Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 March 25

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.

March 25

Argo (2012)

How accurate is the film Argo (2012)?

I remember the press coverage when the incident occurred. It was reported that the six American diplomats were given fake Canadian diplomatic passports, so that the could leave Iran when Canada severed diplomatic relations with Iran in 1980.

The movie Argo, which appeared last year, shows them masquerading as Canadian film-makers in Iran to make a movie called Argo. In the film, they are given fake Canadian passports, but those are not diplomatic passports.

At the time, the press reported that Canada had cut off its diplomatic relations with Iran. I remember an Iranian official quoted on TV in 1980 commenting on this. The movie doesn't even hint at an end to diplomatic relations between Canada and Iran. Why is that not mentioned? Michael Hardy (talk) 05:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Our article has a section on historical inaccuracies. In all likelihood the only reason is artistic decisions on the part of the script writers and director. It makes a better story that way. Rojomoke (talk) 05:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

As it says there the film was more important to Affleck than the reputation of some Brits or Kiwis or any other incidental facts. At least that's my interpretation of "I struggled with this long and hard, because it casts Britain and New Zealand in a way that is not totally fair. But I was setting up a situation where you needed to get a sense that these six people had nowhere else to go. It does not mean to diminish anyone". Dmcq (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

If the Canadians had not broken off diplomatic ties with Iran at that time, the Iranians might have stormed the Canadian embassy there the way they did the American embassy. I think the news story about the rescue of those six American diplomats didn't break until all Canadian diplomatic personnel had left Iran. 174.53.163.119 (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time Hollywood has diminished or completely forgotten another country's involvment in historical films supposedly based on fact; see U-571 (film)#Controversies regarding content for example. Astronaut (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This review gives Argo an A- for entertainment and a C for historical accuracy. —Kevin Myers 00:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The historical inaccuracy that really bugged me was that the fast food soft drink cups in one scene were too large for 1979. ;-) —Kevin Myers 01:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Making friends with the voices

I once read an article, linked from Arts & Letters Daily, that discussed a therapeutic response to hearing voices by making friends with them (I think this was how it was described). I would like to read the article again, but Google has proved surprisingly unhelpful. Does anyone know of this article and can give me the link? 67.164.156.42 (talk) 06:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like this. (Note that A & L Daily features archive pages. I merely went to the 2012 archive and searched the page for "voices". It helps that I also read that article when the link was on the A & L Daily main page.) Deor (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

That's it—thanks much. For some reason I was unable to find any archives so didn't think they had any. 67.164.156.42 (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The article mentions Romme and Escher who popularized this approach and their book [1]. During some volunteer work, I heard that this has become a classic and found it well worth reading for more information and to understand the issues and effectiveness of this therapy. --Aspro (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Then how do you make these "friends" go away? Maybe by trying to hit them up for money? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Is an innocent human breaking the law if they want to be guilty

Is it illegal for an innocent but suicidal human to plea guilty on a murder trial if they want the state to kill them? 220.239.37.244 (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Lying in court is regarded as perjury and is a serious offence in most or all jurisdictions. If someone's mental state is so poor that they are unable to argue coherently on their own behalf, or if they argue positively against their own interests, then they should be regarded as "unfit to plead", or similar, depending on jurisdiction. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Lying _under oath_ is perjury, but a guilty plea is not normally under oath. I wouldn't be surprised if it would be considered fraud. But I don't know for sure. 174.53.163.119 (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

A false guilty plea being considered perjury would be the most ridiculous catch-22 in the universe. It's well known that many people take plea deals to avoid being convicted of more serious crimes, even if they did not commit them. Imagine being later exonerated, only to be sent back to jail for perjury. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Pleading guilty to a crime you know someone else has committed is "Perverting the course of justice" in the UK. See Vicky Pryce. Tevildo (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well that may well depend on jurisdiction. In Germany, lying in court is punishable, and lying under oath is a felony and carries even stiffer penalties. However, there is an exception for the defendant in a criminal trial, who cannot be put under oath, and is allowed to lie. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What about the privilege aaginst self-incrimination? By the way, it's strange that that exact phrase redirects to an article about US constitutional law, surely it should redirect to Self-incrimination. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

