Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 April 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humanities desk
< April 26 << Mar | April | May >> April 28 >
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.


April 27

[edit]

Salvador, Bahia

[edit]

This article says Salvador's (Portuguese) historical "long name" is São Salvador da Bahia de Todos os Santos, which it defines as San Savior of All Saints' Bay. This seems like an almost-certainly flawed and/or inaccurate translation.

If "São" is indeed the equivalent of the Spanish "San," than it obviously begins with Holy Savior. "Bahia de Todos os Santos" obviously means 'bay of all saints' or All Saints' Bay. However, from what I know of Spanish (I don't speak Portuguese but they're similar), it seems that All saints' is being used as in all saints' bay, not as in Holy Savior of all saints. Furthermore, Holy Savior of the bay of all saints (the current translation), or in other words, "All Saints' Bay's Holy Savior" simply doesn't make much sense.

Therefore, my best guess would be that the accurate English translation is Holy Savior on All Saints' Bay. This is all independent speculation, and my question is whether anyone can help me confirm or deny this. Thanks, Swarm X 02:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

You might find more experts and linguists to answer your question at WP:Reference desk/Language. Nothing wrong in asking it here (many people, like me, keep an eye on both desks), but the answers you might elicit from the language desk could be sharper, better-focussed or more informed. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm Can't believe I missed that. Thank you. :) Swarm X 03:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied the question to the language board and refined the wording so it's more clear. Swarm X 03:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted over there, the city name appears to translate to "[City of the] Holy Savior, of [the state of] Bahia, of All Saints' [Bay]." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruling monarchs with twin siblings

[edit]

So, after answering a question over at the Entertainment desk on The Three Musketeers, I (as I ofetn do) let my mouse wander through various articles on Musketeer stories, and I was reminded of the way that the Man in the Iron Mask story finds its way into Dumas and later film adaptations; the crux is that the Man in the Iron Mask is really Louis XIV's twin brother, imprisoned to avoid dynastic embarassment. That got me thinking; I can't think of one European monarch at all who was a twin. Not a single one, going back to the dark ages, in any European country. That would make hundreds of possible monarchs, and given that the rate of twins is something like 1 out of every 40 pregnancies (on average), it would be quite amazing not to run into twins in any of the major dynastic houses, where one of the twins became a ruling monarch. Can anyone think of any ruling monarchs who were actually a twin? --Jayron32 03:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poking around, I found at List_of_twins#Twins_in_royal_families that James II of Scotland had a twin brother who died in infancy. Any other twins, preferably those which lived long enough for their sibling to sit on a throne? --Jayron32 03:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a couple of sites that discuss the issue, one with a list of names: [1], [2]. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff Jack, thanks for finding it. However, no-one listed on either of those sites was actually a twin sitting on a throne, which was kinda what I was looking for. The list in the second site notes, besides the aforementioned James II of Scotland, several female twins who were children of French kings (thus unable to become monarchs), and the two sets of twins of Prince Frederick Charles of Hesse, who himself was very briefly the King of Finland (for like 3 months); however two of those twins predeceased him, even before he was King, and his actual heir after their deaths (who would have presumably inherited the throne of Finland had it outlasted Frederick Charles) was Philipp, Landgrave of Hesse, who was not a twin himself. Thanks for finding those leads, some very good stuff there, however I'm still looking for an actual monarch who had an actual living twin sibling while he was ruling. --Jayron32 04:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
President Lech Kaczyński (left) nominating his brother, Jarosław Kaczyński, as prime minister of Poland, 14 July 2006
