Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 August 31

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.

August 31

Heavenly Theology

NASA recently successfully landed the Curiosity Rover on Mars to search for signs of life of non-terrestrial origin. Other efforts, such as SETI, are also doing the same thing.

Hypothetically, if tomorrow it was announced that extraterrestrial life had been found, how would the theology of religions such as Catholicism, Judaism and Islam deal with this?Honeyman2010 (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds to me like this calls for speculation. In any case, this was already asked and discussed here this month. See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2012_August_17#Religious_implications_of_extraterrestrial_contact to read the previous discussion.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 01:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion of this in The Eerie Silence by Paul Davies. He says that the discovery of intelligent extraterrestrial life would "deal a severe blow" to religion, but that it may be possible for them to assimilate it in a similar way to heliocentricism and evolution. It would pose theological problems for Christianity in that Jesus was specifically sent to save humans, which begs the question of how the aliens (who may be far more advanced than us) are to be saved. Two solutions that have been suggested are that (a) Jesus was incarnated as an alien on many different worlds (which has Biblical problems, apparently) and (b) that we are somehow supposed to convert the aliens to Christianity. Surveys of believers indicate it would not make much difference. Hut 8.5 19:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

What are the Biblical problems? 109.144.162.204 (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe the idea is that it would be problematic since none of the Evangelists mentioned it. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI reportedly said it wouldn't matter if extraterrestrials were encountered. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The Pope said no such thing; an employee for the Vatican Observatory said it. That gets thrown around a lot like it was some kind of ex cathedra declaration or something, but that's not the case. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding Judaism, I have no doubt that the aliens would be considered just another set of goyim and if they were amenable to our religions, local congregations would probably have a fit about how the conversion is to be done and whether the alien counts towards a minyan. However, I don't think it would rock the religion to its feet.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • HA! If they convert, I see no problem with counting them for a minyan. My shul would definitely be open to having alien members! Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wright Enrichment's Logo-with-motto

http://www.anh-usa.org/wild-west-supplements/

Dateline aired a documentary about dry labs, that's fake labs giving a 3rd party verification of authenticity of ingredient lists. Wright Enrichment which seems to be the Wright Group [1] seems to have the CIRCULAR logo here.

On the doc, I saw a another logo which a motto. Can someone provide the picture? Thank you.Curb Chain (talk) 06:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Michigan and Virginia Presidential Vote in 1884 and 1888

How come Michigan was so close in the 1884 election and how come Virginia was so close in the 1884 and 1888 elections when they were solid states for a particular party in other years such as 1876, 1880, and 1892? Futurist110 (talk) 06:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the Q. Why would having voted solidly for one party in a given election require a state to do so in all other elections ? The issues will be different in each election, and some issues divide down by geography, while others do not. StuRat (talk) 08:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The voting patterns relative to the rest of the nation were very constant for most states between 1876 and 1892. Thus, Michigan and Virginia were exceptions to this rule and I want to know why. Futurist110 (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

One reason might be that Blaine, the Republican candidate in 1884, was not a midwesterner, and had less appeal to people there. In all other elections from 1868 to 1900, the Republican candidate had been born either in Illinois (Grant) or Ohio (Hayes, Garfield, Harrison, McKinley). I'm better at the 1896 election, but recall some discussion in Stanley Jones' The Presidential Election of 1896 that Virginia was an uneasy part of the Solid South and Bryan didn't take it by any great margin.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

In regards to Virginia, did it allow black people there to vote in 1884 and 1888? Black people formed than a third of Virginia's population at the time, if I recall correctly, so if more black people were allowed to vote in Virginia in those two elections then the GOP would have gotten a greater percentage of the vote there since blacks before the Great Depression voted overwhelmingly Republican. Futurist110 (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Contstitutionally, they had the right to, that is Virginia could not pass any explicit laws banning them, but Southern society had a lot of ways to suppress the black vote. Starting in the 1870s, and lasting through the civil rights era, black people were systatically driven out of the polls. Some states had poll taxes, which most black people couldn't afford (and which poor white people were conveniently excused if they didn't pay) or "civics tests" which kept illiterate people from the polls (or which the graders would outright cheat and fail African Americans). See Disfranchisement after Reconstruction era and Jim Crow laws and Solid South for some background. The Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 helped to put an end to this, though there are still some systemic and social disenfranchisement of black voters even today; Voter ID laws are seen as a more modern take on Jim Crow, though often they are targeted at Latino/Latina voters as much as African Americans today. --Jayron32 02:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, and other kinds of anti-black discrimination in the South after the Civil War. However, I am wondering if there were less efforts to prevent blacks from voting in Virginia in 1884 and 1888 in comparison to other years (1876, 1880, 1892). Also, I think voter ID laws are more partisan than racist, though I think there were several hundred people who voted illegally in MInnesota in 2008, which might have been enough to give Al Franken a victory in the Senate race there that year (if enough of those people who voted illegally that year voted for Franken). Futurist110 (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

