Humanities desk
< July 6	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 7

Kalkot Mataskelekele's wife

Is this possible that Kalkot Mataskelekele wife to be older than Kalkot. All evidence given is Kalkot's wife have some white hair, hybridding with brown hair. Kalkot have gray hair he is born in 1949 so 59 or 60 depending on his b-day. I don't know anything said the wife is to be how old, but it is less likely to be younger than 1953, gray or white hair shows people is likely to be old. Even pitch black hair could odd people to be at least 60. Like Paul Biya 76 years old (b. 2/13/1933), pitch black hair, his facial look like 40s.--69.229.111.118 (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge on your specific question (and also no particular idea why you're asking it), but as a general matter, it's highly inexact and quite dubious to attempt to estimate people's ages by the amount of grey in their hair (even leaving aside the possibility of dye). My uncle was starting to show a significant amount of grey in his hair in his early 40's... AnonMoos (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And mine at 30. I know: WP:OR! // BL \\ (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And my hair had some grey at 25. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 06:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My hair turned almost completely grey in my thirties, yet a friend of the family still retains his black hair well into his seventies (though it has started showing a little grey round the edges very recently). Hair colour is a poor indicator of age. I'm also unsure quite what you mean by "hybridding". Astronaut (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By hybriding, I believe that questioner merely meant "mixed" or as it is called salt and pepper. (Guess I'll have to update that article.) But the best way to find out birth dates is to find reliable media or legal sources which mention them. Attempting to determine them visually is not reliable. Rmhermen (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Black people don't get grey hair until they are in the 60s or 70s. John Kufuor my favorite-popular-guy-who shows up to whitehouse 4 times, at his first visit to Whitehouse he was 62.12, his hair is still totally black then, second visit in 2005 and a have no gray hair yet, he was 66 and a half; third visit was April 2006, he was 67 and 4/12 month, NO black HAIR yet, then his last visit to Whitehouse in September 15, 2008 he was 69 and 9/12 month, is the first gray hair (or some white hair, some black hair). Robert Mugabe is 85 years old, no white or gray hair AT ALL. Abdoulaye Wade never have hair, so....Mwai Kibaki is 77 right now, when he went to Whitehouse in 10/05/2003 no white or grey hair. Now he have some black some white hair. Sam Nujoma who turn 80 on May 12, 2009, still have some black hair though alot of white hair. Hifikepunye Pohamba turning 74 in August, still all black hair.Then let's take a look at women. Terri Mensah, in her late 60s or she just turn 70 like 4 to 6 month after John Kufuor, still all black hair, while Lucy Kibaki 68 or 69 depending on her birthday, still no white or gray hair at all. lily Coker, look up google image with Eva Coker on Sierra Leone obituary site, hair pitch black. ngina Kenyatta is shown on google image, 69 in 2002 all black hair. Maya Angelou's hair is still at least 60 percent black, little gray or white hair. She is 81. Zelma Henderson who die last year on May 20, 2008 at age 88, her hair is fully brown with no white or gray at all.--69.229.111.118 (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about Barack Obama? He's getting pretty grey. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the evidence is found at 2006 FOCAC.--69.229.111.118 (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homographs

Are there any languages without homographs? 94.3.146.39 (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the languages with no written form, for a start. Algebraist 01:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would wager that Spanish has relatively few, especially since its orthography has a systematic means of preventing them, namely, by putting an acute accent over a vowel: si/sí, como/cómo, mate/maté, tu/tú, etc. However, this system is not perfect, and there are still quite a few: for example 'haya', beech tree or a form of the verb haber; 'vino', wine or a form of the verb venir; etc. (A commenter at this thread provides a list of Spanish homographs, of which most of the examples are not true homographs but examples of polysemy.) LANTZY ^TALK 01:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, constructed languages like Esperanto and especially Lojban probably have few if any homographs. LANTZY ^TALK 01:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanto has a few, mostly from collisions between multi-syllable roots and shorter roots with productive affixes. A silly one that comes to mind is litero meaning either 'letter' or 'a piece (–ero) of a bed (lito)'. —Tamfang (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may get more expert responses at the Languages ref desk than here. --Dweller (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Korean diplomacy

