Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 November 27

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.

November 27

Katyn

Why did the Russians massacre the Poles if they were on the same side in WWII 24.92.78.167 (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

WOW. Dude -- Russia invaded Poland in 1939, just like Germany. 63.17.78.65 (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

They weren't at the start: see Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, and other articles on WWII. I suspect that some (most?) Poles might say the Soviets were never really 'on their side'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

They had a common enemy, like the Finnish. 212.169.188.173 (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Pardon? Who did? When? You'll have to be more specific... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that the OP should obtain a copy of William Shirer's Rise and Fall of The Third Reich. It goes into great detail about the Polish issue and the pact Hitler made with Stalin (which was later broken as we all know). It's a lengthy book, but well worth the read.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Stalin was much more interested in destroying than preserving Poles who had strong nationalist sentiments (which in 1939 meant hating both Russians and Germans), and who might have become influential leaders. In 1944, he deliberately and intentionally refused to aid the Warsaw uprising in any way, and the red army watched from front-row seats right across the river as the Nazis destroyed Warsaw... AnonMoos (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I have the impression than in 2010, Poles still have "strong nationalist sentiments (which mean hating both Russians and Germans)". Quest09 (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course, after the massacre the Nazis used propaganda posters this one to take over France, before overrunning Poland and commiting their own Khatyn massacre against Byelorussian civillians. ~AH1^(TCU) 21:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Which queen is Elizabeth II?

When Queen Elizabeth II decides to honour someone with a knighthood, and the person is not a citizen of a Commonwealth realm, they get an honorary knighthood. They get to use whatever postnominal letters come with the knighthood (typically KBE) but they can't call themselves Sir. This much I understand.

My question is: who is bestowing the knighthood? The Queen is monarch of 16 different but equal realms, so which crown does she wear? I can see that where the honouree's achievements have been particularly associated with one of the 16 realms, she would wear that realm's crown, e.g. Bob Geldof has had much to do with the UK and precious little to do with Jamaica, Kenya, Tuvalu, New Zealand etc, so it's obvious the Queen of the UK was the one handing out his knighthood. But what if she wanted to knight, say, Nelson Mandela, who is considered a citizen of the world but not associated with any particular country more than any other, outside of South Africa. Why would it be the Queen of the UK doing the honours, rather than the Queen of Canada, or the Queen of Papua New Guinea, or ....  ? Some of the realms, such as Australia, no longer participate in the Imperial Honours system at all; but the Queen still has awards in her personal gift at her disposal, which don't require the acquiescence of any of her governments. When she, personally, is deciding to honour someone with such an award, is she always necessarily the Queen of the UK when doing so? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This is strictly a personal view, but I would say that unless there is a significant precedent for her acting as Queen of XXX rather than Queen of England for an investiture, her default 'mode' would be Queen of England as that's her primary role/title, all others are secondary. Exxolon (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That's completely untrue about her other titles being secondary. See Statute of Westminster 1931. (I'll let "Queen of England" go through to the keeper, for now.) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, but that's a law passed by the UK Parliament, which in principle could just as easily repeal it. Seems as though one of the realms is a little more equal than the others.... --Trovatore (talk) 08:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It would have been interesting to see how the UK public would have reacted if William had picked a bride from, say, Tuvalu. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Exxolon's comments are also untrue in that the title "Queen of England" has not been in official use since 1707. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Trovatore, the Statute of Westminster applies to all 16 Commonwealth realms equally. It would require their unanimous agreement for it to be repealed, just as it required their unanimous agreement to permit Edward VIII to abdicate, and it would require their unanimous agreement to change any of the rules about the succession to the throne (e.g. permitting Catholics or spouses of Catholics to accede, or first-borns regardless of sex). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

How does that work? It's a law of the UK. It was passed in the parliament of the UK. It's not a treaty. If the UK parliament repeals it, in what venue would you challenge that action?

Now, I'm not saying that means you would then start paying attention to UK laws that claimed to apply to Australia; your own courts would presumably declare them null, and I don't see Britain going to war to enforce them. But for the Queen specifically? Face it, the Brits own her. She does what David Cameron tells her to do. If you don't like that (and I certainly wouldn't) you might take another look at republicanism. --Trovatore (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942. DuncanHill (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Don't see how that helps. If the British Parliament, just for example, repeals the 1931 law and then unilaterally changes the order of succession, what are the Aussies going to do about it? Certainly, they could decline to recognize the successor as their Sovereign (which, of course, is what I personally think they ought to do anyway). But they couldn't prevent Britain from doing so. It's just a statute; it doesn't even require a (purely British) supermajority to repeal. --Trovatore (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

As Australian law has been fully patriated, repeal of the Statute of Westminster by the UK parliament would not and could not effect the independence of Australia. You're suggesting a unilateral annexation - frankly, I'm not convinced that you're not trolling. Any change to the order of succession cannot come into effect without the consent of the other Commonwealth realms. DuncanHill (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe I'm being a little provocative. I don't like the monarchy much. It's a lot more tolerable now that it's all symbolic, but it still strikes me as less than ideal.

But no one has answered my point here. If the UK parliament decides to repeal the 1931 act, in order to change the order of succession, what stops them? That that might logically comport the "annexation of Australia" would presumably simply be ignored; to accomplish that in practice would require military force that I don't see the UK wanting to exercise, nor the world permitting. But if they decided to just skip over Charlie, or award the Kingship to Elton John, what are you going to do about it Down Under? Of course you don't have to recognize Elton I yourselves, but I can't see how you can stop Britain from doing so. --Trovatore (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Any of the 16 realms that attempt to go it alone in relation to the succession laws, without regard to the other 15, is breaking the compact. Such an attempt would not get past first base. If they persisted, they would be asking to be expelled from the Commonwealth, which could happen surprisingly quickly. They would be seen a rogue state by the international community. That's if their own people were on side, which is a huge ask in the first place. Why would the general UK populace countenance their nation becoming a pariah, just to satisfy the caprices of some nitwit in Whitehall? No, their respect for tradition and history and the monarchy and the status quo and all that would have the people up in arms against their own government if they ever tried anything so stupid as what you're suggesting. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

And let's suppose, that instead of privileging a decent but hardly revolutionary pop musician, they decided to do what I think they actually should do, and abolish the monarchy altogether? That you must allow they have the right to do (there was little question that Australia had the right a while back. But once it was no longer their monarch, presumably they would no longer want to pay the bills. What happens then? Do you invite Liz or Charlie to set up shop in Canberra? --Trovatore (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

What Australia did was to have a referendum on whether or not we wanted to become a republic. It had nothing to do with abolishing anything. It had to do with us severing ourselves from the monarchy and establishing the office of President of Australia as our head of state. Had we gone that way, the remaining 15 realms would have continued to have the monarchy, unaffected by Australia's decision.

