Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 August 3

Henry as King, Defender of the Faith and Supreme Head and his heirs as Supreme Governor of the Church of England...could that be a parallel of Prince-Bishops and Cardinal-Dukes and Cardinal-Kings, or Grand Masters of a military order, such as the Templars and Hospitallers? 70.171.239.21 (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could be. It depends upon one's opinion, and the Ref Desks aren't designed for people's opinions. --Dweller (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really: Henry and his actively-participating-in-government heirs (I say this because recent monarchs haven't played an important part in government) were always more along the lines of what was generally called Erastianism — the government attempting to rule the Church. The examples you cite are all of ordained men, but English monarchs haven't been ordained. For an example of this point: until recent years, women were not ordained as clergy in the Church of England, but I'm unaware of anyone who objected to a woman being the Supreme Governor but did not object to her being queen and would not have objected to a king being the supreme governor. Finally: military orders are quite different — even more than Prussia, the military orders were armies with states, quite unlike England or other "normal" countries. Nyttend (talk) 12:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget "His Royal Wideness". Although that might have been unofficial. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should athletes taking Stimulant be banned from competition forever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylezhangxz (talk • contribs) 11:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the notice at the top of the page: the reference desk is not a place to ask for opinions. Nyttend (talk) 11:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Nyttend and I will not answer with my opinion on the matter - although you may be interested in this consideration of the subject of drugs and sport by Malcolm Gladwell (http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom/2008/01/war-on-drugs-co.html). We also have an article Use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport that is pretty indepth, has a lot of information and references that is well worth reading for more info on this issue. 15:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk)

Contributors who take stimulants to up their edit count should definitely be banned from Wikipedia forever (and a day). Clarityfiend (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone familiar with the location of Dover, Connecticut? This page from Bay Village, Ohio (in the Connecticut Western Reserve) and this article speak of such a location, and this USDA page discusses recent activities in Dover, Connecticut. However, searching the GNIS for "Dover" in Connecticut yields only the Bennie Dover Jackson Middle School and Webatuck Creek (also called the Dover River, but not the river mentioned in the USDA page), and I can't find such a location on Google Maps. Nyttend (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, only about a half mile of the Tenmile River ("which flows through Dover, Connecticut," according to the USDA page you cited) appears to flow through Connecticut before it joins the Housatonic, and I can see no settlements along that stretch in the Google map. On the New York side of the state line, however, there is the town of Dover, New York, which includes the communities of South Dover, Dover Furnace, and Dover Plains, all near the river. Could this be some sort of error? (According to the history section of the WP article on the New York town, it was formed from part of the town of Pawling, which was the locus of a boundary dispute between New York and Connecticut, so at the time referred to in your first two links, the town may have been considered to lie in Connecticut.) Deor (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The boundary dispute sounds like a real possibility. It could also have been a colloquial name for an area of an otherwise officially named town? Your links point to historical usage; this Google Books link to an encyclopedia entry for a Charles McLean Andrews lists his place of death as East Dover, CT, in 1943, which was the most recent use I could find. You might want to contact either the New Milford or Kent Historical Society to see if they have any information. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut Place Names by Arthur H. Hughes and Morse S. Allen, published by the Connecticut Historical Society in 1976 has this, under its main entry for Sharon, CT

The N.Y. township of Dover is now West of Kent. Early maps show Dover in Connecticut, often in Sharon. 'A New Accurate Map of the English Empire in North America...by a Society of Anti-Gallicans; 1775' shows the Western boundary of Connecticut bulging to the West, and names only 4 Connecticut towns: Seabrook, New London, New Haven, and Dover. A pre-Revolutionary map: Conn., I.R. with Long Island Sound, etc.' shows Dover in N.Y. (Lewis 1812 Conn.) shows Dover at the end of a road, Northwest from Kent, and east of the Oblong. (1816 Conn.) also places it in Sharon.

Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the original Harlem Valley Times (New York) article that the USDA page claims to be based on. As you can see, the dateline and first sentence are "DOVER - The Housatonic Valley Association, devoted to protection of the Housatonic River in Connecticut, recently began initiatives to clean up and protect the Ten Mile River, which flows through this and other communities in the Harlem Valley." I think it's pretty clear that the page's author, reading the dateline and the mention of Connecticut in the sentence, mistakenly concluded that Dover was in Connecticut, whereas "this" in the newspaper's sentence actually refers to Dover, New York. Deor (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lending credence to Deor's theory above, the photo on the USDA page is captioned as being an image of "Harlem Valley, Connecticut." Though it's very close to the state line, Harlem Valley is in fact in New York. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm searching, if possible, for the complete text of a speech from Himmler dated 5 march 1943 (I'm not totally sure about the date). He talked about the future policy of Nazi Germany regarding the administation of Europe, languages, civil rights and the resettlement of populations. He also talked about the creation of a new germanic indipendent nation called Burgundy (it was to be carved from eastern France, Belgium and parts of Switzerland). This new state was to be lead by Léon Degrelle and its capital city was to be either Dijon or Ghent. --151.51.10.14 (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have not found this speech yet, but "Himmler Burgund" gets interesting results in German on the net (as you probably know, but maybe others are interested, too).--Radh (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Various Google results seem to imply that this statement came from Felix Kersten's memoirs, and not from a speech. --Chl (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it also was a real political strategy, partly implemented (?), for a new Burgundy. With Léon Degrelle as Statthalter.--Radh (talk) 09:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What were the economic effects on slave owners after the abolition of slavery after the American Civil War? Also what were the broader effects on the economy after abolition? According to the article Slavery in the British Virgin Islands, "the original slave owners suffered a huge capital loss. Although they received £72,940 from the British Government in compensation, this was only a fraction of the true economic value of the manumitted slaves. Equally, whilst they lost the right to "free" slave labour, the former slave owners now no longer had to pay to house, clothe and provide medical attention for their former slaves." But I cannot find any information on the US. --AquaticMonkey (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should find plenty of information on the U.S. if you search for economic division between the north and south. The plantation owners were not paid for their slaves, the land they owned was taken away from them, the house they lives in was usually burned down, and they lost most of their own family in the Civil War. All in all, the plantation owner was ruined. Here and there, you will find exceptions - especially around Charleston, SC. Sharecropping eventually replaced the plantations, but it didn't do very well. To this day, the south is still very poor with a few (very few) spots of wealth. That is why searching for causes of the north/south economic division will turn up a lot of information on what happened after slavery. -- kainaw™ 18:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might also want to look at Civil War reconstruction. Googlemeister (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget, however, that the loss of slaves was also tied in with the destruction of much of the Southern infrastructure, so it would be difficult to say how much of the economic loss would be due only to the loss of slaves, and how much was due to the destruction. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In one family I have studied, there were 16 slaves and a small plantation house or large farmhouse when the war started. At war's end, the owner still lived in the house, and the former adult male slaves became sharecroppers, each in charge of a piece of land, and provided an allowance for tools and a mule.They were paid by a share of the eventual crop, or nothing if there was a crop failure, or little if prices dropped. Not all of the South was the scene of Sherman's Destructive March Through Georgia. The sharecroppers were free to leave but most did not. I do not know if they were held in place by newly acquired debt for food and supplies, but it is possible. Bank credit was short, and property taxes, though lower than prewar, had to be paid or the whole place could be sold for taxes. "Notes" were used in the same way credit cards are now for buying and selling things, such as horses or mules, seeds, or tools, due to a shortage of specie or U.S. currency. Things which had been sold to the Confederate government for their currency were a loss, as was any pay which had been issued to soldiers. Edison (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How come sometimes a national leader only stays one year. The one between Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma only last one year. The Rose lady one who took over Omar Bongo's death is a temporairly one, would she be able to last for a long time. i found some only last for less than 15 month. The one in Togo born in 1966 only last for 8 month.--69.229.108.245 (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One possible explanation is that they were slated to become leader if the original leader were to die or resign, and it happened when there was only 1 year left in the original term. Or they could have died or resigned 1 year into a term that was supposed to be longer, or they were the head of a provisional government that only lasted 1 year. There are a lot of reasons why a national leader would only be in charge for 1 year. Googlemeister (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The leaders you cite are transitional leaders, who assume power because the standing leader has either died (Bongo) or resigned (Mbeki). In these cases, the country's constitution will usually designate the person who takes over as provisional leader until new elections can be held. This person will often hold a modified title such as "acting president" or "provisional president" and is not expected to stay in power beyond the short transition period. This also happens in Western countries. For example, Alain Poher was twice interim President of France, after Charles de Gaulle resigned in 1969, and after Georges Pompidou died in office in 1974. In each case, his term lasted barely two months. --Xuxl (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the part of Act 2 Scene 2 near the end, where Hamlet is talking to Rosencratz and Guildenstern, what part of their conversation does Hamlet start to suspect their not being truthful? This is not a school assignment, but for a fan fiction. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that from the very beginning Hamlet suspects there's something fishy: right after they meet R. says "the world's grown honest" and H. answers (238-241) "Then is doomsday near. But your news is not true. Let me question more in particular: what have you, my good friends, deserved at the hands of Fortune, that she sends you to prison hither?". The way he asks them why they are there suggests to me that he expects them to lie (and therefore the news that "the world's grown honest" "is not true"). Then in 274-276 it's very clear he doesn't believe them: "Were you not sent for? Is it your own inclining? Is it a free visitation? Come, deal justly with me: come, come; nay, speak." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mere opinion ... Before he speaks to them, he explains that he believes everything is lies. Therefore, he should expect what they say to be a lie as well. The deeper question is if he is being overly careful because he is sane and protecting himself or is he just crazy? -- kainaw™ 18:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume, of course, you've read the other Hamlet fan fiction... --Jayron32 03:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The shield in the middle of this Scout emblem Image:-RepublicSrbska.jpg is somehow related to Serbia, but this is not the national shield. Can anyone identify it? Thanks, Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boy scouts? --Soman (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's the logo of the Savez Izviđača Republike Srpske, which seems to be part of the Savjet izviđačkih organizacija u Bosni i Hercegovini — in English, the Scout Association of Republika Srpska, which seems to be part of the Council of Scout Associations in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Nyttend (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that much I know, I'm a contributor to WikiProject Scouting, I mean the shield in the middle, the coat-of-arms. Sorry for being unclear. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you even tell from that image what's on the shield? I sure can't. I think we need a better picture to give a meaningful answer. - Nunh-huh 21:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's really why I'm asking, if someone can identify it, we can clarify it. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason to suppose that it belongs to anything other than the Scouting org? Its design is typical of small institutions where no one has any heraldic knowledge or taste. —Tamfang (talk) 05:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How and why did this tradition begin? Are their more Native American name uses in the other US Armed Forces? How does Native American community feel about this practice? --Reticuli88 (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the army has also had helicopters that were named the Cobra, which isn't an Indian name. The Iroquois (aka Huey) was started in 1959 so naming after Indians probably started then. Not sure on the why though. Googlemeister (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this site says that the convention came from Army Regulation (AR) 70-28, dated April 1969. The regulation has since been rescinded, but the practice remains popular, according to the website. I'm looking for actual text of the regulation, but so far no soap. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

