fringe". If you needed to distinguish, "non-Tea Party Republican" would be an apt phrase. If the Tea Party ever gets undisputed control of the Republican Party, you may find that the "counter-revolutionaries" may adopt a label to rally behind. -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Halcatalyst -- the term "left-wing Republican" has been pretty much an oxymoron ever since "Fighting Bob" La Follette left the Republican party for the Progressives in 1924, and definitely since most blacks left the Republican party for the Democrats in the 1930s... During the 1960s and 1970s you had an opposition between "moderate" or "Rockefeller" Republicans vs. "Goldwater" Republicans, but the moderate/Rockefeller Republicans have been progressively marginalized since the 1980s, and Susan Collins is just about the only one left at the national political level. Nowadays, the Republican party basically consists of different rightist factions, often squabbling with each other over which one is truly rightmost. Probably "establishment" vs. "outsider" and "quasi-libertarian" vs. "social conservative" are far more useful labels for classifying current-day Republicans than "left"[sic] vs. "right"... AnonMoos (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, you're only decades off. There have been considerably "left wing" Republicans (at least by the terms as understood in the modern American sense, not any other) up to the modern day. The 1960-1970s had Pete McCloskey (who only recently changed affiliations), Bill Weld had rather left-leaning views for a Republican, as did Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney before they decided that running for president required pandering to southern ultra-right-wingers. It is true that, today, at the national level, the Republican party leans farther to the right than it used to, but it also isn't accurate to say that the last "liberal" republican left the party in 1924. It's been more recent, and more gradual, than that. --Jayron32 16:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say anything whatsoever about "liberal Republican", only about "left-wing Republican". Giuliani and Romney were pragmatic practical politicians who adapted themselves to the political balance of their constituencies without getting greatly hung up on abstract theoretical ideologies -- or at least they were before they started running for president -- but they were NOT "left-wing" in any useful or accurate sense of the term, and calling them "liberal" is very vague and hazy terminology that I'm not sure usefully clarifies anything too much... AnonMoos (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

"Leftist" is not so much of a widely-used term in America. "Liberal" is much more common. Right-wingers tend to use that term with the same degree of contempt (and as synonymous with) the way they used to say "socialist" and "communist". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a "laundry list" of policies one must adhere to 100 percent in order to be classified as a "real" conservative (or a "real" liberal, for that matter). Any politician who styles himself as "conservative" but doesn't adhere 100 percent to that list is labeled "not conservative enough" and can be vulnerable to the tea party. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

As we're talking labels, the epithet commonly used for someone who is seen not to fulfill the criteria for being "conservative enough" is RINO - "Republican in name only". I'll also give a wikilink for the above-mentioned Rockefeller Republican, as it appears we have an article on the topic (which apparently Liberal Republican redirects to). -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It is very difficult to put neat dualistic labels on the Republican Party... generalizing (broadly) the party does not break down neatly into "right vs left" or even "conservative vs liberal" on all issues... that's because it is actually made up of three distinct "wings": 1) fiscal budget-hawks, 2) social/religious conservatives, and 3) small government libertarians. Each "wing" care a lot about, and will unite on issues that relate to its own agenda... but can be split on issues relating to the agendas of the other "wings"... so, for example, two fiscal budget-hawks (A and B) will both favor a reduction in taxes, but may disagree with each other on Gay Marriage and regulation of cattle ranching. Meanwhile, two social/religious conservatives (C and D) will both be opposed to Gay Marriage ... but take opposing views on tax hikes and regulations on cattle ranching. Meanwhile two small government libertarians (E and F) will unite on limiting regulations on cattle ranching, but can disagree on Gay Marriage and taxes. Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Where they stand on our funding of foreign wars is also an interesting subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Blueboar -- your typology has some validity, but it doesn't seem to be able to accommodate the prominent faction of phony budget hawks, who only oppose deficit-increasing measures which benefit the poor and middle-classes, but never those which benefit the ultra-wealthy and large corporations. So according to the pseudo-hawks, an extension of unemployment insurance must always be "offset" with increased revenues or decreased expenditures elsewhere in the budget, but for some inexplicable reason, an extension of tax breaks which mostly benefit the 1% never has to be "offset". The reason why the U.S. has a budget deficit in the first place is basically that the phony pseudo-hawks frittered away the Clinton budget surpluses on the Bush tax cuts mainly for the rich, without much real concern for the deficits this ended up creating... AnonMoos (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The 1% are the guys who get them elected, one way or another. Hence the Will Rogers comment, which applies just as much or more as it did in his day: "We have the best Congress money can buy." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

In the middle of the political spectrum, by default, is the moderate wing of the Democratic Party. Ever so slightly to the right are RINOS -- folks who want nothing to do with the nonsense going on at the heart of the GOP, but can't or won't recognize that their party has left them. Next up are supporters of past presidents (candidates) who couldn't even get nominated today: Bush (41), Nixon, Eisenhower, Reagan, Goldwater, Gingrich. The NeoCons and PaleoCons round out what used to be the more extreme wing, but who are now seen as rather too willing to actually work with their colleagues across the aisle. The John Birch Society, KKK and Tea Party are off-shoots of the ultra-right and generally don't want to be called Republicans (hence, Tea "Party," rather than cacus or wing). DOR (HK) (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to like the Tea Party, but lumping them with the KKK is hyperbolic. The Tea Party is not racist per se, though it undoubtedly has some individual adherents that are. (For that matter, neither is the JBS; their defining attribute is extreme fear of communism, which is a bit passé these days, which is probably why you don't hear much about them.) --Trovatore (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, I wouldn't read much into the word "Party" in the name. It's a (slightly punning) reference to the Boston Tea Party. No other word would make that allusion. I haven't heard of any serious proposal for them to separate from the Republican Party. --Trovatore (talk) 01:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

children's books

Hello. I am looking for children's books written between 1900 and 1930, in English, set in the UK, and with non-upper-class children as main characters. It is the last part that is stumping me. Thank you for any pointers you can suggest. 184.147.127.96 (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you asking for books whose main characters aren't upper-class children, or are you asking for books whose main characters are children who aren't upper-class? Depending on what you mean, Winnie-the-Pooh might qualify: none of its main characters are upper-class children. Nyttend (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