In the maybe-close-but-no-cigar category, you could consider Romulus & Remus and Lech & Jarosław Kaczyński, who (until a fatal plane crash last year en route to a commemoration of the Katyn Forest Massacre) were simultaneously President and Prime Minister of Poland. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh. That's actually pretty cool having a sitting President and a sitting Prime Minister being twins to each other. Makes you wonder if they ever pulled the "lets swap offices and see if anyone notices" trick... --Jayron32 05:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was probably more difficult for pre-modern twins to survive. We had a question like this maybe last year or a couple of years ago. The only medieval twins I can remember are Waleran de Beaumont, 1st Earl of Worcester and Robert de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Leicester. Twins were considered kind of unlucky, if they survived infancy, especially fraternal ones - without really understanding the processes of conception, the only explanation they had for fraternal twins was that the mother was impregnated by two different men. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shakespeare, of course, was far from shy about using twins in his plots and characters, as in Twelfth Night and even more boldly in A Comedy of Errors whose leading parts are two pairs of twins. But I'm pretty sure that twins (probably more because they were unusual than because they were familiar) have been a stock element of literature, poetry and folklore going back far beyond Romulus & Remus or Castor and Pollux. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Had Elvis Presley's twin brother survived, we might have had dual Kings of Rock and Roll. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tsar Nicholas II (left) with his first cousin King George V, Berlin, 1913.
Even though they were cousins rather than twins, there was a strong physical resemblance between Tsar Nicholas II and King George V. Gabbe (talk) 07:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We-ell... if you look at their eyes, the two men don't really look that similar. They just have the same haircut and the same beard in that photo. —Angr (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, they were born 3 years and thousands of miles apart. Not much twinning happening there. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A modern Tsar Nicholas lookalike is Prince Michael of Kent. Again, the beard helps. Alansplodge (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can do quite a good George V/Nicholas II when my beard's trimmed right and I'm in black and white (unless they had ginger beards too). DuncanHill (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mary I, Queen of Scots, miscarried twin sons after giving birth to her successor, James VI. Had they been born, they would have soon become heir presumptive and second-in-line, so I'd say they are relevant. Surtsicna (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another near miss. Oshin, King of Armenia (or, to be more precise, of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia), who reigned from 1307 to 1320, had a twin brother Alinakh who died in 1310, three years into Oshin's reign. Alinakh isn't mentioned on our Oshin page, but is on the Leo II, King of Armenia page. I call this a near miss because Cilicia was in what's now the Asiatic part of Turkey, while you asked for European monarchs, Jayron. --Antiquary (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still a good find! Thanks! --Jayron32 18:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case I'll throw in Princess Ashraf Pahlavi, twin sister of the late Shah of Iran. --Antiquary (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Armenian Cilicia was pretty well Europeanized though, thanks to its connections to the crusader states in the area (or, that had been in the area in previous generations). Adam Bishop (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to a point above (I got lost in the indentation), this paper is a survey of twin births in contemporary rural Nepal, which gives some useful data on the survival rate of twins outside the modern Western medical environment. Only 46% of twin pregnancies there resulted in two live births; over the first six months, individual twins had more than five times the mortality rate of similar "singletons". (After the first six months, they're no worse off). Shimgray | talk | 23:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting and very enlightening. That might explain why pre-modern adult twins were so rare... --Jayron32 01:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I think it's going to be dominant here. A quick order-of-magnitude estimate - assume an average of fifty monarchs at a time, at an average of 25 years each; that's 2000 over the past thousand years. If 1.6% of pregnancies are multiple births, there'd be approximately thirty who might be one of twins. Allowing for the increased mortality - and that we want cases of both twins surviving, not just singles like James II - you'd have literally a handful of cases. At that point, not finding any doesn't seem too unlikely! Shimgray | talk | 20:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hu vs Barack