But no, I do not allow that the UK has the right to unilaterally abolish their own monarchy. They could do it only if the 16 Commonwealth realms unanimously decided to go this way, all at the same time. The UK is just as much subject to the Statue of Westminster as any of the other realms are. But if a rogue UK PM decided to test the waters and started talking about abolishing the monarchy, he or she would be quickly silenced by their own party, and if they persisted, they'd be unceremoniously and swiftly deposed by their party. For that not to happen, the party platform would have to include the abolition of the monarchy, and they wouldn't have been elected to power in the first place unless the general populace were in favour of abolition, which they're not. But even if they were, the UK still cannot go it alone, because they "own" only 1/16th of the crown. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your point here. You say that Australia held a referendum on severing itself from the Australian monarchy, and then you say that the UK cannot become a republic without the consent of all other Commonwealth realms. Is there really anything (in theory) preventing the UK from becoming a republic while (say) Canada continues as a monarchy, which doesn't prevent Canada becoming a republic while the UK remains a monarchy? (And by the way, the UK doesn't "own" 1/16th of the crown: there are sixteen The Crowns, one for each realm. That's a large part of the point of the Statute of Westminster.) Marnanel (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you've twisted my words. I never said the UK cannot decide to become a republic - of course it could, that's entirely their business, just as it was Australia's business to consider such a move in 1999. Should the UK do so, they would sever themselves from the joint monarchy and the Queen would continue to reign over the remaining realms. As Trovatore alluded earlier, the Royal Family would probably need to relocate to somewhere where the Queen is still recognised as head of state. What I said was, was that the UK cannot unilaterally abolish the monarchy. Nor could any of the 16 realms unilaterally abolish the monarchy. Any changes to how the monarchy works must be agreed unanimously by all 16 realms, but any realm can opt out of the club completely. It's a bit like, any country that's currently a member of the UN could decide to cancel its own membership but it could not unilaterally change the rules about how the UN is organised and run. (I know there are 16 crowns, I was just trying to explain a point using an analogy.)-- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Have to ask: can't abolish which monarchy? I think the argument here is confusion of terms. I think we can all agree that the UK has full rights to abolish the British monarchy whenever they want, without consultation of other Commonwealth members, however unlikely that may be. However, regardless of what happens to the British monarchy, the Australian, Canadian, Bahamian, etc. monarchies continue unperturbed. (Assuming, of course, that newly-republic UK doesn't have James Bond track down and assassinate all of Sophia of Hannover's descendants.) -- 174.24.198.158 (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. I do not agree that the UK has a right to unilaterally abolish the British monarchy, as explained above. It's not even a question of right - it's actually impossible. The Statue of Westminster prevents them from doing so, because any so-called action taken without the concurrence of all the other realms is inherently null and void. The action/change has to apply to all the realms, and simultaneously, or to none of them. Doing something to the monarchy (such as abolishing it) is not the same as divorcing the nation from it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Jack, this whole thread started when you asked *which Queen* bestows the honour. From this I can surmise that you understand that "The Queen of Britain" and "The Queen of Australia" are distinct, despite the fact that they're both the same person (per the Statute of Westminster). My question to you: which monarchy does the Queen of Australia belong to? - I'm presenting the perspective that "the British Monarchy" and "the Australian Monarchy" are distinct (although, per the Statute of Westminster, the same). If the UK becomes a republic, the British Monarchy will no longer exist, by definition: republics don't have monarchs. In other words, by voting to become a republic, the UK parliament will have "abolished" the British monarchy. However, the UK parliament is powerless to unilaterally alter the other 15 monarchies of the Commonwealth realms, and regardless of what happens to the British Monarchy, the Windsors will retain their standing as the hereditary heirs to the Australian Monarchy, the Canadian Monarchy, etc. -- 174.24.198.158 (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Scenario A: The UK chooses to become a republic, which also means that it has just chosen to abandon its monarchy.

Scenario B: The UK chooses to abolish its monarchy, which also means that it has just chosen to become a republic.

These look like the same thing, just expressed slightly differently. You can't have a republic that's a monarchy, because a republic is defined as a nation without a monarchy. But are they the same thing? I appreciate the distinction between the British Monarchy and the Australian Monarchy and the St Kitts and Nevis Monarchy and all the rest. They are distinct entities at law; but not so distinct that any change to one of them doesn't affect all the others. And not only affect all the others, but the change is exactly duplicated in all the others. The Statute of Westminster forces all the separate monarchies to be identical at all times. In the case of most monarchies (Denmark, Netherlands, Thailand, Tonga, Swaziland ...), abandoning the monarchy and abolishing the monarchy are the same thing. But in the UK/Commonwealth case, they're not. Any of the 16 realms can abandon its monarchy: Australia would have done so had our 1999 referendum passed. And an abandoned monarchy ceases to exist because a king without a country cannot be. But none of them can abolish the monarchy outright, not unless all 16 realms choose to do so. As far as Joe Bloggs on the street is concerned, does this distinction between abandoning and abolishing matter a tinker's cuss? Probably not. But it's not just semantics for its own sake either. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

[1] Nil Einne (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Trovatore, the PM of the UK advises (= commands) the Queen of the UK in relation to UK affairs and UK affairs alone. The PM of Australia advises (= commands) the Queen of Australia in relation to Australian affairs and Australian affairs alone. The PM of Canada advises (= commands) the Queen of Canada in relation to Canadian affairs and Canadian affairs alone. Get the picture? This was the whole point of the Statute. The 16 realms are separate and equal, none subservient to any other. There was talk back in the Thatcher era of the UK being expelled from the Commonwealth, which is no more constitutionally unbelievable than the expulsion of Zimbabwe, Fiji or Pakistan. The Queen herself is usually seen as most associated with the UK realm, as she resides there (well, she has to live somewhere) and the Commonwealth evolved out of UK history. But that has nothing to do with the equality of the realms. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