. --Jayron32 04:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Here you go -- http://www.minnesotamajority.org/Portals/0/documents/ReportOnFelonVoters.pdf . However, looking at it again (I haven't looked at it for over a year), I'm not sure if this report is accurate. Futurist110 (talk) 05:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have something that isn't produced or hosted by a partisan website like Minnesota Majority? Their website makes clear they are not an impartial agency. I wouldn't necessarily trust anything published there without independent verification from an actual reliable source. Sources need to be reliable to verify claims here, and that website doesn't have any of the hallmarks of reliability as spelled out at WP:RS. --Jayron32 05:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Is the statement by Byron York here (http://washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1099-felons-vote-in-race-won-by-312-ballots/article/2504163) about 243 people being on trial for voter fraud and about the possibility of some people who might have committed voter fraud not having enough evidence to be prosecuted also an unreliable source? For the record, I'm not saying that there was large voter fraud in Minnesota in 2008, only that I want to look at all the evidence in regards to this issue. Futurist110 (talk) 05:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Dewey Grantham, in The Democratic South (Lamar Memorial Lectures, Mercer University, October 1962; W.W. Norton, New York, 1965) groups Virginia with North Carolina and Tennessee as Upper South states that remained battlegrounds between the two parties from 1876 to 1892 (pages 25-26). —— Shakescene (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Blaming Jews for Jesus's Crucifixion

I apologize if this topic is controversial or offensive, but how come Christians have blamed Jews for Jesus's crucifixion and used it to justify various atrocities and horrible acts towards the Jews for hundreds of years? I mean, Jesus was allegedly resurrected a few days later anyway, so Judas (and the Jews) didn't do any permanent harm to anyone. Thus, what was the point of blaming the Jews for something that allegedly did not permanent harm (and for the record, it's also stupid to blame all the Jews for the crime of one Jew, but this isn't my main point here)? Futurist110 (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

See Antisemitism and the New Testament. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 07:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

See Matthew 27:25. As a strictly legal matter, the Romans of ca. 30-35 A.D. did not allow the local native Jewish authorities (High Priest etc.) of the Roman province of Judaea to impose the death penalty, so the execution took place under Roman auspices, and a Roman official had to take direct personal responsibility for ordering the execution (as is clear from the New Testament account). AnonMoos (talk) 07:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Matthew 27:25. Alansplodge (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Telling people "the Jews killed God" is easier than explaining subtle theology. If you need an excuse to get rid of some Jews (because, for example, you're a Christian king who owes them money and you don't feel like paying your debts), it's an easy way to whip up a mob. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

And besides, it's not like even all Jews back then voted on it. Only a small group of Jews decided to request the death penalty. And, even if all Jews had voted on it, our society largely rejects the idea of hereditary guilt (although that was big in Biblical times). As to your point of it not doing any permanent harm, on the contrary, the resurrection of Christ is the very core of Christianity, so the crucifixion was absolutely necessary. Thus, Christians should all be thankful to Jews. StuRat (talk) 08:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Our article on Felix culpa may be instructive on the point. Marnanel (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