[edit]

US is the most powerful country in the world and its military is stronger than the next 20 strongest countries combined. There is a saying the president of the US is the president of the world. Then why Hu is ranked the most powerful person and Barack second? [3] --Helephanda (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bigger army? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For countries with big armies, see List of countries by number of troops. --Theurgist (talk) 07:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the good old days, when warm bodies meant strong armies. *Sigh* DOR (HK) (talk) 08:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because dictators have more power than presidents. Barak can't do much without the approval of the legislative branch, the courts, and, ultimately, the voters. Hu, on the other hand, may have unlimited power in China. Of course, it's always difficult to tell where power really lies in such a closed political system, so it's possible that Hu is just a figurehead and somebody hidden wields the real power. StuRat (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rankings such as these are wholly the result of the bais inherent in the original criteria. This one is from Forbes, so that might give you some idea why they might play down the power of the US presidency. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A freely elected official is going to have relatively less power than a dictator does. There's one glitch with dictators, though: they die. We've had quite a few Presidents die, but it's a job, the open position gets filled quickly, and the presidency goes on. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(after super-massive edit conflict, so excuse redundancies) Presumably because (which I don't know to be true) Hu Jintao has far more of the power within the People's Republic of China than Barack Obama has of the power within the United States. The constitutional, legal and political restraints upon a U.S. President's power are made clear pretty well every week. While it's very hard for me as a non-Chinese-speaking non-Communist non-scholar to know how power is distributed within the Communist Party of China, the Chinese Council of Ministers, the People's Liberation Army and the secret police, whoever did Forbes' ranking must have thought that Hu Jintao faced far fewer limitations and challenges within that system than Obama does within the U.S. system as it works today. The National People's Congress has shown in recent years that it can sometimes have some residual influence on a few issues that don't bear upon the ruling élite's power, but it would be laughable to compare those powers to those of the United States Congress. China is trying for a number of reasons to become a nation of laws, but again it would be absurd to compare her judiciary's power over the executive (or the army and security services) to that of the United States Supreme Court or even to that of highest courts in the several states. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Richard McGregor's recent The Party is an excellent, easily accessible, study of where the CCP and its hierarchy fit in the Chinese system - if you do want to read up on the topic, I can wholeheartedly recommend it. Shimgray | talk | 21:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm really surprised that people believe that Hu Jintao is a dictator. 90 years of serious study into the structure of the Soviet style societies clearly indicate that all such societies have internal structures of power which clearly limit the power of the apparent "leader". Hu's power is mediated by multiple institutional and ideologically based social units. Moreover, Soviet style societies have far stronger cabinet style decision making structures, closer to the UK cabinet than the US executive's system. While Soviet style societies concentrate far more social power into the executive cabinet than, for example, the Australian contemporary example does, they are still reliant on secondary elements of their constitutional formation including the courts and legislative. Additionally, economic power operates in vastly different manners to that experienced in Western model capitalism. This is as bad as the totalitarian thesis. For a brief, you could read either of Djilas' new class or the one on conversations with Stalin. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it's realistic at all to say that Hu is a dictator, even qualified by the general observation about totalitarian regimes which Fifelfoo outlined. Hu is not Mao. Policy is, at the top end, formulated collectively by the Politburo, and the Politburo is by no means stuffed with people who are politically aligned with Hu, much less obey him blindly. In practice, because political mandate is not clearly conferred through elections, the regime needs to take more heed of popular opinion on certain matters than a democratic government would. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's leave the polemics for web forums, okay? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Obama can invade any country in the world, as long as Hu is willing to lend him the money. But more generally... the U.S. lost the Korean War where China was concerned - it was pushed back quickly to the line the Chinese had set. Likewise the Vietnam War. The Chinese always had four times the people. And now the Chinese have a military, they have an economy, they graduate three times as many engineers each year, they've set off the largest nuke ever built ... the whole idea of the U.S. as a "superpower" seems like a quaint and useful delusion. The Americans should pay for ill-considered military actions around the world while everyone else pats them on the head and laughs behind their backs. Wnt (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The methodology is explained on the website. It is all very arbitrary, and ultimately depended on the opinions of 'seven Forbes editors'. Generally, I suspect the aim of these Forbes lists is to strike a balance between being provocative and believable; accuracy doesn't seem to be one of their concerns. In particular, it seems absurd to put Sepp Blatter above the leaders of various powerful nations and international organisations. 81.98.38.48 (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This gentlemen put a lot of ads on his car, now how can I have them on mine?

[edit]

As a college student, I could use the extra ad revenue. I'm sure that my '02 PT Cruiser that I bought like-new would be the ideal condition to put the ad on. It also has flame paintjobs, and a 2-bike rack mounted high on the rear door. Therefore, it can be seen a mile off.

Now, how would I get advertisements onto my car so I can earn passive income like this gentleman in the link?

--70.179.169.115 (talk) 08:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer, it can be done but you'd need to guarantee that your car would be visible for a lot of the time in the right places. Previous discussion on this subject --Viennese Waltz 08:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic party in the northwestern Midwest

[edit]

There is a pocket of the rural midwest that consistently has stood out for nearly a century; it includes the northwestern part of the midwest, with the strongest point in the sparsely populated northeastern part of Minnesota. The area notably encompasses Minnesota and western Wisconsin, but at different times has also included the eastern Dakotas, western Wisconsin, eastern Iowa, northern Missouri and the upper peninsula of Michigan.

The trend appears to reach back at least into the 1910s, where it started as allegiance to the progressive and socialist parties. I've created a timeline:

I'm sorry for typing out such a long explanation of all of this (WP:TL;DR), but I hope I've formatted all of this well enough that some of you can give your time to it and analyze it. I can't for the life of me figure out why rural Minnesota is much different than rural New England, or rural Nebraska. The only thing I can think is the Norwegian influence, but a) why did the pro-Democratic feeling crystallize so much in the 1980s (well after the Norwegians had integrated, and while their Lutheran brethren in New England still voted Republican) and b) why did the region move around so much (I don't think there are many Norwegians in northern Missouri; I could be wrong) It's all very puzzling.