And if the UK parliament repeals the statute, I ask again, in what venue is Australia going to challenge that action? --Trovatore (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

We're now in the realm of the hyper-hypothetical, but that could be seen as an act of aggression. Repealing the Statute would have the effect of the British Parliament re-asserting its authority over the "Dominion" parliaments, effectively purporting to re-colonise the realms all over again. Wars have started over less. How would the USA feel if the UK Parliament reasserted it still owned the 13 American colonies, tore up its peace treaty, and resumes taxing them? Hmm? Same with us. It's never going to happen. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you'd go to war to prevent the British parliament from imposing British law in Australia. But over, for example, changing the order of succession? I frankly doubt it. But in any case the situations are not really parallel, because the American War of Independence ended with an actual treaty, binding under international law, the Treaty of Paris (1783). It was not a simple statute, passed by a majority in the House of Commons. --Trovatore (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

But it's all part and parcel of the same thing. Repeal of the Statute would purport to have the effect of the UK reasserting its right to impose British law on Australia, just as it would purport to remove our right to have a say about any changes to the succession laws. Also, it would be in conflict with the Australia Act 1986. Like Duncan above, I can't see what point you're trying to make here, Trovatore, but it's going nowhere fast. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

A UK repeal of the Statute of Westminster would have no effect on Australia. The Statute of Westminster, once it was received by each of the realms, became part of the law of each individual jurisdiction. So there are as many different and separate Statutes of Westminster as there are realms that received it. Each of them can then deal with that piece of law at will so that, as a matter of law, there could be a dozen different versions of the Statute of Westminster in force in different realms.

It is only out of convention that the realms cooperate on constitutional matters. There is no legal impediment to their choosing not to do so. Australia has amended its Constitution several times since it was passed as legislation by the Imperial parliament. This has only changed the version of the Constitution as in force in Australia, it does not change the version on the statute books of the UK. Likewise, if the UK parliament were to amend the Constitution of Australia, it would be perfectly competent to do so, but only with respect to the UK statute. There would be no effect on the version in force in Australia.

That, more or less, was the point of the Statute of Westminster (and suplementary legislation like the Australia Acts). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The article on Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia says: "The Queen does still confer honours upon Australians that emanate from her personally rather than through the government, in particular the Order of the Garter..., The Order of the Thistle..., the Order of Merit..., the Royal Victorian Order..., and the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem...." The same principle would apply in other Commonwealth countries, although the way that the Royal Prerogative operates apparently varies between the different realms. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, but I'm talking about honours and awards beng bestowed upon people who are not citizens of any of her realms. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I remember going online trying to find the New Year Honours List a couple of years ago, and finding that it was published by the UK government rather than by some office of the royal court. Also, for example New Zealand has its own New Year Honours list, for the knighthoods and postnominals handed out by the Queen as Queen of New Zealand. Presumably, when honorary knighthoods are announced they are one one of the lists, and that should reveal which crown that particular KBE is associated with. Or, are the honorary titles announced completely separately, directly from the court? (Geldof's honour seems to be too long ago for me to be able to find a proper source of how it was announced) /Coffeeshivers (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy's KBE was certainly recommended by the Government of the UK; the one which has davalued everything. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, I think it's rather clever to get a prominent IRA fundraiser to accept a KBE. DuncanHill (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Coffeeshivers, I was somewhat diverted. I think you're right - the relevant government would promulgate the honorary awards. Honorary Imperial knighthoods would only ever occur with the agreement of a Commonwealth realm government that was still participating in the Imperial Honours system, which cuts out a few. I'd be interested to find a live case of an honorary knighthood in one of the British orders such the Order of the British Empire, the Order of the Bath or the Order of St Michael and St George, that was awarded by Elizabeth II as Queen of somewhere other than the UK. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There *is* the official position of Head of the Commonwealth, which is part of her official style. For example, the charter for the Venerable Order of Saint John, as linked in that article, uses her style as the British sovereign, including the Head of the Commonwealth bit. That said, if the honor is a personal gift, it might not technically be granted by "The Queen of X" (for any X) at all, but by the person of Elizabeth II herself, and is simply recognized as being official by country X, simply because Elizabeth II is "The Queen of X". (That is, Australia recognized the granting of an OM as valid because Elizabeth II is Queen of Australia, but Canada recognizes the same award as valid because she's Queen of Canada.) Sort of in the same sense that Crown Estate is property owned by the Queen-as-position, but Elizabeth II also owns property personally (e.g. Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle). -- 174.24.198.158 (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I can see what you're getting at. When the Queen makes an award in her personal gift, she is still doing so as the Queen of one of her realms. She is not acting as a private citizen (that's if she even is a citizen), because it's only monarchs who are the fount of honour, not private citizens. I even wonder if she can ever do anything as a private person, divorced from her queen-ness. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean she goes to the toilet as a queen rather then a private person? Nil Einne (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't really thinking that she was doing it as a private citizen, but more-so as a generalized royal. That is, acting as Elizabeth II Regina herself, rather than the person exercising the position "The Queen of X". Another option is that she's acting as all monarchs simultaneously. That is, to an Australian, she gives the OM as the Queen of Australia, but to a Canadian, she's acting, at the very same moment, as the Queen of Canada. If I had to guess, though, I would imagine she would be acting under the role through which the honour was chartered. For example, the Venerable Order of Saint John is chartered under the name of "Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Our other Realms and Territories Queen ... ", so when she appoints someone to the Order of Saint John, she does so as "Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Our other Realms and Territories Queen ... " (e.g. as the British Queen, rather than the Canadian Queen or the Australian Queen. -- 174.24.198.158 (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been coming to the same conclusion. Australia no longer has the level of Knight/Dame of the Order of Australia, but if we did, and we wanted to honour Barack Obama, for example, it would be the Queen of Australia bestowing it. New Zealand has restored its knighthoods recently, and an honorary NZ knighthood would be bestowed by the Queen of New Zealand. So, it comes down to which country established the award itself as to which queen awards it. Seems pretty sensible, really, wheh I think about it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Royal Surnames