I guess this is more of a humanities question than a language question: when North Korea is involved in diplomatic affairs, like the Six Party Talks, what language do they use? Would they use Chinese? Russian? English? Or just Korean, with translators? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be either Korean, because two parties speak that language and the others all speak different ones, or English, because so many more matters of international relations (even when non-English-speaking countries are involved) are transacted in English. Sorry, but I don't have any reliable sources on this. Nyttend (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most possible language may be either Korean or English. I guess North Korea would prefer Korean since it's their own language and it's easier to communicate with South Korea in the party talks and other uses. I don't have sources or references either but it's my best guess. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The working language of the Six Party Talks is English. See this propaganda piece from the Chinese consulate in Houston. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does that say? There doesn't seem to be an English version. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No there isn't. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal union during war

Reading the personal union of Canada and the UK question above, I wondered: what is the official status of the monarch if two countries that are in personal union go to war? I don't mean something like Norway and Sweden, since Norway wasn't trying to become totally independent while retaining the House of Bernadotte. Instead, I mean something such as the invasion of Grenada, in which Jamaican soldiers participated; or if war had erupted between the Empire of Austria and the Kingdom of Hungary during the period of Austria–Hungary? I know that the UK protested the invasion of Grenada, but I'm not sure that such a protest could change the Queen's legal standing in that situation. Nyttend (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, unless you stretch the definitions of the terms. For example, Henry VI of England also ruled France during the Hundred Years War, which was ostensibly between England and France; but was really a dynastic war between the Valois and the Plantagenets. So, since there was open fighting during Henry's rule of the two kingdoms, does that make him at war with himself? (as your question seems to ask). Probably not. For most of European history, the idea of Balance of power was so important that personal unions between major powers were HIGHLY discouraged. When the did exist (consider Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire/I of Spain) it was usually broken up, either voluntarily as Charles did, or by force, in the case of the Hundred Years War cited above. In other cases, potential personal unions between major powers were fought over in wars of succession often resulting in a prevention of the personal union in question. The War of the Spanish Succession prevented a personal union between France and Spain. Also, in the case of many personal unions, one party takes something of a "junior" role in the union; usually the one which "took over" the other tends to dominate what should be a co-equal union. Consider the 60-year Iberian Union, at the end of which the Portuguese revolted and threw out the Spanish King from Portugal, establishing the House of Braganza. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

India and Pakistan fought a war in 1947 when both were dominions under George VI. I don't know why a war between two dominions would affect the position of the monarch. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the dominions of the British Monarchy the monarch is constitutionally obliged to act on the 'advice' of the government of that country. So in the (unlikely) event that, say Canada and Britain were to go to war, the government of Canada would order Canadian soldiers, in the name of Her Majesty Queen of Canada (to whom they have sworn allegiance) to go and kill the soldiers who have sworn allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom. Neither of the two queens gets any real say in the matter. For those not familiar with the situation, those two queens are of course the same person.DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as Dominion/Realm governments can send High Commissioners to each other who do not represent their identical head of state (an Australian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom is not a representative of the Queen of Australia to the Queen of the United Kingdom, but a representative of the Queen's Australian Government to her United Kingdom government), so Dominion governments can fight each other without their identical head of state fighting themselves.