Thanks for your time already. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I very strongly suspect that democratic votes are proxying for an underlying social-political complex aligned far more strongly with the complexes found in Social Democratic and Labourite politics, what many Americans call "progressive". While the Democrats do contain some progressive strains, they're not an ideological party. It is more likely that the underlying sociological construct has forced the Democratic party in that region to reflect their values. I'd suggest reading some labour or social history on the Wisconsin idea. This'll probably give you an idea why rural "small" farmers have integrated into a progressive political alliance. In my Australian experience the argument comes from Maoists and older Communists about the ability of workers in settler societies to become small farmers, and conversely the reliance of small farmers on part time employment as workers. You may already be aware of this because you're aware of Debs. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some books to look at (although I've only read the first all the way through) are:
  1. The Intellectuals and McCarthy: the radical specter by Michael Paul Rogin, MIT Press, 1966(?) -- concentrates on detailed study of voting patterns in Wisconsin and the Dakotas
  2. Midwestern Progressive Politics by Russell B. Nye, Harper Torchbooks, 1962 (?)
  3. The Emerging Republican Majority by Kevin Phillips, Anchor Doubleday, 1969
  4. Agrarian Socialism by Seymour Martin Lipset, about the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in Western Canada
(I may have a chance to give more specific bibliographic details later, although that's enough information to do your own Google/Google Books/Amazon search.) Compare the earlier question on this page about Southern Democratic presidents, where I posted a comparison of the Deep South's distinctive voting patterns (e.g. for Al Smith, Strom Thurmond, Barry Goldwater and George Wallace). —— Shakescene (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you haven't done so already, see Wikipedia's articles on subjects and people like the Nonpartisan League, the Farmer-Labor Party, A.C. Townley and Henrik Shipstead, in addition to the obvious ones about Hubert Humphrey, Eugene McCarthy, Orville Freeman, Paul Wellstone, Robert M. La Follette, Sr. and Robert M. La Follette, Jr. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This region was historically very different from rural New England. Rural New England was a region of small farmers (entrepreneurs), entrepreneurial craftsmen, and, to a lesser extent, wealthy retirees and heirs living on country estates on the proceeds of their or their ancestors' investments in industry. These groups have traditionally been at the heart of the Republican Party. New England farmers were mainly dairy farmers whose customers were mainly grocers and small wholesalers based in the cities of New England and New York, so these farmers had some entrepreneurial autonomy. By contrast, northern Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan were largely populated by loggers and miners employed by large companies based in Minneapolis or Chicago, or grain farmers (mainly in the eastern Dakotas and western Minnesota) at the mercy of the railroads and large warehousing firms in Midwestern cities. (See our article on Mesabi Range for the importance of mining in northern Minnesota.) Prior to the emergence of the Progressive movement, the Republican Party had the allegiance of most Protestant whites in the northern States. When Progressivism first emerged, it was mainly a movement of the urban and largely professional middle class. It was Robert M. LaFollette, Sr., of Wisconsin, who after 1900 made Progressivism appealing to farmers and workers with his anti-corporate rhetoric. In many ways, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was able to coopt the concerns of this voting block for the Democratic Party during the Great Depression, and the local Democratic parties of the upper Midwest have been careful to continue to serve this constituency ever since. Marco polo (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Michael P. Rogin's book (The Intellectuals & McCarthy) carefully distinguishes the counties of Wisconsin and the Dakotas not only by their ethnicity and religion, but also by the soil and crops grown. He correlates conservative tendencies with the rich soil of the Corn (maize) Belt, similar to that of parts of Kansas, Nebraska and Iowa, and radical ones with the poorer soil of the Wheat Belt, further distinguished — for those who want to research Wikipedia, the Census Bureau (http://wwww.census.gov) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (e.g. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Wheat/) — between winter wheat and spring wheat. Rogin found a clear difference between those counties that supported Joseph McCarthy and those that had supported Robert M. La Follette, Sr. That sharp divide seems to have persisted in Wisconsin to this very day; I'd suggest checking the files of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (http://www.jsonline.com/news) to see the razor-thin Wisconsin Supreme Court election results of April 5, 2011 (no doubt headed to a second or third recount). —— Shakescene (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say that Wikipedia's articles are pretty thin: Wheat Belt and Grain Belt redirect to Corn Belt which is a rather short article. But with a little digging, I found some of the USDA's (and Cornell University's) terrific maps of crop by county; see also (for more general county statistics) the Department's Atlas of Rural and Small-Town America. (By the way, I'm no farm boy or Midwesterner.) —— Shakescene (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See also 2007 Census of Agriculture: Crops & Plants and 2007 Census of Agriculture: Economics. Note that some kinds of historical data for past years are available.—— Shakescene (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
¶ Also by the way, Gene Debs was no Badger, he was a Hoosier born in the railroad crossroads of Terre Haute, Indiana (where I've seen the house where he spent his later years sharing tales and whiskey with James Whitcomb Riley, the "Hoosier Poet"). In 1924, "Fighting Bob" La Follette, the Progressive candidate for President (also endorsed by the Debs' Socialist Party of America), carried his home state of Wisconsin. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I appreciate all the answers to my question. I guess at this point I may need to do some further reading, but I'm also looking to see if i can't yet wiggle a more specific answer out of this board. I'm not debating the idea that a rural farmer will necessary be against progressivist ideas; just ask the black rural farmers in the South. What I'm wondering is why these specific rural farmers embraced progressivism, while their counterparts across the country embraced the Republican Party. As an individual living in Pennsylvania, I can tell you quite succinctly why rural people here vote Republican: the Democrats have come to represent the ideas that are simply too modern and cosmopolitan for a culture that takes pride in traditional values. In other words, I'm saying that rural people are close to the Republicans on social issues, but the rural people have traditionally leaned closer to Democrats on economic issues (think of West Virginia: the state votes one of the strongest in the country in voting Republicans in presidential elections, yet paradoxically has one of the highest Democrat/Republican voter ratios and often votes for socially conservative Dems in local elections).