While there's no excuse for antisemitism and persecution of Jews, the argument that 'it did no harm' doesn't really go (at least from a Christian perspective). Guilt is not determined by the outcome, but by the intention. According to the Torah, if you falsely accuse someone of a capital crime and this is discovered, you get the death penalty, because despite the fact that no harm has been done (the falseness of the claim was discovered), you intended for the accused to receive this unjust penalty. - Lindert (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Another cynical note: at least in ancient and medieval Christians, the very idea that Jews still existed was pretty embarrassing. If Jesus was really the saviour, why wouldn't all the Jews convert? Accusing them of being "Christ killers" was another way to deal with this frustration. Also, we have an article about deicide and Jewish deicide specifically, which may help. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The 'no permanent harm' element is highly misleading. The story of Doubting Thomas makes clear that (according to the Gospel writers) Jesus still had his death-wounds after the Resurrection. And torturing someone to the point of death is bad whether or not they survive. But as others have noted: it's pretty clear from the Gospel accounts that the death sentence was called for by a collaborationist elite who were threatened by revolutionary preachers. Jesus was far from unique in falling victim to this situation; John the Baptist died because the Tetrarch and his family disliked criticism. And the crowd calling for Jesus' death are specifically said to have been incited by the collaborators. Moreover, Jesus himself preached against the idea of hereditary guilt on more than one occasion. (I can think of three examples: the man born blind, and the historical references to the Tower of Siloam disaster and the massacred Pharisees.) Of course, we only have the Gospel-writers' word for it that Caiaphas and the other leaders of the Sanhedrin that year were collaborators, etc. While it's plausible, it's worth remembering that we don't have corroboration for it. So in short, blaming 'the Jews' for Jesus' death runs counter to the text of the story, the teaching of Jesus, and the way we generally understand culpability. None of which has stopped bigots down to the present day from continuing to do so. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The WP article above also has two Gospel quotes to support treating Jews with respect - John 4:22 and Romans 11:28; (although the latter is a bit ambiguous). As previously noted, it doesn't stop bigots. Alansplodge (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Modern sensibilities are repulsed by notions of collective guilt and judgment. But collective judgments are not a monopoly of Christians. Originally there were, in addition to Christian gentiles, Christian Jews who participated in synagog. About 90 AD, in order to exclude these Jewish followers of Jesus, the traditional 18 Benedictions that were read in service were amended to add a 19th "blessing", the cursing of the apostates, or Birkat Ha-Minim:

"For the apostates let there be no hope. And let the arrogant government be speedily uprooted in our days. Let the noẓerim (i.e., gentile Christians) and the minim (i.e., Jewish Christian) be destroyed in a moment. And let them be blotted out of the Book of Life and not be inscribed together with the righteous. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who humblest the arrogant"

μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone here noted that Jesus was a Jew himself. One thing: it wasn't so much physical damage as it was the experience that Jesus had went through. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Federal crowns

I am actually on the Reference Desk looking for a reference! Our article on corporations sole says at present:

Because Australia and Canada have federal systems of government, Elizabeth also has a distinct corporation sole for each of the Australian states and Canadian provinces – for example, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Queensland and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario.

This is unreferenced. I have a dim memory of reading that the Canadian provinces and Australian states are not in fact in similar positions, that in one each subnational unit has its own crown but that in the other they are just aspects, as it were, of the national crown. (Casual readers should note here that "crown" is The Crown and not any sort of fancy headgear.)

I should like to correct it if it is wrong, but either way I should like to supply a reference. I have not yet found one. Could one of you help me in this?