… radio. Deor (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember rightly, Queen Anne was the last British monarch to withhold Royal Assent; of course, with the modern constitutional system, this isn't likely, since the monarch always acts on the advice of the Prime Minister. However, what would happen if a private member's bill were somehow to pass Parliament over the opposition of the government? Would it be seen as unconstitutional/unorthodox/undemocratic/wrong/[insert other negative adjective here] for the Prime Minister to advise the monarch to withhold Royal Assent? Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill isn't quite what I mean, because the Commons never voted on it. Nyttend (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The government decides the schedule of parliamentary business, so I don't think a private member's bill can get as far as being voted on without the support of the government. Opposition days allow for subjects to get proper discussion and even a vote without government support, but I don't think an actual bill can get passed that way, just non-binding votes - a good example is the recent government defeat on the Gurkhas [1]. That wasn't a binding vote so Royal Assent was never an issue, but it was enough to make it political suicide for the government to ignore it. --Tango (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you say "it doesn't matter, because it can't happen?" I was aware that it was unlikely, although not that it couldn't happen at all. Nyttend (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not impossible for things to pass through Parliament by accident (there have been occasions when Government whips have been absent and not blocked a vote which they intended to), so it is not inconcievable that a private members' bill to which the Government was opposed could pass through the House of Lords and then through the House of Commons by inattentiveness. However, in such circumstances the Prime Minister would cause a constitutional crisis by advising the monarch to withhold Royal Assent - especially if done in public. It is questionable whether the Monarch ought to seek advice from the Prime Minister before granting Royal Assent. The most likely way out of the problem would be passing a swift amending Bill to repeal the unwanted legislation, which might well be done before it could take effect. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility is where a government does not support the bill but certain government members do, and they cross the floor to vote with the opposition. Uncommon, but certainly not unprecedented. If the bill then passes, the PM is no position to advise the Queen to withhold Royal Assent, as he/she would be assuming a position of authority over the will of the parliament. If the PM can't get his way through the parliamentary process, he can't get it the sneaky way. The Queen acts on the advice of the PM, but that has be tempered with a dash of common sense. If a nutty PM advised a monarch to issue a decree declaring all citizens aged under 40 to be legally insane (I've deliberately picked a absurd example), the monarch would be perfectly justified in saying "Piss off, Prime Minister". -- JackofOz (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love the phrasing, "pass[ing] through Parliament by accident" :-) Thanks for the explanations; I was under the impression that every exercise of power was done after receiving advice, if for no other reason than ensuring that the monarch would appear politically neutral. Good point on the insanity thing; I'd not considered that. Would the monarch violate any written legislation by issuing a decree of any sort? I'm aware that the Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta bar the monarch from doing some things, and of course custom bars the monarch from doing anything else. AFAIK, the last decree issued by a British monarch was when Edward VII decreed that Sir John Fisher not work on Sundays because his wife wanted him to be at home, and of course there was no punishment (at least not by royal agents; I don't know what his wife did) when the Admiral ignored the royal decree. Nyttend (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is far from unheard of for the government to lose a vote, but I don't think a Private Member's Bill can even get as far as a binding vote without the Leader of the House (who serves at the will of the PM) giving it the appropriate parliamentary time. You could try amending a bill that the government has put forward, but I think they could just withdraw the bill if an amendment they didn't like passed. I really don't think it could happen. Of course, if it did, it wouldn't take long for a motion of no confidence to be passed, so at most the PM could delay the passing of the bill by a couple of months or so. --Tango (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can quite imagine the no-confidence vote if the PM were intentionally to ignore Parliament's decisions. Nyttend (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian House of Commons did pass a private member's bill "accidentally", as described above, in 1982, but it still had to get through the Senate, the equivalent of the House of Lords.