Yet something about the circumstances of this part of the midwest have led these people to buck the trends which are universal in areas like the South, the Great Plains, the rust belt (save a few holdouts in Appalachia... e.g., Pennsylvania's 12th congressional district). Apparently this something is strongest in northern Minnesota, but extends to other parts of the western midwest. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part of it is historical - you still hear people in Wisconsin talking about the legacy of La Follette, and consider themselves "Progressives" (rather than just "Democrats") to this day. But I think you mistake the Urban/Rural divide. My understanding is that even in the upper Midwest, the urban areas will tend toward Democrats, and the rural areas tend toward Republican, for many of the reasons you state. - I can't say why the upper Midwest is a bastion of progressiveism, but I'd like to point out several differences about the region which might contribute. First, the region is heavily dominated (at least historically) by Lutherans [4] Archived 2006-06-30 at the Wayback Machine, rather than Baptists or Catholics or other more "conservative" Christian groups. This probably has an influence on their outlook. Another factor is the ethinic background of people living there. There's a high number of Scandinavians in the region [5] [6]. I don't know the core cause, but keep in mind that the Scandinavian countries tend to be the more liberal (in the sense of "Democrat-like") than other European countries. Some of that likely carried over to the immigrants. (P.S. Take all this with a grain of salt - this research had A Prairie Home Companion as a primary source.) -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haunted house

[edit]

If I lived in a very old house and publicised the "fact" that it was haunted, and I was happy to rent rooms or show tourists round, would I enhance or decrease the value of the house? Kittybrewster ☎ 09:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it would depend on the tourists, on the location, and on the spin you gave the haunting. I know of a bed and breakfast in Gettysburg PA that features ghost stories and offers guests the opportunity of a "ghost tour" of the area with a self-described "ghost storyteller and paranormal." "Many psychics," her site claims, "have reported seeing soldiers following her and standing at attention around her group." (It doesn't say whether the spectral spectators were laughing or simply waiting for their cut.) --- OtherDave (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My fear is that I am so succesful that, while I will rake in income, I will devalue the house when I sell it. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just stiff the buyer by not telling them. After all those people you defrauded, one more person isn't going to make any difference. 188.157.125.196 (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit spooked by Stambovsky v. Ackley. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When my siblings and I put my parents' house up for sale the estate agent/real estate person asked us whether there were any murders, suicides or reported paranormal sightings connected with the property.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose being "haunted" could decrease the re-sale value of your house ... but it could also increase it... that depends on how you market it, and who you market it to. Some buyers will shy away, but others will be attracted to the idea of living in a haunted house.
Before you act, however, talk with your neighbors. What happens with one house can have an effect on neighboring property values. Even without the haunted part, living near a tourist attraction can decrease values (more strangers in the neighborhood means a greater potential for crime, etc).
Also, check your local zoning ordinances, there may be restrictions on operating your home as a business. Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See stigmatized property. Googlemeister (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like it deserves a revisit! The freedom of religion should guarantee the right of anyone to either believe in ghosts within a house, or (such as ordinary Protestants) to disbelieve absolutely in the possibility of ghosts, as their beliefs dictate. Wnt (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most powerful US President