By the way, note that this page has temporarily been semiprotected, so you will not be able to answer here. If you want to respond to me, please leave a note at my talk page, and I'll happily copy it here for you. Nyttend (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

[copied from User talk:Nyttend] I meant children who are not upper class. Thank you for your note and your help! 184.147.127.96 (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

According to Just William (series), the protagonist is a middle-class boy. Maybe you already remember this, but "upper class" has a substantially different meaning in this context from what it means in the contemporary USA (and presumably what it means in Canada, where you appear to be) — the upper classes are independently wealthy, while the middle classes include phenomenally wealthy people who still engage in working. If the original Mary Poppins book were a few years older, it would qualify, since Mr Banks is a financier, not a landowner. Also, The Railway Children, published in 1905, is about children whose father is an employee of the Foreign Office, while The Story of the Amulet says that the main characters in its series are the children of a journalist. Nyttend (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

[again copied from User talk:Nyttend] Thank you again for your clarification. I meant to exclude the children in the Nesbit books so I suppose I mean whatever the name is for below middle class. Working class? 184.147.127.96 (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Milly-Molly-Mandy (1928, for younger children) is from a traditional rural background. William Brown is painfully and deliberately middle-class, but only the first ten(!) books (Just William to William) were written before 1930 - he's more at home in the 1950s, perhaps. The family (unnamed, as far as I can remember) from The Railway Children (1906) are one rung up the social ladder from the Browns, but still might fit the criterion. Tevildo (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

British children's literature is very far from my specialty, so unfortunately I don't think I can suggest anything that's specifically from the lower classes, whether farmers or industrial workers or domestic workers. You may just have to look at a book and infer the children's social status from their prosperity or lack thereof. Perhaps the best route is to go through Category:20th-century British children's literature, especially looking at the pre-1931 books in List of British children's and young adults' literature titles (1900–49); that's where I got the titles I suggested, since I've never heard of any of them before. Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

In The Voyages of Doctor Dolittle and some of the other Doctor Dolittle books, the narrator is Tommy Stubbins, a cobbler's son.

While most of the children in E. Nesbit novels are upper middle class, in The Railway Children the father has been imprisoned, leading to hardship for his family. John M Baker (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Swallows and Amazons just qualifies as it was published 1 December 1930. Billy Bunter's father was stockbroker. Peter and Wendy plus some of the other Peter Pan books. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 04:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I was contemplating S&A, but the Walker family's father is a relatively senior naval officer, and the Blacketts appear to be minor landowners. We never meet Bob Blackett, Nancy and Peggy's father, as he died some time earlier - perhaps in the 1918 flu epidemic or the Great War - but his wife (Molly?) seems to run the Beckfoot estate herself, and her brother Jim Turner (Captain Flint) is a man of sufficient means to spend time prospecting for gold in South America, or writing lengthy memoirs. The Callums (first appearing in Winter Holiday) are the children of an archaeologist - I wonder if their father is modelled on Max Mallowan? In any case, all three 'lakes' families are solidly middle-class. It's only in the Norfolk novels (Coot Club and The Big Six, neither published before 1931) that we meet genuinely working-class children. The Arthur Ransome wiki has an article on class in the books here [1] including a comment from Ransome himself, writing in 1943. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

In Peter Pan, the Darling family might be upper class (although the father is only a bank clerk), but Peter and the Lost Boys are not, at least not since they were taken from their original families, so this may qualify. See characters of Peter Pan. StuRat (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

According to Wendy Darling#Background "She belongs to a middle class London household of that era...". Her father is a "bank/office worker" so there is no way she is upper class. Also social class and Social structure of the United Kingdom#Upper class for UK definitions. I would think that there would be few stories with upper class children. Most of the authors were middle class and that's who they would be writing for. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 05:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The Railway Children and anything by E. Nesbit would qualify, although distinctly middle-class. The Secret Garden had working class children in it, but was set in a stately home. I'm struggling to think of any books solely about working-class children; I don't think there would have been much of a market for them. In my east London 1960s childhood, we all read books about Jennings and Billy Bunter who went to expensive boarding schools, while we made do with a local council junior school with a tarmac playground. Alansplodge (talk) 08:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Dickon from The Secret Garden is the most obviously working-class child lead character from English children's fiction of the era that I can think of. (I don't think Jennings' public school is that expensive - Darbishire's father is a country parson, after all.) AlexTiefling (talk) 09:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

All things are relative, it was a lot more expensive than a state school - BTW I expect it was a preparatory school rather than a public school, but I'm just being picky. Alansplodge (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You're right, of course: the third form are 11 years old, not 13 as they would be in a secondary school, and there's also the recurrent catchphrase 'even in the best-regulated preparatory schools'. I wasn't pretending it was cheap - just that the stated professions of the boys' fathers indicate that it's neither the most prestigious nor the most costly of such institutions. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we can agree on that. It seems odd now that the concept of allowing children to read about those worse-off than themselves appears to date only from the 1970s, with the obvious exception of Dickens who was safely in the past. Alansplodge (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. As should be apparent, I was raised on exactly these novels, in some cases from my parents' hardback copies. I grew up with ludicrously inflated ideas of what secondary education was going to be like, and was profoundly disappointed and culture-shocked when my time at an actual public school was brutal and miserable. It also exposed the complexity of the class structure - the accent I acquired from my grammar-school-educated parents led to me being mocked as 'posh' by children whose parents were affording the fees a lot more comfortably than we were. Now a parent myself, I'm wondering how to raise my children with a more rational view of life and education. I wouldn't want them to be denied the books of my own childhood, but I'm reluctantly forced to admit that even though the slow ascent of the class system's greasy pole continues, life will never be for us as it appears to be for the protagonists of these novels. The middle class that these authors envisioned has been swept away and replaced by a set of overlapping middle classes, some defined more by income and others more by attitude and socialisation, no single one of which recreates the pre-war situation. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Slightly outside your time period, but I think this might meet your needs in other respects: The Family from One End Street. It's worth pointing out that children's stories about the working classes are all the rage now, more's the pity: my brother recently had to reassure his daughter that he and his wife had no plans to divorce, following a remark in some recently-published book (probably by Jacqueline Wilson or one of her imitators) that "most parents divorce". The problems of the working classes, though sad, are not particularly relevant to the children of the middle classes, but there seems to be a certain kind of teacher that enjoys terrorising children with unwarranted fears. RomanSpa (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