(This is not, I should emphasise, a request for legal advice: I have no intention of becoming king in right of Ontario, and if such a thing should happen you are to restrain me from accepting the post.) Marnanel (talk) 11:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I am by no means an expert on Commonwealth governments, but there is a Governor General of Canada and a Governor General of Australia that represents the interests of the Monarchy at the Federal level, and there are in Canada Lieutenant governors and in Australia these are called Governors of the Australian states, and likewise serve a similar role. That is, just as in the United States, where the individual semi-sovereign states have constitutions that model them after the Federal govenrnment (The U.S. states have governors and cabinets that work like the President and his cabinet; they have bicameral legislatures with Senates and Lower houses, etc.) it would appear that the same sort of parallelism exists in Canada and Australia: The British/Commonwealth model of the "Queen-in-Parliament", and of the role of the monarch in the apparatus of the state is modeled not only at the Federal level, but also at the Province/State level as well. I don't think that this means, strictly, that the Queen is individually the "Queen of Alberta" or "Queen of New South Wales". She's still just the "Queen of Canada" and "Queen of Australia", but since those are federal nations, and all that implies, her role within the federal government of those countries is paralled with a similar role in the state/provincial governments (as represented by the Governors General/Lieutenant Governors/State Governors). That's my reading of the relevent articles, anyways. --Jayron32 12:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Point of information not related to the original question: The Nebraska Legislature does not have a lower house. --ColinFine (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Both are federal governmental systems in which some power is reserved to the states or provinces. You need to have an executive to commission (and, rarely, remove) the government, in both cases, there were already British-appointed governors for at least some of the governments at the time of union, and having an independent route to London was part of the features whereby the smaller jurisdictions would not be completely subject to the federal government. Others included reservation of powers to the states/provinces, and a non-representative Senate where the less populous states or provinces would be able to stand up more to Ontario/New South Wales.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The title "Queen in right of Ontario" is certainly used in legal documents: see here [2] or here [3] for example. --Xuxl (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but all the above is background knowledge I was aware of. But can we find a reliable reference that says that there is, or is not, a monarch specifically of Alberta, Queensland, etc, as the page on corporations sole claims? (My recollection is that there is a monarch of Alberta, etc., as Xuxl points out, but not of Queensland, etc. But clearly I can't use such dim recollections as Wikipedia references.) Marnanel (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe it to be the case that each Canadian province is a separate crown. I read through this, the official page by the Canadian government. Also available is A Crown of Maples, which describes in general how the Canadian monarchy works. Lots of mention of Lieutenant Governors and provincial parliaments, but no separate crowns. Mingmingla (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the difference is subtle but real, and the language difference is key. When the title "Queen in the right of Ontario" is used, this is not the same words as "Queen of Ontario", because the two concepts are different. As I read the difference, the former means, roughly, "As the Queen of Canada, acting on her role as such in the Government of Ontario" and the latter means merely "Queen of Ontario". She is not individually Queen of Ontario, she is Queen of Canada, and as Queen of Canada, that role grants her certain rights as they pertain to the provincial governments. That's my understanding. --Jayron32 16:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That's how it's taught in political science classes at Canadian universities. The Queen of Canada is acting in right of Alberta, as opposed to in right of another province or the nation as a whole; she's still Queen of Canada, but this specific act or document pertains only to Alberta. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The separate Australian colonies had constitutions which made the queen the head of state. In the court system, criminal charges were "Queen in right of Queensland v Smith", for example. When the colonies federated in 1901, they ceded some of their powers to the federal government, but retained separate court systems. While there is no "Queen of Queensland", criminal prosecutions continue to be made in the name of the corporation sole.--Shirt58 (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Which is exactly what the article says, but without a reference, which is what we're looking for. D'oh. Let's see, my constitutional law textbook is... in the law school library, where it always was, as all the textbooks cost $ 200 or more... --Shirt58 (talk) 03:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

For information about the putative "Queen of New South Wales", "Queen of Queensland" etc, see History of monarchy in Australia, particularly the section called "The Dismissal, and the Hannah and Wran Affairs". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Longest finite term length for an elected official

A U.S. president is elected to a four-year term, a Mexican president to a six-year term, a French president (formerly) to a seven-year term, etc. What is the longest defined term length for an elected office-holder (of any kind, at any level)? Note that I am not interested in lifetime appointments, or situations where an office-holder serves an arbitrarily long time, as in some parliamentary systems. I am interested only in predetermined term lengths. Thanks! LANTZY^TALK 13:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Some judges in Virginia are elected by the legislature to 12 year terms.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It isn't elected, but the Chairman of the Federal Reserve in the U.S. serves a 14-year term. --Jayron32 13:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The New York Court of Appeals used to have judges elected for 14 year terms. - Lindert (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Term of office says that judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces have 15-year terms, but they are appointed. The recently-dropped House of Lords Reform Bill 2012 would have led to members of the UK's House of Lords being elected for 15-year terms (there is probably quite a good chance that this reform - or something like it - will happen eventually: all three main parties have agreed in principle to elections with 15-year terms since 2007). 81.98.43.107 (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

New York State Supreme Court Justices are elected for 14-year terms.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Bankruptcy judges serve for 14 years as well. Shadowjams (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

True, but they are not elected (they're appointed by the Court of Appeals for their circuit). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Popes are elected. Our article gives Pius IX (31+y) and John Paul II (26+y) as the longest "reigning" officials. If this satisfies your requirements for a "predetermined term" / "not a lifetime appointment" I can not judge. To the best of my knowledge a pope may retire prior to his death. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but that still isn't a "fixed term". The OP is clearly looking for offices whose defined term is the longest. The office of pope doesn't have a defined term, even if it is elected. --Jayron32 20:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The Comptroller General of the United States has a 15-year term but is appointed and not elected. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Mayors in the german state Saarland are elected for 10 years. --192.124.26.250 (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The President of Ireland is limited to two 7-year terms, and most of them get it if they want it - O'Kelly, De Valera, Hillery, and McAleese all did 14 years, Hide, and Robinson did 7 years, and Higgins has said he only wants one term; Childers died in office in his first term, and O Dalaigh was forced to resign in his first term. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Was Hamid Karzai on the Taliban's side before the World Trade Center attacks?