[edit]

Which American president had the most personal power? I would guess Kennedy, but I may be wrong.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define "personal power"? FDR cold do a lot by presidential decree during WWII. Nixon got away with all sorts of things prior to Watergate. Lincoln was practically a dictator during the Civil War. Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I suggested Kennedy is because his brother Robert was US Attorney-General.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest Washington. Over time, Congress has continually stripped away the power of the Executive office, so the original President would be the one with the most power. The problem is that nobody here has first-hand experience with his day-to-day policies and agendas. So, we fall back on the last 30 or so years and pick someone from that era. The only way to get a real answer is to first form a metric for measuring power and then measure every president's power by that metric. -- kainaw™ 13:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's really more the other way around: over time, Congress has ceded more power to the President and the executive administration. Washington couldn't enforce domestic laws without the help of the state governments, and couldn't conduct any business overseas other than basic diplomacy. --M@rēino 17:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FDR is a good choice, though he had a hostile Supreme Court to deal with. Nixon's party never controlled Congress during his presidency, so he's out. Mythology aside, JFK wasn't a particularly popular or effective president, and the FBI wasn't really under his control, so probably not him. Everyone before Wilson revolutionized the power of the presidency is out. The best bet might be LBJ in 1965. —Kevin Myers 13:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln appropriated an awful lot of powers during the Civil War. According to Abraham Lincoln#Assuming command for the Union in the war, "he expanded his war powers, and imposed a blockade, disbursed funds before appropriation by Congress, and suspended the writ of habeas corpus, arresting and imprisoning thousands of suspected Confederate sympathizers without warrant." Pais (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious why LBJ? Because of his sending troops without Congress approval during the Vietnam War?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution pretty much gave LBJ a blank check to do whatever he deemed necessary in Vietnam. The Democrat-controlled Congress went along willingly. That entire fiasco is an illustration of what happens when you have a one-party government - something that the American electorate hasn't entirely figured out yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LBJ was a masterful legislator whose party had a lock on Congress. Few US Presidents had as much legislative wherewithal and military power at his disposal. But I guess FDR is probably the overall winner. —Kevin Myers 14:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it matters if we are measuring absolute power or adjusting for the times. George Washington was a big man in a small government in a minor nation. He was a big fish in a small pond, while FDR was the leader of the free world. —Kevin Myers 14:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, to answer the question properly we have to determine what we mean by "personal power". Every President has wielded some degree of power, simply by being the head of the Executive branch of the US Government and Commander in Chief of the US Military. However, these powers are (to some degree) inherent in the Presidency (ie the office) not in the person of the President. As the Executive Branch grew over the years, and especially since the US became a military Super Power, the office of the President has become more "powerful". In discussing the personal power of any given President, we need to examine how each man used the power inherent in the office. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One definition of "the most personal power" might be "the ability to personally bring about, through orders, the deaths of the maximum number of humans", and the winner of that contest might be LBJ again. This graph and our Nuclear disarmament article show that the maximum US nuclear warhead count was 32,040 in 1966, which was in LBJ's term. This is clearly a very rough guess because the yields and missile accuracy changed over time, and I acknowledge that LBJ may have had more destructive power at his fingertip later in his term; or Nixon may have had more, or Ford, or Carter, or Reagan. I also acknowledge that LBJ could have caused additional deaths after expending the entire US nuclear arsenal, by ordering the US armed forces to wipe out whoever was left. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Lincoln, FDR, and LBJ, George Washington had tremendous influence due to his great popularity and status as a national figure and Revolutionary War hero. I would also put Andrew Jackson high up on the list. Although he struggled with Congress at times, Jackson won the Bank War, carried out Indian removal despite opposition from the judiciary, and exemplified a type of populism that carried his name - Jacksonian democracy. Neutralitytalk 19:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the ones to be labeled "most powerful" could be the ones who advanced the office some way or another, several of which have been named here. If you look at the list of great, near-great, mediocre, and lousy Presidents, I think you'll find that to be a common thread. Lincoln advanced the power of the presidency and is considered a great President. His 2 or 3 predecessors basically sat out their terms and did nothing useful, hence they're ranked among the worst. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, folks with libertarian leanings have sometimes complained that the standard historical rankings of Presidents of the United States celebrates presidents who increase the power of the presidency and/or the national government, as if the increase in centralized power was an objectively good thing. Members of both parties today deplore power-grabbing by presidents of the opposite party, while supporting similar activities by their own party's president. —Kevin Myers 23:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with FDR, if only because of the highly unusual concentration of power in the hands of the federal Executive Branch during a major war. Think of the kinds of things FDR did: interning an entire ethnic group, building secret cities, censoring the media, rationing essential items, etc. That's beyond all FDR did to transform America in peacetime. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am not an expert, I would choose from this group: Washington, Lincoln, or FDR. Washington was able to put down the Whiskey Rebellion and was immensely popular because of his leadership during the Revolutionary War, but I agree with the statement above that explains that Lincoln assumed many unusual powers during the Civil War. FDR was President for more than twelve years, and little trademarks (e.g. "fireside chats") made him better-known to average Americans than some of his predecessors had been. Also, Roosevelt was President during what was the country's largest-scale war, so he amassed some personal power while leading the war effort, if the question is meant this way. DCI2026 (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was Karl Marx by marriage in line to the English throne?