IP 184.147.135.33, who says they are the "same person, IP just changed after a power out" would like to say: "Many thanks to everyone for the helpful answers." Regards, Older and ... well older (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

June 13

US Navy or Marines General Orders for Sentries question

At General Orders for Sentries it says: "When you are a sentry, you are "in charge." This means that no one—no matter what their rank or position—may overrule your authority in carrying out your orders. The only way that you may be exempted from carrying out your orders is if your orders are changed by your superior. For example, if your orders are to allow no one to enter a fenced-in compound, you must prevent everyone from entering, even if an admiral tells you it is all right for him or her to enter. The petty officer of the watch (or whoever is your immediate superior) may modify your orders to allow the admiral to enter, but without that authorization you must keep the admiral out."

Say that example order was given. Say the county police enter the compound, grab you, tell you that you are under arrest and begin reading you your rights. By the order, are you supposed to resist arrest and try to repel them from the compound? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Ideally, the sentry would only have to explain to the county police that the area is under the control of the Navy (or Marines) and they would recognize their error and beat a hasty retreat. In legal matters, there are many examples where the jurisdiction of one authority is limited geographically. All authorities must train their staff and serving officers to understand the limits of the authority. (The county police must train its police officers to understand the relevance of property under the control of the federal government and the defense forces.) If the county police officers dismiss the sentry's explanation that the area is not an area over which the county police has jurisdiction, and continue their efforts to arrest the sentry, it is most likely they are merely masquerading as county police officers. If the sentry gave this explanation and then fired at the county police in an attempt to prevent them entering, and he was subsequently asked to explain his actions, he could use this rationale as his defence. Dolphin (t) 06:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Say that the sentry knows that they are county police. Consider both cases, when the county police do not have jurisdiction (e.g., the police were given incorrect information) and when they do (e.g., the sentry's CO was given incorrect information). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, what needs clarification there is what happens if the sentry is out of immediate communication. Obviously, a sentry tends to be more useful when there is someone to notify when there is a threat! And obviously they should have effective radio communications. But if a truck bomb takes out the command post he's supposed to report to, and somehow the radio network is disrupted, is he supposed to try to watch/defend his particular building against people masquerading as police, or to reestablish contact with some authority first? (I don't know, but I would suspect that's not spelled out in the General Orders because military, even sentries, really aren't the mindless automatons we like to give them credit as, and have to make tough calls...) Wnt (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Another part of the quoted general order #1 seems on point:

...It is also your responsibility to know the limits of your post. This information will be conveyed to you among your special orders. ...

As well as, particularly, general order #6:

To call the Corporal of the Guard or Officer of the Deck in any case not covered by instructions. The rule here is "When in doubt, ask." If you are not sure what you are supposed to do in a particular situation, it is better to ask for clarification than to make an assumption or to guess.

Note that on U.S. military facilities, police duties are generally handled by military police agencies which are part of the armed forces—not, generally, by civilian police services. Depending on the size or type of facility, different agreements (standing or ad hoc) may be made between military and civilian police forces to allow civilian forces to operate on base; generally if civilian police want to question or arrest a sentry, they make a request to the military and the military police produce the individual. See this forum discussion. In other words, if a civilian police officer just walked on to a base and tried to make an arrest without coordinating with the base commander or miliary police, it would suggest that someone had dropped a ball somewhere, as far as jurisdictional issues went, and the matter would have to be kicked up the chain of command. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

1883 Kalakaua Proclamation

I know from secondary sources and obituaries of the three princes that King Kalakaua created his nephews David Kawānanakoa, Jonah Kūhiō Kalanianaʻole, and Edward Abnel Keliʻiahonui princes in 1883. I am guessing this is also the time when he created his wife's sister princesses Victoria Kinoiki Kekaulike and Poomaikelani too. But I can't find contemporary records mentioning the 1883 proclamation, can someone help me find a reference to such a proclamation dating from that time?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

According to Frances Reed, of the Hawaii County Library Here, such records do not exist. She explains why. --Askedonty (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it might have been a verbal proclamation but then it would still have to be ratified by the legislature where the records might exist or even an eyewitness account of the coronation. Liliuokalani's observation in 1883 was written a decade afterward, she refers to only Prince Kawananakoa and sister of Kapiolani by their title during the ceremony. Even this 1883 account call Kawananakoa a prince; I don't know if this is written in acknowledgement of a change of title during the ceremony or not though. It mentions no proclamation.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

That's right and even, Frances Reed may be too approximate. Article 22 of the 1887 constitution mentions "heirs in direct line", and otherwise, only if there are none. Regarding Kapiolani's nephews, there is clear mention of "royal decrees" in the diplomatic litterature, reports dated from the 1890's. --Askedonty (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there anyway I can another version of the source by Frances Reed with pages? I want to use it for an article. But I want to cite it with Harvard referencing.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there anyway to find page numbers for Reed, Frances (1962). Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole, 1871-1922. Hilo: Hawaii County Library?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

inventor

Who was the first woman to be credited as an inventor ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carllica4 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Tabitha Babbitt is the earliest on this partial list, for her circular saw. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:56, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