This was a period when Canada was moving away from symbols of its former dependent status to Britain, and for years the government had been dropping hints that they would be renaming Dominion Day to Canada Day, but they didn't actually do it. (When Prime Minister Trudeau had to refer to the holiday in a speech, he tended to use expressions like "the July 1st holiday".) But one day when only 12 members, all backbenchers, were present in the Commons (not even a quorum, but that didn't matter, as nobody called for a quorum), one of them introduced a private member's bill to rename the holiday, and it passed at once.

Canada's Senate practically never blocks legislation passed by the Commons, and they didn't this time, although they did delay the bill with extended debate. (Royal Assent, as usual, was then promptly given by the Governor-General.)

--Anonymous, 03:16 UTC, August 7, 2009.

There was a similar case in Australia in the 1920s. Voting at federal elections had never been compulsory, but a backbench senator thought it should be, so he introduced a private members bill to change the law. None of the major parties had a particular position on it either way. It passed through the parliament with very little debate, being seen as a minor, almost trivial administrative matter. Since then, compulsory voting has been the subject of far more controversy than it ever attracted at the time, and we're way out of step with most other developed nations, but it seems we're stuck with it for the foreseeable future because it's become an entrenched part of our political culture, at all levels of government. All thanks to some senator whose name would not be known to 1 out of 100,000 Australians. Even I've forgotten it. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From this they said Mrs Kufuor finish her training nurse while begin to marry John Kufuor in 1962. While she was train to be a nurse, does this mean she finish college in 1962 for her fourth year in university. John Kufuor must graduate high school in 1956 probably 1957? Is this possilbe for Mrs Kufuor to be one year younger than John? I don't think Terri Kufuor is full 70 years of age yet. I just think Terri Mensah is about same age as Kwame Kufuor-John Kufuor's younger brother.--69.229.108.245 (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did anybody thought of restoring the Judaen monarchy under a King from the House of David or electing a non-royal one from the Jewish people during the time when they were trying to creat the Republic of Israel? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last prominent individuals who claimed to be heirs of the Davidic dynasty, and so entitled to special authority, were the Exilarchs. Realistically, even if there had been a clear candidate for the modern heir of David (which there wasn't and isn't), the hard-headed Eastern European socialists who made up the core of the early Zionist movement were not greatly interested in resurrecting ancient absolutisms. Besides, you only have to consult the First Book of Samuel, chapter 8 to see what God has to say about it... -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First book of Samuel, please expand —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 07:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked that up for you, but I've never read a Bible before. Er...Someone called David "smote" someone called "Hadadezer, the son of Rehob, king of Zobah", along with a lot of Philistines and Syrians. Not sure how it's relevant, personally. Maybe I've read the wrong bit. Vimescarrot (talk) 08:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That happens to be II Samuel 8. On the other hand, I Samuel 8 is a very famous chapter in which God instructs Samuel to enumerate to the Israelites all the disadvantages and miseries of having a king ruling over them. This has been referenced many times in political debates down through the centuries. Unfortunately, our article Books of Samuel seems to de-emphasize this aspect... AnonMoos (talk) 10:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would someone want to stick a king above them in this day and age unless as an act to roll back something really bad like in Spain? The same sort of question in relating to Ireland occurred earlier here WP:RDH#English succession. Where anyone could get the idea they might want to start up a monarchy I don't know. It just sounds like a non sequitor to me. Dmcq (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zealots who want to rebuild a Temple on the holy mount might use a Prophet to declare "God's will" that they throw out the Moslems and demolish their structures, rebuild the Temple, and start the sacrifices, and a new Judean King to direct the military aspects of the enterprise. Some U.S. fringe Christian zealots believe that such a Temple rebuilding is necessary to cause the second coming of Christ. Edison (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately or unfortunately, Jewish tradition is much more explicit in identifying the male-line descendents of ancient priests than it is in identifying the heirs of David, so it's not clear how such extremists could come up with a candidate for current-day Judean monarch who would have some degree of wider credibility among other extremists, or among the general Jewish public who take the Bible seriously... AnonMoos (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a self-proclaimed prophet, like a modern Samuel, could announce that "God chooses...This one!" from among the supposed descendants of David. Edison (talk) 03:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]