I'm sorry that I'm kind of a compulsive asker on the ref desk but I love it, and I learn a lot. I'm 20 and I'm rather interested in the Afghanistan War and my question comes about after I read that he wants to negotiate with the Taliban. Was he ever on their side before the World Trade Center attacks? Thank you. Mark from Alabama. Thank you indeed! Have a nice weekend! Mark. Alabamaboy1992 (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think he was on the side of the Northern Alliance since at least 1999 when the Taliban killed his father. Futurist110 (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, Hamid Karzai's Wikipedia page confirms my previous statement. Futurist110 (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Who was the first US President to have an official Presidential email address?

I'm guessing Reagan and maybe even thinking George H. W., but my friend thinks the White House was really at the forefront technologically and says Carter. Peter Michner (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The first president to have an official email address was Bill Clinton, in 1993. It seems very likely that there were ways of emailing things for the attention of the president before that, but there was no official presidential address. Looie496 (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the OPs question is not unreasonable. The internet as a commercial enterprise doesn't extend much before Clinton, but it began as ARPANET, and as such was an early project of the U.S. Defense Department. It isn't unreasonable to think that the U.S. President, as head of the armed forces, would have had some form of email address for use internal to that network, even if Clinton was the first to have an official, publicly known email address. --Jayron32 20:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think a lot would depend on when the first networked computer was installed in the White House. Blueboar (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, though messages intended for the president could have been sent by email to somewhere in, say, the Pentagon and then printed and couriered to him. Thus, he would still have an email address without the need for networking in the White House. --Jayron32 20:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Kikuanoki or Kikuanohi

Princess Kikuanoki or Kikuanohi

Does anyone know who was the Princess Kikuanoki or Kikuanohi that Henry Byam Martin met on his travel to Hawaii in 1846-1847? The closest name it matches is Kekauōnohi but that is only still a guess. Does anyone know more definitively?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Bordertown capitals

Capital cities are usually more or less centrally geographically located. However, Vientiane sits on Laos' border with Thailand along the Mekong. Are there other capital cities which are located on national borders? Jerusalem doesn't seem to really fit, as those who claim it as the capital of Israel aren't the ones to recognise the Palestinian state. Ottawa is pretty close to the U.S. border, but then again so are most of Canada's populated cities. Perhaps there are historical examples as well? --182.52.48.117 (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Stretching a point, but you could make a case for London being a coastal city - after all it has (or had) a dockland, and is on a river whose estuary starts within its boundaries... it's definitely not centrally located in either England or Great Britain. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Asuncion, Buenos Aires (more or less), Gaborone, Kinshasa, Bangui, Lomé, N'Djamena, probably more. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Kinshasa is quite a long way away from the geographic center of The Democratic Republic of the Congo, and directly on a national border, as does its sister sity of Brazzaville, capital of the Republic of the Congo. Bratislava, capital of Slovakia, has corporate borders that lie on the national boundary with both Hungary and Austria. If you want one that will really blow your mind, Mafeking, which was the official capital of Bechuanaland, was not in Bechuanaland, but rather in neighboring South Africa. --Jayron32 17:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Before 1958, Brazzaville was the capital of a much larger area, French Equatorial Africa, stretching north to Niger. Another coastal city, Dakar, was the capital of French West Africa, stretching from Chad to Mauritania southwards. ¶ By the way Sporcle has a whole subcategory of quizzes about capitals, including distances from borders and other countries or states. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

During the US Civil War, the two capitals were Washington, DC and Richmond, Virginia, which are within spitting distance of one another. Marnanel (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Washington DC was also literally on the border of the Confederacy, and two prominent battles, the Battles of Bull Run, happened within an easy day's walk of the Potomac. There was some serious threat that Maryland would secede, and that would leave the Union capital entirely within Confederate territory. Maryland in the American Civil War covers some of this, the article obliquely notes that Maryland "decided not to secede", though a good part of the reason for this is that Lincoln declared martial law and rounded up enough of the legislators who would have voted for secession and imprisoned them to ensure that the vote never went that way. --Jayron32 18:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

For a similar case to Mafeking, note Chandigarh, which is the capital of two states in India despite not being in either of them - it's on the Harayana-Punjab border, but is formally a union territory. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