Sybilla Masters was almost ahead by a century. Technically not the inventor. As the article above noted, early women couldn't patent stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:59, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

Hypatia is older than the previous suggestions by ~1500 years. Of course, we don't have much of her writings left, but she is still credited with inventing a Hydrometer. Also, there is somewhat of a philosophical debate as to whether new mathematics is "invented" or "discovered". If you think it makes sense to invent mathematical techniques, then she did that too. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Who got married

Who is the lovely lady in white currently pictured at the top of this ref desk page? (and why do we include a picture of her)? Blueboar (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

That lovely lady is actually Beautiful Woman. No clue why. Beats Ugly Woman, I guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:50, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

Well, she's gone now... so the question is moot. Blueboar (talk) 12:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I still see her. Not just here. Every desk. I hope she's not the White Lady. You can see her too, right? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:33, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

I'm no ghost hunter, but my Scooby sense is telling me she probably died in April. Or her real identity is April Flowers. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:41, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

Now she's gone for me, too. I don't see any Edit History change. Maybe she just needed us to solve the mystery before she could rest. Weird. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:46, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

• For people who are asking "WTF", like me, this vandalism is what they are referring to. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks. Now to find out who User:Carllica4 really is. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:59, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

Carlicca4 is the ref desk troll. It's under discussion on the talk page. Don't hold your breath waiting for checkusers to do anything about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

But this is Carllica4, not Carlicca4. Seems suspiciously socky, but so do people named Mohammed Muhammet after Muhamed Muhammad gives all Mohammads a bad name.InedibleHulk (talk) 20:38, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, yes, it's Carllica4 (talk · contribs) who's the troll and has had that particular sock indef'd. There is no Carlicca4 (talk · contribs). So sue me over a typo. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Not suit intended. Thought it might have been an alias, not a typo. "The ref desk troll" sounded like someone you were familiar with, not a new account. Anyway, it seems April may have been a banshee after all. So long, Shaggy. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

Checkusers cannot. He's using open proxies, which means that there's no way for him to be stopped. It's not, as your subtext implies, that they're lack of action is to deliberately spite you. There's nothing to be done except whac-a-mole. --Jayron32 00:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Reading the Open proxy article, does this mean that every one of those IP's is an open proxy server? Does it mean they have to be blocked when they appear? Or is there just one server, that the troll is somehow using to jump to other IP addresses? (If the answer would be too much info for discussion openly here, just say "TMI".) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, considering how many beans you've spilled already (i.e. telling the troll on WT:RD how we identify him easily), I see no harm in discussing this. I'm certainly no expert on the matter, but basically an open proxy is a kind of Anonymizer that makes it impossible to trace a person's actual IP address. The idea behind an open proxy is that any person can funnel their internet traffic through one, making it "appear" as though the IP address of the proxy is the person's own IP address. Because of their ability to be abused, open proxies are blocked on sight. However, they have to be identified as such first, and that requires someone to actually look into an IP address that is suspected of being an open proxy. The only way that one comes to the attention of checkusers/admins/the good people at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies is if they actually start editing, so we can't stop determined people from using open proxies until they actually use them, and when we block that one, they just find a new one. --Jayron32 03:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I am fully confident that the troll knows we're aware of his techniques. Unfortunately, some users insist on treating that trolling as good-faith, and I think they need to be made aware of it so they can recognize the signs, and I don't feel like handing out my e-mail address to everybody and his mother. It crosses my mind that a troll like this could be a lot more dangerous than just abusing the internet for this "relatively harmless" trolling. It's all very unsettling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

June 14

Kalakaua and Grant

Frank Leslie's Weekly Newspaper first published this illustration of the meeting of President Ulysses Grant with the King Kalakaua and the Hawaiian delegation. What was the original title/captions under the illustration and who was the artist, Frank Leslie?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, the caption is an easy one. You would have seen it if you had followed the "Source" link from the file page (p. 40): "KING KALAKUA AND SUITE PAYING A FORMAL VISIT TO THE PRESIDENT IN THE BLUE ROOM OF THE WHITE HOUSE". And that source says that the image is from Frank Leslie's Illustrated Almanac, not the Weekly Newspaper. It doesn't, however, explicitly say that Leslie personally executed either the original drawing or the engraving. Deor (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Height of Hawaiian Monarchs

Can anybody help me find reliable sources describing the heights of Kamehameha V, Kamehameha III, Lunalilo and Liliuokalani (probably the shortest)? I've found descriptions of the other monarchs who were more than six feet tall. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Source conflict: Number of Japanese in Dublin, Ohio

In: Japanese community of Columbus, Ohio I notice one source stated that the census counted 1,071 Japanese in Dublin in 2010 while another stated there were 2,002 Japanese in Dublin in 2014

Zachariah, Holly. "Marysville seeks to deepen links to Japan" (Archive). The Columbus Dispatch. Monday December 9, 2013. "According to the most-recent U.S. Census figures, the Japanese population in Dublin is 1,071 (2.6 percent) while Union County is home to 122, or 0.2 percent. It has been that way historically."

Eaton, Dan. "Japanese companies added 2,700 Ohio jobs in 2013, survey finds." Columbus Business First. March 10, 2014. "Central Ohio does lead in the number of Japanese nationals living in the state. Dublin, with 2,002, and Columbus’ 705 are home to the state’s two largest populations of Japanese nationals."

Is it likely the Japanese population doubled so quickly or is it a mistake by Eaton? What would the US Census say about this? WhisperToMe (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I too find it unlikely that the Japanese population of Dublin, Ohio doubled in just four years... but unfortunately, the Census will not help us to prove or disprove Eaton's statement. The Census only takes place every 10 years (the last one was taken in 2010, and the next one is not scheduled to be taken until 2020)... What this means is that Census will not be able to tell us anything about what might (or might not) have occurred since the last Census was taken (the 2010 Census). To confirm how many Japanese currently live in Dublin, we would have to look for other sources (or wait until the 2020 Census). Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I suspect from the fact that 2002 and 705 add up to about 2700 that Eaton confused new jobs with Japanese residents. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the info! WhisperToMe (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Not so sure myself. If you read the article, the number of jobs is 2719, not 2700. I guess 2700 is a rounded figure. The 2002 etc figure appear to be presented as a counterpoint to the total (not new) numbers Japanese business related jobs. And the 2002 figure appears in the Japanese consulate-general page [2]. The fact that the source is also quoting the Japanese consulate-general makes me think the figure came from there.