[edit]

So at one point, freshman year I had a econ proffesor who was a bit of a trivia buff. Anyway so this question mentioned above, no more than a few years later some up, a friend of mine did a breif googling on the subject (whether by marriage Karl Marx was in line to the throne, I believe it was ninth according to that econ proffesor I had, but then again it's been some time). So to clear this up, I figured I'd turn here. Any help to resolve this would be most appreciated. 156.33.135.235 (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless Karl Marx himself was descended from King William I (the Conqueror), then he couldn't possibly be in the line for the English throne. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The earliest possible ancestor is more recent than William the Conqueror. Since the Act of Settlement 1701, only Protestant descendants of Sophia of Hanover can be in line for the throne. Pais (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sophia was also a descendant of William the Conqueror. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but any descendant of his who isn't a descendant of hers is out of the line of succession. Likewise any descendant of hers who is a Roman Catholic, or married to one. Pais (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I follow. The purpose of that law was probably to stabilize the situation, and particularly to keep Catholics off the throne. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He married Jenny von Westphalen, whose paternal grandfather married a Jenny Wishart who was apparently a relative of the Earl of Argyll, so he might have been in line to the throne by marriage (in the sense that a whole bunch of other people who were also in line to the throne would have had to all die first). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever Jenny's status, Karl would not acquire any place in the queue for the throne by marriage to her. So acquiring by marriage ... no. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, sorry - if a male marries into the Royal family, he won't become king even if she becomes queen, so, no. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly... the fact that Marx married someone who might have been in the line of succession would not give him a place in the line. If we assume that his wife did have a claim, she might become Queen. However, he would not have become King. He probably would have been made Prince Consort (in the way that Prince Albert did not become King when he married Queen Victoria).
Note... there was one person who did become King of England through marriage (Philip II of Spain was made King of England when he married Queen Mary I). However, that was by her decree (with the approval of Parliament) and not by any right or linage that he had. Some may argue that William III became King due to his marriage to Mary II (ruling jointly with her while she lived, and then ruling as King on his own when Mary died), but William was quite senior in the line of succession in his own right... His Mother was the eldest daughter of Charles I ... When he was born, William was third in line, right after his uncles, Charles II and James II... he was bumped down when James had two daughters: Mary (William's future wife) and Ann ... he was bumped down again when Ann had children (and, technically, again when James II had a son by his second wife... but that birth resulted in the Glorious Revolution, and William kicked out his Father-in-law). Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, basically, if Jenny had become queen, Karl could have become king by her decree and with the approval of Parliament, so it is theoretically possible? I'm not the OP, here, I'm just interested. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even you could become king by royal decree and with the approval of Parliament. Don't hold your breath, though... ;-) Pais (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly - I'm a catholic. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you had the chance to reign over England, you could consider converting. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True, and then I get to rule over the country AND wear condoms - win win, really :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Today no... and not at the time that Marx lived either. By then, a Queen could not simply declare her husband King, the way Bloody Mary did. In Mary's day day the King or Queen held real power, and Parliament was more of a rubber stamp. Today, the situation is reversed. Parliament is the real power in the UK, and the King or Queen only reigns (as opposed to rules) because Parliament says so. Queen Victoria wanted Albert to be made King, but Parliament said no. Parliament makes the rules now, not the Monarch. So, no, you could not become King by Royal Decree in today's world. You could only become King (or Queen) by Parliamentary Statute. Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Prince Consort thing, even that's only ever happened once, to Queen Victoria's husband Prince Albert. There have been numerous other husbands of queens, including Phil the Greek, but none of them ever became Prince Consort, so that's an unlikely scenario. (Aside: Whenever I hear the name Karl Marx these days, I think of this Karl Marx, but that's probably not who the OP is talking about.) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our article Prince consort says Prince Philip is a prince consort (lower-case p & c), though he has not been awarded the title Prince Consort (capital P & C). It also says that Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark has been awarded the upper-case title. Pais (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing the so-called "English" throne. What happens in foreign climes is not relevant to the question. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marx was related to Walter Benjamin and Heinrich Heine, though! --Lazer Stein (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Germany vs. Switzerland: conflict about flying rights