If we're dealing with subnational divisions, For U.S. state capitals, there's Juneau, Alaska which lies on the border with British Columbia, Carson City, Nevada lies on the border with California, Trenton, New Jersey lies on the Pennsylvania border, Tallahassee, Florida lies very close to the border with Georgia (I don't know if it officially touches it though), Providence, Rhode Island is again very close to the Massachusetts border, though it may come a mile or so from touching it. --Jayron32 19:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I live in Providence, which is separated from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by a river, plus either Pawtucket or East Providence (both separately-incorporated cities). People from Providence visit Seekonk and the Attleboro's all the time, but they have to cross other Rhode Island cities or towns to get there. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Tallahassee is separated from Georgia by probably ten miles of forest. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 11:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Canberra isn't anywhere near the centre of Australia, although the centre is pretty much empty. Judging by the number of examples given, I think we need to question your assumption that capitals are usually centrally placed... --Tango (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Copenhagen is close to Sweden

Copenhagen is far from the center of Denmark – at least for such a small country. It's practical to have a big city by the coast but in Denmarks case that would also allow a central position. The second largest city Århus is by the coast in the center. Sweden built the Barsebäck Nuclear Power Plant just 20 kilometers from Copenhagen, in plain sight across the water. That was not popular in Denmark which chose not to have nuclear power and pressed for the closure of Barsebäck for decades until it finally closed. Copenhagen is not near a land border but the Øresund Bridge runs to Sweden. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

When it was founded and established at the capital, it was near the center of Denmark, however. History has hacked Denmark back to its modern size. See Treaty of Roskilde, which transfered all of the teritory on the east side of the Øresund to Sweden. It had been Danish territory since almost time immemorial, and was the original source of Denmark's right to charge the Sound Dues. Denmark had ended up on the wrong side by the end of the Thirty Years War, and Sweden pressed its advatages gained in that war to exact further wars on Denmark and gain those territories. But Copenhagen was originally at the center of Denmark. The problem is that Denmark moved... --Jayron32 21:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

One nation definitely agreed with the OP. Brasilia was built from scratch because they wanted a capital close to the center of the country. Ssscienccce (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

When the site was chosen, Washington D.C. was fairly close to the geographic center of the U.S. at the time. Again, that it isn't today is because the U.S. moved. --Jayron32 21:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Just check out where Malabo, the capital of Equatorial Guinea, is located. --Theurgist (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, there could be little surprise that no country that is mostly covered by the Sahara desert has its capital anywhere near its geographical centre. --Theurgist (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Until 1923, the capital of Turkey was on a different continent to most of the rest of the country. Alansplodge (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Why'd they change it? I can't say. I guess they liked it better that way. --Jayron32 02:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Some readers may have missed the allusion to the song "Istanbul (Not Constantinople)". -—Wavelength (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see - I've never heard of it. I was just going to say that the reason they changed to Ankara was that Istanbul was under British occupation at the time. Alansplodge (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Jokes aren't funny after you explain them. Anyone that didn't get it doesn't need to... --Jayron32 02:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Well at least we now know what you're talking about. Alansplodge (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't go for these newfangled names. To me, it's still Byzantium. :-) StuRat (talk) 11:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC) StuRat (talk) 11:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Alansplodge -- It was reasonably centrally-located until the First Balkan War only a decade before. The ca. 1923 border was constructed so that the former Ottoman capital of Edirne/Adrianople was just barely within the new Turkey. AnonMoos (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

So is Moscow today. --Theurgist (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The location of Tashkent within Uzbekistan is interesting too. --Theurgist (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Cities like Lagos, Dar es Salaam and Abidjan were established as ports, through which the colonial powers established commercial and administrative control over their hinterlands. After those countries became independent, their governments moved their capitals to more central locations, less associated with a colonial past - Abuja, Dodoma, and Yamoussoukro respectively. But, many other countries in Africa and elsewhere have retained the port cities - which became their main, sometimes dominant, economic centres - as their capitals. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