As to the discrepancy, I'm guessing the CG is either relying on surveys (they apparently surveyed Japanese businesses, perhaps they also did some sort of resident survey and/or are partially relying on the what the businesses said) or Japanese people register with the Japanese embassy or the consulate-general as living in Dublin. (The CG will probably tell you where they got the figure if you asked.)

Beyond population changes, there are many other possibilities for the differences between the two figures including differing definitions of Japanese or Dublin. For starters, I'm guessing any survey or registration would rely much more on the public definition of Dublin and personal views, rather than the precise census definition.

Also does the census go by citizenship, place of birth or what? If it's citizenship, does the figure include both if there is dual citizenship? Note that while Japan apparently heavily restricts multiple citizenship; as with a number of countries that do so, they do allow it for those young enough. Combined with the provisions for gaining citizenship for both countries, it's likely many children born in the US to parents where at least one is Japanese will technically be dual citizens of Japan and the US. (And if their parents wanted to give them the option, they likely would have registered their birth with the Japanese embassy or consulate-general.)

In addition, I'm not sure whether there is any legal requirement to answer the questions relating to nationality etc for the census in the US. Particularly if there isn't, it may be Japanese people are likely to refuse to answer those questions. (WW2 wasn't that long ago....) Even if there is some requirement, what about in cases like dual citizenship (presuming it's citizenship not place of birth).

Nil Einne (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking into the situation some more... I note that in 2013 Honda closed a plant in California and relocated it to Ohio (near Dublin). This would logically mean an increase in the number of Japanese in the area (ie Japanese employees who used to work in the old plant in California being transferred to the new plant in Ohio). Whether it adds up to the numbers that Eaton reports on is another question. Blueboar (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI, as a native of the area, I know lots of people who work for Honda of America, and just almost all of them either were living in west-central Ohio before Honda came, or they were born after Honda came to parents who were living in the area. It's lucrative employment and easy (not particularly hard to get a job there, directly from high school, and they've never laid off a full-time employee), so they don't bring in many Japanese people (and other than that, locals get the jobs; corporate doesn't need to recruit people to come), and they're generally the upper-level types, people whom the management want specifically, i.e. "We need someone for job ____; let's bring [employee name] to fill the position" or "Let's promote ___ to plant manager and have him manage HTM Russells Point." Nyttend (talk) 06:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting! I know there is a Japanese weekend school in west Ohio but it's probably very small. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The figures come from the "2013 Japanese Direct Investment Survey" by the Consulate-General of Japan in Detroit, Dublin had 2,002 Japanese nationals and Columbus had 705 Japanese nationals, "2013 Japanese Direct Investment Survey: Summary of Ohio Results (as of October 1, 2013)" (Archive). Consulate-General of Japan in Detroit. March 5, 2014. -- so the source conflict has been resolved. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Rape during wartime

It's well known that during wartime soldiers rape women of the enemy side, and some people assert that rape can even be a tool of war, something not only tolerated by officers but (informally?) ordered by the authorities, as with the Rape of Nanking. In American history, specifically in WWII, Vietnam, and the three Middle East wars, how widespread was rape by American soldiers? --Halcatalyst (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Ideologies of Forgetting: Rape in the Vietnam War makes the point that it was routine in Vietnam, and this article by the NYT cites a 2003 DoD report according to which nearly a third of US women veterans experienced rape or attempted rape by their comrades. This does not directly tell us about rape of civilians, but suggests an ongoing problem. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It's hard enough for a modern civilised society to know how widespread rape is, due to systemic under-reporting, cover-ups, and some false reporting. There is no way that anything like accurate statistics will exist for places and times of war. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The Rape of Nanking is so-called because officers of the Imperial Japanese Army encouraged their troops to vent their anger and frustration at the stubborn defense the city offered. While many actual rapes almost certainly took place, the term is a reference to a conquored city being put to the sword (quite litterally, in many cases) without either justification or military advantage.DOR (HK) (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The Rape of Belgium did not actually mean that the Belgians were all raped. It referred to war crimes in WW1 by German forces, including widespread murder and destruction of homes and public buildings. Some rapes doubtless occurred as well. This is similar to the "Rape of Nanking" by the WW2 Japanese forces. Edison (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Reasoning systems (except from Logic)

I understand the Logic is one of many, maybe even an unending number of possible reasoning-systems. it's one possible reasoning-system manifest that Humans have Mentally-constructed; it has it's own axioms, letters, syntaxes, and rules, and it happens to be the most common, and organized way of reasoning, even within the borders of the Scientific community.

My question is: Where there any efforts to create alternative reasoning-systems, based on other axioms (or somewhat modified logical axioms for that matter)? thanks. Ben-Natan (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

There are many different logics, which have different axioms and reasoning schemas, different scopes, and even for the same scope, different theorems (true statements). See e.g. Non-classical logic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Logic is a very good thing, but one of the common criticisms of pure logic as a reasoning system is the GIGO problem. Simply put, logic is supposed to work to derive sound conclusions from initial axioms. The problem is that the axioms need to be sound for the conclusions to be sound. If you start from faulty initial information, no amount of sound logic is going to get you to a sound conclusion. Some interesting writing on other "reasoning systems" (if you will) can be found in some of the writings of Malcolm Gladwell, who, while not himself a social scientist, does a really good job of distilling the work of social scientists into some interesting ways of thinking about the way we think. Two of his books you may find interesting are Blink (subtitled: The Power of Thinking without Thinking), which looks at the amazing strength of human intuition to arrive at sound conclusions (intuition being an inherently non-logical process, in the sense that it doesn't rely on formal protocols and processes). In that book, Gladwell borrows on the works of several social psychologists who coined the terminology "Thin-slicing", which may lead you to some interesting places as well. Another of Gladwell's books that may lead you places is What the Dog Saw, which is a little less focused than Blink, but touches in places on some of the same themes. --Jayron32 04:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