Why does it seem that a lot of people believe that royalty can't have surnames? The nobilities of Italy and the imperial families of the Byzantine, Russian and Chinese empires used surnames. Also there were the Stuarts, the Tudors, and the Plantagenet. But are the "de Bourbon", "de France", and "de Borbon y de (mother's house name" considered surnames?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe Bourbon was considered a surname as Marie Antoinette was called Madame Capet at her trial.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The Emperors of Japan famously don't have surnames or dynastic names even though in the pasr there have been two claiments for the throne with different lines of descent. Alansplodge (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose royalty could have surnames. They historically did not have them, however. The use of "Louis Capet" for "Louis XVI" was an intentional attempt to make Louis equal to all other French citizens, in the use of a surname. What the French Revolutionaries were doing was pointing out that the Royals don't use surnames by forcing Louis to have one. It was an act of deliberate insubordination. There are a variety of ways to disambiguate royalty, from ordinal roman numerals, to nicknames or appelations like "Henry Bolingbroke" or "Edward Longshanks" or "Charles the Fat", to use of house or dynasty names, like "de Bourbon" or "of Lancaster", but these are not surnames, just descriptive names of their royal house. --Jayron32 13:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Our own Royal Family certainly use "Windsor" as a surname. Descendants who don't have ducal titles end up with "Windsor" as their last name, such as Lord Nicholas Windsor. Alansplodge (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Prince Charles' surname Mountbatten? I also read that William and Harry's surnames were Wales.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

See House of Windsor and Mountbatten-Windsor for further confusion explanation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

When he ascends the throne, the House will be likely changed to Mountbatten or whatever he chooses. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you have to be just a little careful how you use the term surname. In contemporary English, we use that term as a synonym of family name, but that's not the original meaning, esp when talking about royalty. One of the Henrys was surnamed Plantagenet, for example, but it wasn't (at least originally) a family name. It was more like a nickname. --Trovatore (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Since this seems to be done by royal proclamation, I reckon he could retitle it the House of Fish and Chips if he felt like it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

But what about the way the Spanish and Portuguese royal families use there Royal House names in there name which is just like Hispanic surnames. Like Juan Carlos Alfonso Víctor María de Borbón y Borbón-Dos Sicilias.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the British royal family really Guelph? Corvus cornix_talk 04:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

From House of Welf: [George I] inherited the British throne in 1714 as a result of the Act of Settlement 1701. Members of the Welf dynasty continued to rule Great Britain until the death of Queen Victoria in 1901; in Britain they were known as the House of Hanover.

Victoria’s successor Edward VII was the first king of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, which was changed in 1917 to the House of Windsor.

So, no, the British Royal Family is not really Guelph and has not been for the past 109 years. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The Russian royals did not have surnames. They were officially known by their first name and patronimic. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Most sexually conservative Europeans

Which European people would be considered the most sexually conservative today or at least within the last 50 years? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess Silvio Berlusconi would be one of those least likley to gain the title. How about Mary Whitehouse? Daicaregos (talk) 08:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Just guessing, but I think Jeanne may have meant nationalities rather than specific individuals.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. The reason I didn't say nations was that many countries such as Italy is made up of regions that vary greatly from one another such as Sicily and Lombardy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

....not to mention the Vatican people.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we have a winner. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The inhabitants of the Vatican seem tolerant of some very extreme sexual behaviours. DuncanHill (talk) 12:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. No Sex Please, We're British. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we'd need to know what was meant by 'conservative'. Position? Location? Duration? To me, the phrase brings to mind the affair between John Major and Edwina Currie. Not a happy thought.

Seriously though, I think that Jeanne needs to phrase the question in more precise terms. In any case, what is considered 'conservative' in one part of Europe may not be in another. I'm sure I've seen statistics somewhere comparing e.g. number of sexual partners amongst populations in different parts of the world, though the data may be somewhat suspect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Its not the British, as we have the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in Europe. Besides, the populations to fill the colonies didnt come from nowhere. You might be able to estimate this from the proportion of unmarried mothers as well as pregnancy rates. Italy, with the lowest birth rate in the world (?) could be the most conservative. I'm not sure if the amount of sexual activity has a positive or negative correlation with the amount of pornography consumed. The liberal laws of the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries would rule them out. Depends if you mean by activity or by attitude. 92.15.11.45 (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

What I meant by conservative is not the nudity shown on tv, in which case Italy would be easily be the most permissive; but rather the attitude towards unmarried mothers, divorce, women's sexuality in general, and gay marriage. Italy (especially the south), which is strongly against gay marriage, condemns infidelity in women, regards divorced women as puttane (sluts), would probably be the most conservative IMO. In fact, last year there was a spate of vicious homophobic attacks on gays, and this occurred in Rome!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Such attacks also happen in Eastern Europe from time to time. Moscow, Belgrade, etc Flamarande (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm how about Turkey? Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

[2] may be of interest here although over 10 years old. While I've only had a glance at it, it looks to me like Northern Ireland may be our 'winner' for the European countries surveyed (which does include Italy but doesn't include Turkey).Nil Einne (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's be honest here. Turkey isn't an European country in this aspect ('European' as in cultural values). Its culture is strongly influenced by Islam unlike all European countries (with the possible exception of Albania). I do know that the Istambul holds a substantial portion of the Turkish population and that they have been influenced by European culture in many aspects but there are irregular honor killings where the male relatives kill the woman found "guilty" of shaming the "family's honour" (some of those happen in Germany where a substantial Turkish population exists). Such murders may also happen in exceptional circumstances in European cultures but there they are more the exceptions which prove the rule. Flamarande (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Besides, the populations to fill the colonies didnt come from nowhere - the subdued native populace needed something to do on a Saturday night too. It's not as if the British happened to find lands that were devoid of human life (terra nullius) and just populated them with pink British babies. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Honour killings still take palce in Sicily and Calabria. Recently a brother in Calabria killed his sister for having a kid outside matrimony. I live in Sicily and many of the men will beat up their sisters and sisters-in-law if they catch them cheating on their husbands. Ironically, abortion is very high in Italy. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That isn't irony but simple and common results of hipocrisy (couples are too ashamed to buy condoms or the pill fearing the censoring and gossip of their neighbors - especially in more rural and poorer areas. Abortions are the sad result). I also knew that women have been murdered in the south of Italy (but AFAIK these are true exceptions - I may be honestly mistaken). However I believe that as a rule honour killings are far more common among Turks than Italians. "Oldfashioned wife-beating", while horrendous to the majority, is de facto uncommon but not unknown in southern Latin Europe (things are changing but all too slowly). AFAIK most of Europe is more or less liberal about sex of unmarried ppl (unlike Turkey). Either way I think that we can and should agree that Turkey with a diffrent religious background and a diffrent historical approach (Christianity vs Islam) is simply diffrent from European countries. Flamarande (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC) PS: You could improve the article Honor killing if you wish.