Practically, of course, the distinction is all but irrelevant, since, as has been pointed out, the Queen acts on the advice of her ministers in her separate capacities as monarch of each Realm. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! I think that the Indo-Pakistani war is the best example of what I was looking for, since it was an actual war and much more significant than the Grenada invasion. Somewhat more specifically, I was wondering if one country might disown the monarch because s/he didn't favour the other one. Looks like the answer is clearly a "not-necessarily", since India and Pakistan both remained dominions under the King until after the war. Since other constitutional monarchies tend to work the same way, I'd be quite surprised if any of you were wrong in other situations. Perhaps the reason I was thinking that one might disown the monarch was the treatment of Charles I of England, since (if I remember right) his alleged act of treason was favouring the Scots after they declared war on England. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The proximate cause of his ouster and execution was his attempt to use his position as King of Scotland (then in personal union with England, but still an independent nation with its own systems) to put down the republicans in the English Civil War. Its actually also pretty close to the OPs requirement; basically Charles (as King of Scotland) was waging war on himself (as King of England). The apparently more logical Roundheads apparently thought this was as rediculous as it sounded, and put him to death for it. However, there is some speculation as to whether or not his death was a foregone conclusion if he had NOT taken such a drastic action; he may have been merely forced to abdicate the English throne and may have remained King of Scotland had he not attempted to fight the war in this manner. Remember that the two nations had only been in personal union for 40 years before the Civil Wars; the situation may have only ended up like the Iberian Union, with Charles retaining his Scottish posessions, had he not attempted to wage war in the manner he did... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US federal swearing-in

The president, vice-president, senators, judges etc. are all sworn into office. Does the same hold for lower level federal officials like the assistant undersecretary of whatever? How about just ordinary paper pushers and janitors in the various federal departments? Thanks. 208.70.31.206 (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normally officials that are politically elected may need to swear in. Whereas government staff and officials hired by the government (sometimes called civil servant) doesn't have to swear in. This also applies in each state, as each state is like an individual government. Governors, legislators also needs to swear in, while normal government staff don't swear in (think it as politically selected and hired). I'm just replying this based on my past knowledge, there may be small details I don't know but this should be the general definition. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This oath is used by, apparently, all US federal civil servants. — Lomn 13:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that federal civil servants do take that oath by signing on a piece of paper; ~~they don't say it aloud~~ or place their hand on a Bible or anything. I also believe that state workers take a similar oath to protect and defend the constitution of the state they are working for. Tempshill (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I struck my assertion above based on Who then was a gentleman? below. As a state worker I merely signed a piece of paper to swear by the oath.) Tempshill (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All federal employees take an oath. Source: personal knowledge. My two jobs as a federal employee required me to take an oral oath and raise my hand each time. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even temporary Census workers have an oath to take. As a graduate teaching assistant at a state university, I had to take an oath to defend the state constitution of a state I wasn't even a resident of. Rmhermen (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly here in Canada, when I had a summer job for a federal government agency, there was some sort of requirement to swear or affirm allegiance to the Queen. It's been long enough that I don't rememeber in detail. --Anonymous, 23:29 UTC, July 7, 2009.

Here is the oath taken by U.S. federal employees and its history. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlants Below Water

Where is the original file? (This file is probably positively dilated; when I expanded it in Paint, the blue boarder appeared where there should be no light blue. This made me extrapolate that this is not the original file, because this file itself has a light blue boarder surrounding\enclosing the red.)70.73.145.207 (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may be the original gif (from the Malay wikipedia). --Cam (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! that might help trace the original (I don't think it is the original because it, too, has a blue boarder).70.73.145.207 (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who was the Dutch governor-general of Indonesia during the Japanese invasion?

The header says it all really, does anyone know who the Dutch governor-general of Indonesia was during the Japanese invasion? And if you do do you have anymore information about him? Or his wife? Thanks Spitfire^Tally-ho! 09:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A. W. L. Tjarda van Starkenborgh Stachouwer? See also Governor-General of the Dutch East Indies. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the prompt answer, very interesting, as I had been under the impression that he and his wife had been killed, so I've learnt quite a bit :D. Thanks a lot for your help Spitfire^Tally-ho! 09:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finding in the Temple