June 15

Prince of Denmark

How long can the title Prince of Denmark be passed down? Usually most monarchies restrict the title of Prince/Princess to the children and male-line grandchildren of a monarch. Is this title inherited through the male line as long as the person marries with the permission of the monarch. The Greek Royal Family has held the title Prince of Denmark since the 1800s as male line descendants of Christian IX. The other male line of the Danish Royal Family have all been demoted to Counts Rosenborg since they married unequally before the acceptance of unequal marriage. Or is it up to the reigning monarch to decide? What is the rule on the title at this point? --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 06:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about Danish, but in German there's a systematic difference between a ruler of a principality (Fürst) and a junior non-reigning member of a royal family (Prinz). Possibly this could clarify matters... AnonMoos (talk) 07:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how it helps, but thanks for trying. —Tamfang (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The two generations rule was adopted for Britain by royal decree circa 1917; before then I believe the title of Prince was transmitted indefinitely in the legitimate male line – though (at the time) no royal British male line in centuries had persisted more than two or three generations. —Tamfang (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The Hanoverians did. Why did Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover (1914–1987) have to be granted his British title in 1914 by George V if the two generation rule hasn't started yet and the Germans weren't deprive of their titles until 1918; he was a great-great-great grandson of George III. By the ambiguity of the rules of the title, George V didn't have to do anything. Ernest Augustus' father was born Prince Ernest of Cumberland and was a great-great grandson of George III. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 08:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's avoid getting side tracked... what other nations do has no bearing on what happens in Denmark... the OP wants to know about the Danes. Blueboar (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The OP asked about Denmark, but invoked a two-generation rule in "usually most monarchies". The BRF is the only specific case where I happen to know of such a rule, so I was reminded by a wisecrack of Shaw in Caesar and Cleopatra. —Tamfang (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It is passed down indefinitely. When a Danish prince has permission to settle abroad (as William and Charles of Denmark did when they became kings of Greece and of Norway, respectively) he and his issue no longer need to seek permission to marry to pass on the title. Only in Denmark do Danish princes have to abide by the marital laws or seek permission from the sovereign to marry. This was in the royal law (I forget the exact year...) that has never been rescinded, predating the reign of Christian IX. Seven Letters 21:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Sophia Dorothea of Celle

What Sophia Dorothea of Celle do in her 33 years of imprisonment? Did she spent every waking moment of it in (or around) Ahlden House?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I remember reading - though I do not remember where - that every day she was able, Sophia Dorothea went for a long walk with an appointed escort, through the area round about the house where she was imprisoned. I don't think she ever tried to escape, nor was she ever allowed to go further afield for official reasons - so to the best of my knowledge, the answer to your second question is 'yes'; I'd be interested to learn otherwise. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking for funny law tutorial situations

Hi all, I once saw a classic law tutorial question, that consisted of a ludicrous tale about a nurse who was obsessed with Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman and various actors from her favourite soaps. It involved various petty things like vengeance, negligence and so forth involving the nurse and the various actors. Then it was followed by a simple question asking the various legal implications of the whole thing. Does anyone know where I can get more of the same? I'm interested in setting up fun discussion topics for ESL classes, so I don't really need the legal question at the end, but it would really be a bonus. It would be even better still if it had some online forum-style discussion of the law associated with these fictitious cases. The law tute was at Murdoch University, but I couldn't find anything on their website - it was just in a course reader. Thanks, IBE (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

If English law is a suitable vehicle, I would recommend the works of A P Herbert (he of the negotiable cow) - does anyone know of an equivalent American author? Tevildo (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like it would be counterproductive - ESL students aren't likely to need to know the kind of wordplay and legal obscurantism that drives the humour in Herbert's stories. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but you can often adapt things, if you are willing to take a bit of time. The students also won't know most of the words or the grammar, and a lot of ESL teachers here would baulk at things we read. The point is that even if I have to discard the entire exercise, I have had the chance to read something interesting along the way. I should add that I do prefer fictitious, fun tutorial questions, if it's possible. IBE (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

You might like User:Newyorkbrad/Newyorkbradblog#Clear remedies, arbitration decisions, and AE, and the external link at the end of that section.-gadfium 04:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

There's more about the law against animals in parks at [3], but the treatment is more mathematical than legal.-gadfium 23:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's really good - wasn't sure I'd get anything much with this question. Still on the lookout for wacky law tutes, but this is a great start. IBE (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Opposition leaders of Rhodesia

I've copied this from WP:AN, where it was originally posted. Nyttend (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I already posted this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Zimbabwe, but maybe it would be helpful to post it here too:

For some time now, I want to create an article about leaders of the opposition of Rhodesia, from introduction of the responsible government in 1923 until the demise of Rhodesia in 1979. Also, that article could contain opposition leaders of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and Zimbabwe, since 1980 (in the same fashion as List of Speakers of the House of Assembly of Zimbabwe contain parliamentary speakers of all three entities). As you know, all the countries which adopted Westminster-style system at some point in their history have lists of leaders of official opposition (UK, Canada, Australia, South Africa, etc), so I want to make a list like that for Rhodesia/Zimbabwe-Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. Unfortunately, I was unable to find any source online which contain list of Rhodesian opposition leaders. So, I'm asking all of you for help. If anyone knows where to find sources about this, please let me know. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@Cliftonian: might be aware of some references given his expertise on Rhodesian political history Nick-D (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Nick, I asked him already, some months ago. Unfortunately, he was unable to find references so far... --Sundostund (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sundostund, for the more recent ones, you can apparently read the Zimbabwe parliament’s Hansard online from 1994: [4] and [5]. I haven’t found a Rhodesian Hansard online yet. Beyond that, several of people you need are in the Dictionary of African Biography some of which can be viewed online.