Turkey cannot be "[different] from European countries", as a significant part of it is in Europe. Please don't misuse the reference desk to push an irrelevant POV on a sensitive subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote above: ('European' as in cultural values). You seem to be seeing this issue only in pure geographical terms (and the "significant" European part of Turkey is more or less 3% of the whole country). However you seem to be ignoring that, like or not, the overwhelming majority of the Turkish population has a diffrent religion than the "rest" of Europe (with the exception of Albania). AFAIK the religious background of a country affects the culture of the people of a country. So forgive me for not exactly buying your statement that: "Turkey cannot be different from [the other] European countries." The overwhelming majority of Turks have a muslim background, while the overwhelming majority of Europeans aren't. Like it or not, the religion of a people affects the way they deal with issues like sex (creating some important diffrences). You might not like to deal with this sensitive issue, but this isn't an irrelevant POV. Flamarande (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't write Turkey cannot be different from [the other] European countries. this would be stupid, as each European country is different. I Wrote Turkey cannot be "[different] from European countries", as a significant part of it is in Europe, which is a statement of fact. And Turkey's 'cultural values' are likewise partly European, because Turkey is partly in Europe: again, a statement of fact. Turkey may not be predominantly Christian (though note that politically it is a secular constitutional republic), but the question was about Europe, not about Christian countries in Europe. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Flamarande, do you actually have some statistics on Turkish attitudes towards sex between unamrried people in particular so we can compare them to places like Northern Ireland? While I was the one who suggested Turkey, this was just a suggestion, from the way you are talking it sounds like you actually have some better evidence showing Turkey is definitely more conservative (on average) when it comes to sex between unmarried people. Also from Religion in Bosnia and Herzegovina Muslims are 45% of the population (although the level of religious observence in Bosnias for all religions is generally low) so I don't know if it's accurate to say the rest of Europe except Albania follows a different religion. Nil Einne (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

If they're practicing celibacy (which they're supposed to be)? Vatican residents are the least sexually active. Ya can't get more conservative then that. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that last statement is questionable. For example, if we have a person who's celibate for whatever reason but thinks there's nothing wrong with people having sex with whoever and whenever they want at any age and regardless of marital status of any parties involved and that women can or even should want to be part of that. Vs a married (for life as all marriages should be as far as they are concerned) man who has sex (as most married people do), but without concern for what their wife wants (she's a woman so it doesn't matter) but considers any sex outside marriage, sex between people of the same sex etc all horrible, horrible crimes and any perpetrators should be put to death (particularly the any women and gay men). I would consider the later person to be more sexually conservative. From what the OP has said, my feeling is they would agree with me. Nil Einne (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The idea that most married people have sex without concern for the wife's desires is a bit depressing. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've rearranged my wording for clarification. Nil Einne (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Albanians? 92.24.189.188 (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Selves that argue within oneself - illusion or not?

I have some long dreary work to do that I can easily put off. My Bossy-Self says that I ought to march off and do it as soon as possible, working twelve hours a day on it until finished. My Lazy-Self dosnt want to do it, keeps putting it off. I only make progress by promising myself a treat after doing some work, or that I'll only do it for an hour or two and then stop work for today.

Why do I appear to have two selves that are in conflict - Bossy-Self and Lazy-Self? Surely I should only have one self? Thanks 92.15.11.45 (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't have two selves. From one moment to the next, you exist, and your existence involves all the things you do and think, plus all the things your body does autonomically. There is no "elsewhere" where "you" exist independently of the things you and your body do. To say you have two "selves" is to ignore the fact that you exist in time in the physical universe, and that any other definition of "existence" is illusory (where and when would it be?). As for why you "appear" to "have two selves that are in conflict," it is because you are confusing mental deliberation with being. Anyone can deliberate endlessly, from any number of perspectives -- but the deliberations all occur in the moment of time, in the physical place, when and where you are acting/thinking/being, which is where and when you exist and THE ONLY "where and when" you exist. See Sartre. 63.17.78.65 (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

All of us have various-often conflicting-personality traits. We tend to argue with our inner-voices which usually represent our conscience telling what we should do rather than what we would prefer to do.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Why should what we should do be any different from what we prefer to do, if there is only one locus of control within us? 92.15.11.45 (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That's called an "inner conflict": Knowing what you need to do, but wanting to do something else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

In Laveyan Satanism there is what is called a demonic self which is a person's hidden, inner personality of the opposite gender. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You may find Dualism (philosophy of mind) and Mind–body problem interesting reads. schyler (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not my physical body that is arguing. On the other hand, Lazy-Self may just be the tiredness that I habitually overlook. Perhaps I will work better in the long run if I take a rest now. Or perhaps not. 92.15.11.45 (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not complicated. It's a normal human trait to put things off that we don't want to do, possibly in the hope that it will go away. Sometimes that actually works, but usually not. Another thing is that as a deadline approaches, you might be energized to do the work, hence making it more interesting in some way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I don't think this is what is going on with you, but the Split-brain syndrome may be of interest in this regard.