[edit]

Recently I read about tensions between Germany and Switzerland and one point was about flying rights. What is meant here? Quest09 (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know specifically what you speak of, and you've not given enough details for me to track it down, but in the context of international relations, "flying rights" is a term usually referring to the nine freedoms of the air. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 17:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article discusses it. Aircraft heading for Zurich Airport from the north are in their descent pattern over southern Bavaria (the airport is only about 8 miles from the border). This was annoying people in Germany, who complained. The two countries didn't reach an accord, so Germany banned night flights over that part of its airspace altogether, forcing the planes heading for Zurich to fly over expensive neighbourhoods in the city instead. That article is five years old, so I don't know the current situation. If it persisted for a while (and particularly if it persists still) the Zurich Airport article would benefit from a mention of it. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 17:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Baden-Württemberg, not Bavaria. --Wrongfilter (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]
The issue is still up-to-date. As said above, the Zurich airport is close to Germany, therefore, Germany feels entitle to enforce house rules on flights, due to noise pollution. Apparently, it is a big deal for both parties.

For a German WK about the conflict: [[7]]. For an English article about it: [[8]]. Wikiweek (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Method of loci

[edit]

Hello all. I recently asked a question about a speech I have to memorize, and I received a very helpful answer that I might use the classic method of loci. However, the speech I have to give is on the value of ambition, and is kind of abstract (for example, how does one visualize the concept of a "campaign promise"?) Any tips on how to apply the method of loci to more abstract ideas? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The method of loci doesn't require any real connection to the words you need to memorize, it just has to make sense to you. Maybe you visuallize a signed contract to represent a "promise", so when you walk through your "memory garden" (or whatever particulars you set up for your Method of Loci "walk"), and you pick up a signed piece of paper, that's supposed to be the "promise". It doesn't matter what you choose. You could choose an apple to represent the campaign promise, if that worked for you as well. It just has to make sense to you... --Jayron32 18:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the appropriate locus, you could place George H. W. Bush's head in a jar (a la Futurama), repeating over and over "Read my lips: no new taxes." (It has often been recommended that the images used in a "memory palace" be as striking as possible so that they stick in the memory.) Deor (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An alternate mnemonic system is the set of concrete words which rhyme with counting numbers: "One is a bun, two is a shoe, three is a tree, four is a door, five is a hive, six is sticks, seven is heaven, eight is a gate, nine is a lion, ten is a hen." These images are usually easy to associate with a thing in a memorable image, and are quickly learned by a few repetitions. If an abstract term like "campaign promise" is to be remembered for the ninth point in the speech, picture a lion running around in "Camp Pain" biting the campers painfully, while promising to stop. If point number six was George Bush's line "read my lips," you could picture him with sticks stuck through piercings in his lips. The benefit of number cues is that you are guaranteed to at least remember the numbers in order, and the hook which rhymes with the number. Any speech with more than ten main points is probably going to bore the audience to sleep, anyway. Edison (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Method of Loci is bullshit. You just need to visualize the things, you don't have to put them anywhere. You can practice like this: open any news article, read a sentence or two out loud, and then try to repeat it without looking. If you don't visualize the things actively as you hear them, you can not repeat more than 15-20 words verbatim. With a little visualization practice, you can get up to 25-28, and once you really learn to visualize what you're hearing as you're reading it, it's easily 30-35 words. If you get to that stage, you can just read your own text while visualizing it actively. Just practice on any material you want, and count the words, until you can do 35 at a time. 79.122.2.135 (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its only bullshit if it doesn't work for you. It may come as an amazing shock to you, but there are these things in the world called "other people" and sometimes, these other people are "different" from you. It doesn't make them wrong or incorrect. And it doesn't make it bullshit if their memory tricks work for them. It also isn't wrong if it doesn't work for you. Not being exactly identical is OK... --Jayron32 01:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2011_April_27&oldid=1117325590"