As a PS, I'd suggest that the location of a capital city often reflects the extent to which a particular country was focused on external relations as against internal administration and control. For example, Addis Ababa is at the centre of a long-established uncolonised country, concerned with internal organisation more than external trade. Similar examples might include Berlin, Paris, Moscow and Madrid. But, countries where external sea-based trade was more important tended to establish their administrative capitals in their major commercial ports, which were obviously on their coastlines. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a very interesting perspective, just some more evidence to confirm it is that Russia moved its capital to St. Petersburg at a time when it changed its outlook from inward-looking to outward looking (under Peter the Great), i.e. when Russia actively sought a trading relationship it moved its capital from the interior to a port. --Jayron32 14:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Seoul, the capital of South Korea, is only 25 miles from the border with North Korea. During the Korean War it was captured and pretty much destroyed in a series of battles for control of the city. However it was much more central when Korea was a unified country of course. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 11:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Do any sovereign capitals lie on a border other than a navigable river? —Tamfang (talk) 05:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

How about Monaco and Vatican City? --Theurgist (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

And Rome, of course. --Theurgist (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Haha, good one! —Tamfang (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Kraków used to be the peripheric capital city of the vast Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. By the end of the 16th century, the capital had virtually moved to more centrally located Warsaw, which had become both the principal royal residence and a regular meeting place of the parliament. Kraków remained the site of royal coronations and burials, though.

And Berlin went from being a capital city of the Kingdom of Prussia located in the western part thereof at the beginning of the 18th century to being a capital city of Germany lying about 60 km from Germany's eastern border. — Kpalion^(talk) 04:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Slightly off topic, but Buda and Pest were two separate cities, side-by-side along the Danube, with different nationalities on each side (German speaking in Buda, and Serbians in Pest - both of which were gradually replaced by Hungarians coming in from the surrounding countryside) until a suspension bridge was built in the 19th Century, unifying the two into Budapest. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

When I was little, there was a wooden puzzle map of the U.S. at my Montessori school, where each state was one piece of the puzzle, and the little knob you held was located at the position of the state capital. The one I remember most for being way off-center was Cheyenne, Wyoming, though it's hardly the only one. (Nevada, Massachusetts, and Florida must have had knobs close to the edge of the puzzle-piece too; I don't know why Cheyenne was the only one that really made an impression on me.) Angr (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Kimveer Gill's journal

Does anybody know where I can read them? I saw a documentary on the Montreal shooting and would like to read his journal. It's a repeated question, I asked this last night. If it's not allowed to repeat the question, please tell me, I'm new to the site. Have a nice weekend. Mark from Alabama. Mark. Alabamaboy1992 (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mark, and welcome. We normally encourage people to only post their question once (at the top of the page it says "When will I get an answer? It may take several days. Come back later and check this page for responses.") Your question will be archived after a while (7 days?), so it's probably ok to post again after a week, but a question that goes that long unanswered is probably never going to receive an answer.

As to the question itself, I'm afraid I have no idea specifically, but have you tried the Wayback Machine? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Mike, I'll try that. It's about a Montreal shooter who had a journal on VampireFreaks.com. Thank you again and remove this question if it fails any Wikipedia policy. Thank you again. May you have a nice weekend. Mark. Alabamaboy1992 (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, there's no need for the question to be removed. It's not a matter of policy, more of politeness: asking a question twice before anyone gets a chance to answer is like the kid at school who waves his arm around shouting 'me Miss! Oh, me!' But there's no hard feelings - we were all new here once. And, since I'm sitting here watching gold medal after gold medal roll in for Paralympics GB, and seeing the team sitting 7 places above the US in the medal table, I think I will have a VERY nice weekend! :-P I hope something makes you happy this weekend as well. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That sounds nice though I'm an American! Haha! Alabamaboy1992 (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

A quick web search found this page giving Kimveer Gill's user ID on vampirefreaks. I didn't check whether the journal is still accessible. 67.119.15.30 (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Library Cataloging

I reckon this might be a science question, as in 'library science' but anyway--

Sometimes a book on the inside of its cover shows the LCCS (library of congress classification system) number yet the one that the library has placed on the spine is different. What is the reason that a library would choose to ignore what the LoC thinks ought to be the call number?