Here is a source for Josiah Gondo in 1966 [6]

and here are some other sources for some of the later, Zimbabwe part of the equation:

• Ian Smith in 1980 [7] (see footnote on p 4)
• Gibson Sibanda in 2000 [8]
• Morgan Tsvangirai in 2002 [9], in 2005 [10]

I didn’t find anything that listed them all though, so this is only a very small start. 142.150.38.155 (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

142.150.38.155, thank you for your effort. I really appreciate what you found so far... As you said, this is a small start, so any creation of an article about Rhodesian opposition leaders will need to wait until a comprehensive source is found (especially for the 1923-1979 period). --Sundostund (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

J. Ewing

Who was J. Ewing? Where was he from? When was he active? When was he born and when did he die? He created a set of charcoal artwork of Hawaiian royalty around 1909 with Honolulu photograph James J. Williams. Also I still have no idea how these images were reproduced. Were they retouched by Williams and then drawn with charcoal by Ewing or did Williams provide the photographs and Ewing did all the work? Some of the photographs used were not Williams work but by earlier Hawaiian photographers and Williams name is situated so prominently on the shoulders of the finished works alongside Ewing's.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Also does anybody know the J. in J. Ewing's first name and James J. Williams's middle name stand for. Getting the full names would be nice.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

According to the Hawaii State Archives, this image is "Charcoal artwork by J. Ewing, on a photograph reproduced by J.J. Williams. Original photograph by Menzies Dickson, 1840?-1891." You can search the Hawaii State Archives collection for Ewing, but make sure you click on the "show all 24" button. "Leleiohoku, William Pitt, 1854-1877" is another example in this collection of the Ewing/Williams/Dickson combination. Then there is also "Kaahumanu, Consort of Kamehameha I, 1768?-1832" which is described as "Original artwork by Louis Choris. Reproduced photographically by J.J. Williams with charcoal work by J. Ewing." The collection includes several additional examples of charcoal by Ewing on photographs "reproduced by Williams," but no indication of the original photographer/artist.--Dreamahighway (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I am already fully aware of every example in the Hawaii State Archives, the Smithsonian and Brother Betram's photo collection. Unfortunately your answer didn't help much. Thank you anyway.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Who was J. Ewing? Where was he from? When was he active? When was he born and when did he die? Does anybody know the J. in J. Ewing's first name and James J. Williams's middle name stand for. Getting the full names would be nice.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

June 16

Industrial Edens

I'm confused by the title of this book, The Company Town: The Industrial Edens and Satanic Mills That Shaped the American Economy. I understand the "Satanic Mills" part, but what about the "Industrial Edens"? It looks like a quote from somewhere, but I couldn't find anything that looked like a likely source, and it seemed unlikely that the author was simply making an allusion to the garden of Eden in this context. Nyttend (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Why not ? Some employers actually tried to make a good life for their employees in a company town. Henry Ford was one example of this, although we might find the way he forced his version of morality on others to be a bit distasteful today. Perhaps "Garden of Eden" is a bit of an exaggeration, but then so is "Satanic". StuRat (talk) 05:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Catchier title than "Industrial Homes and Factories". It's a good-old-days kind of thing. As Dogbert once said, the old model was the Christian model (hence Eden being a good metaphor) in which you devote your lifelong loyalty to a firm, and you retire with a nice pension. The new model is the Hindu model, in which your job gets killed off and you reincarnate elsewhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The term was in use at least as early as 1850 - here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It's an idea that dates back to New Lanark and was developed in managed new towns such as Port Sunlight and utopian fiction such as News from Nowhere. Paul B (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Paul Barlow: - The concept "industrial eden" describes or that combination of words or both? --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I looked without much luck, frankly, but did find that there is a year-long celebration of a now gone 19th century mill village in Stoneham, Massachusetts with the name "Industrial Eden." Not saying this is where it came from, but possibly of interest to someone in the area to get to know one [likely early?] example. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It depends what you are looking for. If you are looking for the earliest use of the phrase "industrial Eden", then I suspect you won't find a "canonical" source, in poetry or other literature, comparable to Blake's Milton. I don't think it's a quotation. It's just a phrase meaning "an ideal society created though industry", which might mean the tradition of creating ideal working towns of the kind I was referring to, or the broader ideological view that modern industry will lead us to a perfect, or at least better world. e.g.: "Mayakovski believed that Bolshevism, with its indomitable will and energy, was the force that could mechanize rural, sprawling Russia into an industrial Eden, and in poem after poem--the "Story of Kusnetskstroi and the People of Kusnetsk" (1929), the "March of the Shock-Worker Brigades" (1930), the "March of the Twentyfive Thousand" (1930), and many others--Mayakovski extols the efforts toward industrialization." (Vyacheslav Zavalishin, Early Soviet Writers, 1958) or "To focus solely on the political ramifications of [Henry] Clay’s American System, however, would also be to overlook the realization of Clay’s (and ultimately McKinley’s) dream of an Industrial Eden. It was a system where tariffs were focused to help new industries, and the revenues were used to build roads and canals." (Quentin Jr. Skrabec, William McKinley, Apostle of Protectionism 2008). It's just a phrase that's been used by several authors. Paul B (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I was basically looking for any famous source using the phrase "Industrial Edens". I'd run a Google search and found nothing substantial, and being rather sleepy at the time, I failed to consider that "Industrial Eden" might also be a useful search. It helps to see that the phrase has been used repeatedly; thank you to everyone. Nyttend (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

One other element to consider is the very very large difference between a New Eden and a New Jerusalem. In 19th century Socialist mythology, heavily influenced as it was by European and European colonial christianity, Eden was viewed as a place without the possibility of sin. One 19th century dream of socialism was to remake man as incapable of wronging his brother through the development of a full society. (Yes I am aware of the gendering.) Contrast with New Jerusalem which would conceive of the worthiness of the nation in terms of their sins to build and maintain a Jerusalem. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

How did Europeans manage to convert many people to Christianity in pre-modern times?