What Jeanne was saying reminds me of the Jungian Anima/Animus, which are "autonomous complexes" within the individual. If that were the case, you may then be interested in the process of individuation. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

A reasonable analogy is what Jerry Seinfeld referred to as two personalities within us that he called "Evening Guy" and "Morning Guy". Evening Guy likes to stay up late, party, have fun, etc., whereas Morning Guy has to get up and go to work. And the core problem, Seinfeld said, is that, "Evening Guy doesn't care about Morning Guy." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

See outline of self and imagined interaction. Although "arguing voices" phenomena are particularly pronounced in some mental disorders, I'm fairly confident that decisional conflict is nearly universal. ~AH1^(TCU) 21:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

My Lazy-Self may have been just tiredness, since after resting yesterday evening and going to bed early, Lazy-Self had almost disapeared and I got a lot of work done. 92.15.14.132 (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned Id, ego, and super-ego yet. Perhaps evolution has started to evolve two or more seperate selves within our brains, as I sometimes cross a busy street while thinking of something else and have no memory of it afterwards. People whose brains have been sliced down the middle as a cure for epilepsy can be scientifically proved to have two thinking selves. 92.24.189.188 (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

God Bless Anguilla

Hi, I'm looking for either an electronic (preferably free...) copy of the sheet music of this piece, or a MIDI other than the one on this page – thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 16:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Credit cards

This is a financial question, not a legal question, but in any case, I won't just do whatever people on here say, so don't feel worried that I'm going to take the first advice given and run out and do it. I'm just trying to think my way around this issue.

I have a credit card with a reasonably high APR (18% or so) that has some $7000 on it. (Blah.) That means I get a pretty high finance charge each month. At the moment I can pay about $200 a month on the thing, until my income situation changes, which should be in a year or two.

I've been using Mint.com, and it recommends that I transfer that balance to a new card, one where I'd have 0% APR for 18 months or so. No doubt Mint.com gets a commission if I do this. Now obviously this new card will probably juke the APR up to something high after those 18 months. But 18 months without finance charges would mean a difference of well over $1000 total. But I still won't probably be able to pay it all off after 18 months. And there is probably some kind of balance transfer fee as well.

I'm leaning towards doing what Mint.com recommends, only because it'll give me a bit more time, and I am expecting my income situation to improve within the next year or so.

How much would it theoretically hurt my credit rating to pull this off? Is there anything I should be aware of that I'm not considering? I'm not the most adept when it comes to financial things, though I'm not a fool in general. Any thoughts/suggestions/worries/considerations? Thanks in advance. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm probably going to be tarred and feathered for not saying this first: You should see a qualified financial expert. There. Done. Now for the OR of my response. I've done what you're thinking about a couple times and my credit rating has always been excellent. The fact that you have even more credit (with a second card now) and that you're paying your bills on time raises your credit score. Any decrease that your score gets due to transferring a balance (I don't know if there actually is a decrease for this) is, in my experience, outweighed by the first two items in my previous sentence. Many people do exactly as you're planning. Dismas|^(talk) 16:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. And yes, qualified financial advisor, etc. etc. I'm not going to take anything on here as gospel. I hereby promise not to hold anyone on here responsible for my own financial mishaps. :-) --Mr.98 (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Nobody knows for sure how credit scores work. Credit rating agencies won't publish anything about how they do it. Therefore, follow what makes financial sense to you and your creditors and act as if there were no credit rating somewhere. Reducing your debt, paying less APR makes perfectly sense. Creditors like people like you, who take a huge amount of credit and are at the brink of not being able to pay, but pay the bill at the end. Quest09 (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the main think with credit scores is never missing a payment and never making them late. Even if there is a transfer fee, 0% for eighteen months is very good. I would transfer your debt to the new 0% card, and continue paying it off. Do not use the new card for any other purpose (dont use any credit card in fact) but just paying off the debt. 92.15.11.45 (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There might be a one-time balance transfer fee from the card issuer as well. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Even so, all the fees combined won't be anywhere near the ~$1000 that he'll be saving in interest. Dismas|^(talk) 00:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This and this agree you'll suffer only a small short-term dip in your credit rating. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The articles above don't say one thing: if you change the credit card, and are saving money by that, you can repay your debt earlies, which also could improve your credit rating. Is that enough to balance this short-term dip? Who knows? Knowing how credit scores exactly work is impossible. Just act in the most possible reasonable way and your credit score will rise. Quest09 (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Even though this is probably out of date I still think it's worth your 60 min to take a look at some of the past tips and tricks of credit card companies. This and this also outline some of the traps and pitfalls of a 0% APR credit card. Read the terms and agreements, consult a financial expert and pursue all other options (short term loan from bank, etc) before making any commitment to anything. This is strictly my personally opinion but I would worry more about hidden fees, traps in the terms and agreements (voiding the 0% APR if you missed a payment to ANOTHER financial institution, etc) then the drop in credit score. Royor (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I remember one such 0% offer I had myself in the past, which stopped and returned to the normal high interest rate when I forgot to make a payment on time. So my advice is make the payments by direct debit or the equivalent in your country, and never use that card apart from paying off the debt. 92.15.14.132 (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

In Judaism, were Adam and Eve Jewish?

Is there a Rabbi in the house? A serious theological question regarding Adam and Eve (or rather their equivalent in the Torah: I'm more familiar with the Christian Old Testament). Were they Jewish? Given that we are all assumed (in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) to be descended from them, aren't we all ultimately of Jewish descent, according to Jewish faith? And if not, why not?