Why is it that middle and high schoolers are told to emulate Jesus using this example? I mean, there are lots of teenagers who probably would love to have a good excuse for worrying their parents by doing this sort of thing, albeit with different motives, perhaps. Vltava 68 17:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "why are middle and high schoolers told to wander off to the temple on their own"? I'm not sure they are. Do you have reason to think it's the case? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, meaning that they're told to be determined and passionate about their work and etc. Possibly also to not let anyone get in their way, which is one of the perhaps more problematic parts. Vltava 68 17:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you're from but I was never told to emulate Jesus that way. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Being passionate about your work" has clear advantages. Determination helps with success. "Not letting anyone stand in your way" can, as you say, be more problematic. Some people think that life is all about competition and winning counts for everything. But I've no idea what this has to do with Jesus in the Temple. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Count me in as being equally lost as to what you're getting at. Could you restate your question? Dismas|^(talk) 01:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try... I suppose what I was trying to ask was why people set that as an example to be set in high esteem or something like that. (Sorry, I was tired and suffering from insommia when I posted that.) Vltava 68 02:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you're referring to the passage where Jesus goes missing, and is eventually found in the temple questioning the elders? I think there is a connotation of independent learning here - go and find out for yourself. Rather than being up to no good, you are up to some good by participating in something that is likely to help you. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He may mean causing a ruckus and beating up moneychangers AllanHainey (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's Jesus and the money changers. (Which would be an awesome name for a band.) Adam Bishop (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, it's "she". Vltava 68 01:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Members of the British Parliament (including Lords)

Hello. Does anybody know of a place where one can download decent-resolution (preferably high-res!) pictures of Peers and MPs; the "biography" section on the Parliament website provides only a tiny thumbnail of each. Thanks! ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 17:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most MPs have websites. If you go to http://www.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/mps_and_lords/alms.cfm there are links to their websites. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if you want the pictures for purposes of putting them on Wikipedia or for some other distribution, you probably won't have the right to do that unless they explicitly grant permission. --Anonymous, 23:30 UTC, July 7, 2009.

Of course. And I don't. ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 06:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on how high-res you are looking for, the BBC might suffice. Here's their effort for Diane Abbott [1], others can be found with the "find an MP" box on the right. Martlet1215 (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hubertus Johannes van Mook's wife

Does anyone know if Hubertus Johannes van Mook had a wife? And if so what her name might have been? For some sources I have picked up see: [2], [3] and [4], I have been working on this half the day, but have turned up no results, I wonder if anyone might like to give it a stab? Thanks awfully for your time, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be A.D. van Mook mentioned here and in the register and this might be her, sorry cannot tease out the initials. meltBanana 21:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Alberta Diederika Maureau meltBanana 21:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From prime minister to national leader?

Is this possbile for prime minister to become a national leaders? is this possible for Nahas Angula (not certainly) to become a national leader successor after Pohamba tough it's long ways away if Pohamba would or would not stay for 2013 election.--69.229.111.118 (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Chapter 5 of the constitution of Namibia, "Every citizen of Namibia by birth or descent, over the age of thirty-five (35) years, and who is eligible to be elected to office as a member of the National Assembly shall be eligible for election as President." He's obviously eligible to sit in the NA, so unless he isn't Namibian by birth or descent there's no reason why it wouldn't be possible. --Saalstin (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prime ministers are national leaders, aren't they? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably meant head of state, as opposed to head of government... AnonMoos (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant is this possible that Hahas Angula could become a HE of Namibia. ~~Do Namibia have two-term only rule now?~~ By the way what does "HE" stand for?--69.229.111.118 (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NVM about how-long-hold power question. The legislation said HE cannot hold office for over two terms.Hifikepunye will have to leave in 2013 election and hand the power to somebody else. So who will be next in Namibia? Will it be Angula?--69.229.111.118 (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does HE sstand for? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like HE is His Excellency, the President. The Prime Miniter is "the Right Honorable". Rmhermen (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid Wikipedia does not make predictions. It looks like it's constitutionally possible for the current Prime Minister to run for President, but we have no way of knowing whether or not he's going to win --Saalstin (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Janez Drnovšek did just that - stepped down as PM to be elected president. TomorrowTime (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a point, anyone Royal in the UK is heavily, heavily discouraged from taking a political stand, including heirs. So no, not in the UK - they'd be kicked out as monarch before they could be elected into parliament (the other way round is illogical, since you're born a royal). 92.17.236.247 (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]