How did they do it? How long did it take? I mean, I once attended a club/lecture series on Scandinavian manuscripts, and Christianity was mentioned only in the context of legal documents, secular documents, and a bit of background of Christian history in the Scandinavian countries was mentioned. The instructor said that in one generation, everyone was Christian. Is this true that every one in those countries became Christian (converted from some sort of paganism) in just one generation? What about people from other continents? This question may be also written as: "How did Christianity spread across Europe and beyond?" 140.254.226.243 (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

For Scandinavia specifically, see our article Christianization of Scandinavia which says; "Although the Scandinavians became nominally Christian, it took considerably longer for actual Christian beliefs to establish themselves among the people... Archaeological excavations of burial sites on the island of Lovön near modern-day Stockholm have shown that the actual Christianization of the people was very slow and took at least 150–200 years". Alansplodge (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Note that the article cited above as well as our article on Christianization in general both come with warnings that they have multiple issues and need additional verification.--Dreamahighway (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, however some work has been done to remedy this and the piece that I quoted is referenced to a 2004 book on the subject (in Swedish). Alansplodge (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

For augments sake, lets leave out the religious bit for the moment. The 'church' back then meant a group of learned people. They brought an new agricultural calendar and a way of doing things that was better than the practices that were hither to practised. It was a no-brainer to adopt these better ways. Today, this role has been taken over by scientists and technologists. For example: In one generation we have embraced the World Wide Web etc,. Therefore, the ancients did not have to actively 'convert'. Rather, all they had to do was show a better way. People rapidly adopt any behavior that they find beneficial. Don't let the word 'belief' (which means accepting something with out proof) lead you astray. These new ideas brought tangible benefits. --Aspro (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)To the best of my knowledge, it was a mix of religious pragmatism (if praying to Odin doesn't work, why not try that Jesus guy?), and the pagan religious authorities converting. The religious authorities were regarded as the descendants of the Aesir, and so lesser gods in their own right. Their conversion to Christianity would have been followed by a lot of their subjects converting. It's like if the Dalai Lama converted to Islam or the second comin of Christ announced that He'd gotten into Wicca. Ok, the latter case would probably get Him shot by a fundamentalist claiming He was really the Antichrist, but you get the point. Such conversions presented similar theological problems as the head leader and object of worship in the Roman Imperial cult converting to Christianity or even persecuting anyone who might try to worship him. There's a separation of Church and State now, but then? King converts, everyone else is likely to follow.

And, not to brag about my religion (since something like this claim applies to similarly popular world religions), nor to perpetuate the old myth that religious thinking is a progression from animism to polytheism to monotheism (and then assumably to deism or atheism), but Christianity (and Islam and Buddhism) lucked into tapping into a general change in thinking in the areas where it thrived. That Rome lumped most of the gods into Sol Invictus might indicate that a shared centralization and concentration of divinity (whether it's monotheism, henotheism, or the "totally not pantheism" of Mahayana Buddhism) have a positive relationship with larger but more unified culture groups (feeding into and off of that unity). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Being a bit picky, but separation of church and state is a bit of an American thing; the Church of Denmark, the Church of Norway, the Church of Iceland and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland are all state churches. The Church of Sweden was disestablished in 2000, according to our article. Alansplodge (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I think in late Roman and early post-Roman times Christianity benefited from its association with the Roman Empire, which was seen by a lot of so-called "barbarians" as a civilisation to admire and emulate, and also with literacy, a valuable new technology that peoples who lacked it were keen to acquire. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Although in the case of the Scandinavians, contact with the Christians that they had conquered seems to have been the main force behind it. See Harald Bluetooth, Rollo, Guthrum and of course Saint Olaf, all of whom turned to Christianity while in occupied territory; cynics might say for political purposes. Alansplodge (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@ Alansplodge. Your first post is a very fair point so I think it deserves answering. Back then, the main beneficiaries were those ruling families that already held power. The ordinary person had to give lip-service to his Lord (adopt the religion of your prince as it sometime said). Those things that brought tangible benefits were easily and quickly adopted but the religious bits that required belief may have well taken generations to adopt. Even today Christmas is not really a Christian festival. Rather it was adopted by the 'Church' because it was a northern European practice that fixed the start of the year instead of the Luna calender which did not. And it it suited the climate. Thus, it contains much pagan symbolism. So the US, what with its Thanks Giving and Christmas etc is still not fully converted in some senses. Much of the US lays too far north for the original agricultural calendar to be applicable and useful.--Aspro (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, the paganism or otherwise of Christian festivals is hotly debated. It might be more relevant to look at Beowulf, and epic poem set in Scandinavia but written in Old English, which contains an intriguing mix of Christian and pagan references, reflecting a society in flux between the two. Alansplodge (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes groups of people converted because the Romans had already done so, and if the Romans did it, that was good enough for them. (Although they may have then latched on to something that was ultimately declared heretical, like Arianism.) And sometimes, it was because they would otherwise be put to the sword, the whole lot of them. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Paying lip service before converting?

This question is related to the previous question regarding conversion. I am just wondering if it's possible, in modern-day America, to pay lip service to a church for its social benefits and then allow your children to be baptized in the church and send them to Sunday schools, so they may be believing Christians, even though you may not be. I mean, an immigrant who may come from a foreign country that is not predominately Christian may be sort of socially isolated. Would churches accept you, even if you don't personally believe but promise to raise your children Christian? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

June 17

Why do Guyana, Suriname & French Guiana have smaller populations?

The South American Spanish-speaking countries have huge population in the millions. But the three Guianas have less than one million people in each of their countries. Why do Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana which are about the size of some U.S. states, have very small populations? 173.33.183.141 (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)