Given current debates going on within Wikipedia, it seems worth asking this, and it seemed safer to ask it here than to disrupt talk pages etc. Please note I'm asking the question specifically in relation to Judaism, and that other faiths (or non-faiths) aren't relevant at this point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Our Jews article says: "In Jewish tradition, Jewish ancestry is traced to the Biblical patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the second millennium BCE." I'm not sure what that would make Adam and Eve, though. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

By Jewish tradition, Abraham is the first Jew. However, the word 'Jew' was only used to refer to people after the Ten Lost Tribes had got lost, and it derives from the name of Judah.
Even as 'late' as Noah, the whole of humanity was regarded as one race, and the post-flood Noachide Code applied (applies!) to everybody, not just the Jews. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 17:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Given that Abraham would be considered the father of Judaism, no, Adam and Eve were not Jewish. Everything prior to Abraham's appearance is basically "background", presumably mankind's early relationship with God. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I should have paid more attention at my C of E primary school: thinking about it, I was probably told that the Jews were Abraham's descendants, though of course this was the Christian version anyway (or at least the C of E version, which always seemed to be vague on details). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Were they literally Abraham's descendants, or the descendants of Abraham's "disciples"? Or is that the same list? My Biblical history is a bit rusty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Jews are directly descended from Abraham's son Isaac, and through his son Jacob who became Israel after wrestling with an angel. Also, Isaac's son Esau narrowly missed out on being the ancestor of all Jews by Jacob's duplicity. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Roger. So Judaism was initially kind of like a family-run business (as with Islam, yes?) and branched out from there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, Jacob had twelve sons, each of which then had a tribe:

WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

A small correction to this is that there were actually 13 tribes, not 12 (although only 12 of the tribes, not including the Levites, received an allocation of land after the conquest of Canaan by Joshua). The descendants of Joseph formed not one, but two tribes: Manasseh and Ephraim. Marco polo (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There is some dispute over the exact counting of the tribes as well. When the land is allocated, the "Half-tribe of Manasseh" is allocated land on the east bank of the Jordan (though, they also had to participate in the clearing of the land for the rest of the tribes). It is unclear if this meant 1/2 of the tribe of Manasseh, with the other half receiving a different allocation of land, or if it meant that Manasseh itself was considered 1/2 of a tribe (being 1/2 of Joseph). Just as in numbering the ten commandments (there is disagreement on how to divide the passages to come up with 10), there is also some ambiguity on how to count through the 12 (13) tribes to get The Twelve Tribes. As a side note, strictly speaking there are only Jews after the Babylonian Captivity. Jews derives from "(of the tribe of) Judah". Prior to that, the people are usually referred to as "Hebrews" or "Israelites" (from "the descendants of Israel (Jacob)"). --Jayron32 01:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You get "10 lost tribes" only if you count Ephraim and Manasseh separately, and also allocate Levi exclusively to the northern kingdom. If you base it on the original 12, then there were only "8½ lost tribes" — since Judah, Benjamin, the remnants of Simeon, and substantial numbers of Levites remained in the southern kingdom... AnonMoos (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Abraham is not definitively considered Jewish, the consensus is that Abraham himself did not know if he was Jewish. The first definitive Jews were at the giving of the Torah. A Jew is defined as "being obligated in the mitzvot (commandments)", so you can see why there were no Jews before the Torah was given. Ariel. (talk) 10:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

For the same reason, Jesus was the founder of Christianity but was not himself a Christian, but a Jew. Jew-hating Christians ought to remember that. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

All people were, have been, and will continue to be superstitious to the extent that they believe false myths. There is no evidence for created initial humans, only for humans evolved from apes. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 13:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

World Leaders

Which world leaders have professions other than "professional politician", i.e., they are trained or certified or specialize in a different field (for example, the CHinese president Jintao Hu is an engineer). I specifically exclude the legal and military professions as being too close to the politician's profession, and I'm especially interested in leaders who, like Hu, are educated in the (non-political or historical) sciences. 24.92.78.167 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC).

Angela Merkel trained as a chemist. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

No, she didn't. She trained as a physicist.Quest09 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC).

Well, our article says she did her doctorate in "quantum chemistry" so I suppose you could call her either a chemist or a physicist; I don't know which she prefers and/or is most apt given what she actually did outside of being a politician. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Call her a physicist, if you meet her by accident. Incidentally, her first degree is in physics, she might call herself 'Diplom Physik' in her own country and use her Dr. before her name. The title 'chemist' (without the Diplom) is not protected, so everyone can claim to be one). Quest09 (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You should realize that the vast majority of world leaders had a profession before becoming full-time politicians (even if only for a relativly short time). It's easier to ask for world leaders which were formerly military officers, lawyers, or "only" professional politicians instead. Flamarande (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't Hitler supposedly at one time a wallpaper hanger? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about wallpaper hanger, but when he lived in Vienna he made a living by selling postcards of his drawings. They were usually of buildings.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The "wallpaper" thing is discussed in Paper hanger (Mundelein's speech). I've seen some of his drawings. They weren't bad. Better than I could have done. But he got savaged by critics. If Castro had had a curve ball, and if Hitler had had a patron, world history might have been vastly different. I'm guessing that when Hitler started sending folks to the death camps, the art critics were at the top of his list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he believed that people who painted what he sweepingly termed degenerate art merited elimination.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Prince William of Wales, the future King, appears to have gotten his degrees in the areas of Geography (which is somewhat political) and Art (which pretty much isn't). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

And he's a graduate of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst but now earns his living as a Royal Air Force Air-Sea Rescue helicopter pilot. Alansplodge (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Which would seem to be excluded by the OP's 'no military professions' dictum. As William isn't likely to say become a professional artist when he finishes his military career I don't think he really fits in to the OP's concept of people who have had a profession before becoming a 'politician' (presuming you think him a politician, you could also ask whether he's ever not been a politician) Nil Einne (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Silvio_Berlusconi was a successful businessman before becoming a politician. Certainly there seems to be a relatively strong link between becoming leaders of governments and being either a Lawyer/in the legal profession or having a military background. ny156uk (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

What constitutes a 'world leader' for the purposes of this question? You might just have to run down the List of current heads of state and government and click through each leader listed to check their biography. I've also left out professors of law, economics, and political science. From the top (I made it as far as Cape Verde):

• Bamir Topi, President of Albania, has a PhD in veterinary studies.
• Sali Berisha, Prime Minister of Albania, was a cardiologist and university professor.
• Serzh Sargsyan, President of Armenia, was a metalworker or machinist for a few years before he assumed a role with the Young Communist Union. (His biographical sketch is a bit unclear on the nature of the work, and he appears to have graduated from university during the same period; I don't know if he was doing part-time studies, or part-time work, or both.)
• Alexander Lukashenko, President of Belarus, graduated from the Belarussian Agricultural Academy and spent a few years as deputy chairman of a collective farm. (I'm not sure whether you'd count that as a agricultural job or a political one, however.)
• Sergei Sidorsky, Prime Minister of Belarus, was trained and worked as an electrical fitter and electrician.
• Bakir Izetbegović, a member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, was an architect.
• Pierre Nkurunziza, President of Burundi, studied education, and was working as a university lecturer prior to the civil war.
• Norodom Sihamoni, King of Cambodia, was a classical dance instructor.