199.94.68.91 (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, I should clarify---I don't mean the library in question has used an entirely different system, Dewey or some such, I mean they're still using the LCC system just with a different call number199.94.68.91 (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Could it just be an error? The Library of Congress Classification is supposed to be subject-based, so I don't see why a library would intentionally change the number over the LoCC code. --Jayron32 19:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you asked the librarians? I use Dewey for my own books, but I often find that the LoC or whatever has given it a classmark I disagree with. (One recent example was ISBN 1906173087 which my reference catalogue wanted to put under 155.937 for death but which I wanted under theology at 248.86.) I can't see why it should be any different if the LCC is being used; the classification system is not the catalogue, and they're not going to send the cops round if you disagree with their index. Marnanel (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm a cataloger, here's my explanation: Usually this is because the library already has other, similar books that they have already classified in another area (for example, putting a series of travel guides in the "G" schedule rather than putting them in the schedule for the location covered by the guide) and want to keep everything together. Alternatively, the classification system may have been changed since the CIP record was done and the LCCN in the CIP data might no longer be valid. Otherwise, it could just be a matter of disagreement with which aspect of a book is the most important. Happens all the time. eldamorie (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Technically, this is classification not cataloguing! There are multiple reasons the library might use a different number:

a) System changes. Classification systems do change gradually over time. If the system has been changed since the CIP data was added to the book, it will often be reclassified under the new one.

b) Local emphasis. A book on "military strategy in the Roman Empire" will probably be classed under history of ancient Rome (in DDC, this would be, I think, 937.0035*). However, if your library deals predominantly with the ancient world, you may want to avoid grouping all the books together like this, and instead file it simply as military strategy (with a subdivision for Rome).

c) Local practice. Many libraries use a de facto modified version of their classification system - most commonly for literature, but I've worked in places with simplified classification systems for fine art and music, both things Dewey handles a bit clumsily. So, they'll default to this system rather than the "complete" one.

d) "Opt-outs". I don't know about LCC (I've never worked somewhere using it) but two or three parts of Dewey effectively have alternative classification systems - you can use the standard one, or use a different one they also suggest for that topic. Obviously, the one in the book is likely to be the standard.

e) Finally, differences of opinion! The more weirdly crossdisciplinary a book is, the more easily it is to disagree as to whether it's really this or that or the other thing. I often encountered this when trying to determine if a book is about drama (in Dewey, file in 811/821) or theatre (file in 792); it's a fuzzy line, and classifiers will draw different conclusions based on their own collections and their own audiences.

In addition to the above, there's also the very common case of using a shorter number (simply because you don't want too much detail or too confusing a call number) or, very simply, the occasions when the CIP data inside the book is wrong! Andrew Gray (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating! Thanks so much for the information, it seems like the LCC can be seen as more of a suggestion or guideline, but not as a rule to be simply copied? Interesting stuff!199.94.68.91 (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Treating it as a "suggested solution" is probably best. You won't go far wrong if you just copy it blindly, but it's not a hard and fast rule. Ultimately, these numbers are meant to place books in a linear sequence, on a findable location on a shelf, and near other books on a meaningfully related topic; if the numbers as read would place the book somewhere you don't want or somewhere counterintuitive, then working out a new number is entirely the right thing to do. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

One more possibility—the LC can be wrong! That won't be the case most of the time, or even often, but it can happen. Now, if you're asking this as a cataloger, only assume this in extraordinary cases. There's a lot of benefit to having the same book classified the same way everywhere, but just remember, the LC catalogers are human too. --BDD (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

IME, probable printing errors (974 for 947, etc) were more common than classification errors, but there's certainly enough of both around to at least sanity-check a number you don't recognise. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Kalakaua on the Kaimiloa

In these two images File:Kalakaua on the Kaimiloa (PP-96-13-013).jpg and File:Kalakaua on the Kaimiloa (PP-96-13-05).jpg Kalakaua inspects the Kaimiloa with Antone Rosa and Paul P. Kanoa. Does anyone know which figure is Kanoa?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

De Beers advertising

In this Stay Free! article it states:

"Other techniques De Beers used are familiar today; they sent representatives to high school home ec classes to teach girls about the value of diamonds and feed them romantic dreams."

Does anyone have any sources for this...I can't seem to find anything. It'd make an interesting article...teaching folks the value of diamonds=PSmallman12q (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Not explicitly home ec, but the general practice has certainly been reported before:

N. W. Ayer outlined a subtle program that included arranging for lecturers to visit high schools across the country. "All of these lectures revolve around the diamond engagement ring, and are reaching thousands of girls in their assemblies, classes and informal meetings in our leading educational institutions," the agency explained in a [1947] memorandum to De Beers. The Atlantic, 1982

Andrew Gray (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a pretty long, but comprehensive piece. Our coverage at N._W._Ayer_&_Son#.22A_Diamond_Is_Forever.22_slogan_with_De_Beers and De_Beers#Marketing is very weak.Smallman12q (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)