Note that several biographies of heads of state lack full details on their educational history or pre-political careers, so there may be more that I'm missing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Lech Walesa was an electrician by trade. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama was a community organizer. Corvus cornix_talk 04:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Tony Blair was a singer in a punk band called Ugly Rumours; ironically, Mick Jagger had wished to become a politician prior to becoming lead singer of the Rolling Stones.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ugly Rumours were not a punk band; their existence pre-dates punk by several years – the gesture seen here [3] may be superficially punkish in spirit, but the haircut and clothes certainly are not. Besides, Blair was a student at the time, so this is not a case of him being a professional musician. 87.114.101.69 (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Former Czech president Václav Havel was a notable playwright and essayist before becoming president.

If we're going there, the current Croatian president Ivo Josipović is a pianist and composer (on the side, otherwise he's a lawyer). TomorrowTime (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

And Ignacy Jan Paderewski was a world-famous concert pianist before becoming the Prime Minister of Poland. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher studied chemistry, and worked as an industrial chemist, but later also did a degree in law. Leonid Brezhnev was a metallurgist. Benito Mussolini was a schoolteacher, and had qualified as such. Leopoldo Galtieri of Argentina studied engineering, but was a military engineer. --Colapeninsula (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

In communist China:

Presidents: Mao Zedong worked as a librarian, Hu Jintao worked as an engineer, Jiang Zemin worked as an engineer.

Premiers: Wen Jiabao worked as a geologist and engineer, Zhu Rongji trained as an engineer, Li Peng was an engineer. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Did the earliest Carved Stone Balls have knobs on?

There's a theory at the moment (down to Andrew Young of the University of Exeter and a NOVA documentary) that the objects are ball bearings, for transporting the gigantic stones of stone circles, but a ball bearing with six protruding knobs on is not a very good ball bearing, is it? Unless the ones from the neolithic are perfectly round? 81.131.34.141 (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Mathematically, a "roller" doesn't have to be a circle at all (see http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CurveofConstantWidth.html ; not sure we have much about it on Wikipedia). Only a wheel rotating around a fixed axis has to be a circle... AnonMoos (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that the Carved Stone Balls illustrated in the Wikipedia article are unlikely candidates for ball bearings, but are these the ones referred to by Young?

It's worth noting that if you use any approximately-round rock as a hammer, you tend to knock the high spots off, and make it progressively more spherical. The first stone balls may not have been intentionally carved at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm asking about a particular kind of artifact, which is late Neolithic / early Bronze Age, nearly always comes from north-east Scotland, and (the fact that inspired the latest theory) has a very distinct size, being nearly always two and three quarter inches across. They were really rather good at making stone things by the late Neolithic, you know, and wouldn't just randomly carve stone balls by mistake. They did however make a lot of them on purpose for unknown reasons. I'm asking about the earliest of that set of artifacts. 81.131.61.94 (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, missed your question. Yes, that is the general type of thing referred to, but as I say, the knobs confound me, so I don't know if there are smooth spherical varieties of the same thing, and that's what I'm asking. It's particularly interesting if all the earliest ones are plain spheres... or if none of them are, which would seem to throw the theory right out. 81.131.61.94 (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I did actually know that (the rolling 50p coin effect), and I wondered if these might be spherical versions of the same thing, but it seemed unlikely since I think the effect depends on the object having a constant width in any orientation, and I can't see how that can be achieved with six knobs. Four, now, arranged tetrahedrally, I could just about believe might work as a strange kind of bearing. Six is the usual number on a carved stone ball, though. 81.131.61.94 (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we need a link to the article/documentary here. Or at least a better description of the artefacts: to be clear, the objects in question aren't spherical? Do they resemble the ones shown in the Wikipedia article? If they do, what is the difficulty with assuming their purpose is 'non-functional' in an engineering sense (they clearly have a social/cultural "function" if they are mass producing them) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, they're decorated (incised with patterns at least - I don't know it they were painted); that tends to preclude a purely functional use. why take days to decorate something that's going to get used as a roller? That tends to lean towards ceremonial objects or weaponry. Given the size and shape I might have guessed an agricultural tool (the things look to be about perfect for grinding-stones - hold it in your hand and roll the curved protrusions over grain to make flour), but farm tools don't generally get symbolically decorated. very odd. --Ludwigs2 06:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about the ones in the Wikipedia article, Ludwigs? I think there is still some confusion about what it is we are actually discussing. Not that this is unusual for Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It might be that early ones are plain and functional, and late ones are produced as part of a tradition, and become impractically shaped and decorated. There must be various modern examples of this ... clogs, maybe (consider the picture of the cat in the giant painted ones). 213.122.4.215 (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's local news site with an overview, [4] the guy's profile on his university website, [5] and a transcript of the documentary [6] (which doesn't give much information). 213.122.4.215 (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Found the Wikipedia article: Curve of constant width (I didn't find it before because it didn't contain the string "roll" at all, until I added something just now...) AnonMoos (talk) 08:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw the NOVA program. What's interesting is that people making the balls at that time seem to have had such exact standardization of size over the entire period of ball-making: "Of the 387 known carved stone balls, 375 are about 70 mm in diameter, but twelve are known with diameters of 90 to 114 mm." WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this question is about the Stone spheres of Costa Rica? Many crazy (and otherwise) theories have been put forth about them. APL (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

OP linked to this article, mentioned the NOVA program (on Stonehenge), and already clarified: "Well, I'm asking about a particular kind of artifact, which is late Neolithic / early Bronze Age, nearly always comes from north-east Scotland". WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Christian Art history, Protestant Reformation

I'm a Christian artist and I teach on creativity. I'm looking for more information on the cause and effect on the arts during the Protestant Reformation. Where can I look ? Books that include information on the topic ?

Kevin Moffatt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.125.65 (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

We have an article The Reformation and art, and it looks as though some of the works listed in the "References" and "Further reading" sections may be helpful. Deor (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)