In what context are you asking about the privilege against self-incrimination? Ryan Vesey 19:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

On second thought it is not relevant to the question. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

In the UK we have an offence "Wasting police time", which is another option for dealing with people who claim to have committed a crime but haven't. Sometimes you get people coming forwards to confess to a popular murder but they haven't. Maybe the most obvious example of that is Wearside Jack, whose identity has never really been proven and so was never charged. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Except that the article you linked says it was and he was!

What perhaps has not been fully spelled out to the OP above is that someone falsely confessing to a crime does not only harm themself: they may also impede the capture of the real perpetrator, who may go on to commit other crimes that might otherwise have been prevented. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I missed that, despite reading the linked article! Not having a good day here, I do apologise.--TammyMoet (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Roman Catholic and Protestant churches differences

How can you tell that the church you are inside of is a Roman Catholic or Protestant? By the structure or exterior? is there a website that shows photos of Roman Catholic churches and Protestant churches of different nations like Protestant churches in Sweden, Iceland, Denmark, and Norway and Roman Catholic churches in France, Italy, Spain and Portugal and other churches of different architecture style?--Donmust90 (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

Age is part of the equation. Churches built before about 1517 in Germany, and 1534 in England, for example, at least started out their existence as Catholic. The Eastern Rite Catholic churches are identifiable from the exterior by their onion-shaped domes. Bielle (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) If there are statues inside, it's almost certainly a Roman Catholic church. Catholic churches are often more elaborately decorated, Protestant churches are frequently plainer, but keep in mind that due to changing demographics, some Catholic churches are used by protestants, or vice versa. The name of a church is often a hint too: if the name includes the word 'saint' (or the local equivalent), chances are it's a Catholic church. - Lindert (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

See also Church architecture and Architecture of cathedrals and great churches. And in response to Lindert's comment about the use of "saint" in a church's name: the Anglican church recognizes saints, and many, if not most, of its churches are named for saints. Even the United Church, Canada's largest Protestant denomination, has dozens, if not hundreds of churches named for saints. Bielle (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed quite a number of the well known churches in NZ are named after saints and not Roman Catholic. St. Paul's Church, Auckland for example. Or the St Matthew's, Auckland known for it's billboards which are controversial among Anglicans let alone Roman Catholics. Nil Einne (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Point taken about the Anglican and other Protestant churches named for saints, however the OP specifically asked about continental Europe (Excepting Iceland), and none of these examples are located there, nor is Anglicanism big in those countries. - Lindert (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually the OP's first comment which was what these replies most related to seemed to be fairly general. The later question about photos and architecture did only include examples from Europe, but the OP didn't given any clear indication they were only interested in churches from that region and in fact said 'different nations' and 'other churches of different architecture style'. Considering the OP's history, it's particularly difficult to conclude they only intended to cover that region. Nil Einne (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. - Lindert (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is a wide selection of exterior and interior images of churhces from around the world in our architecture of cathedrals and great churches article. I don't think there are distinct Protestant and Roman Catholic styles - national styles and period influences are much more dominant. And, as has been pointed out already, older churches were built before there was a distinction anyway. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Once you get inside, kneelers are often a giveaway. Historically, at least, Catholics kneeled during portions of service, and as such had kneelers for (minimal) comfort. Protestants, depending on denomination, don't kneel, so wouldn't have kneelers. Also, if the pews have individual communion cup holders, then it's probably a Protestant church. Catholics almost uniformly use a communal communion wine chalice, so don't typically have provisions for individual communion cups. (Though Protestant churches also often use communal chalices.) If there is a prominently featured statue or image of the Virgin Mary, it's likely Catholic, as they venerate her, where as many Protestant denominations don't. A crucifix, rather than a plain cross, is also a good indication of a Catholic church, though, again, some protestant denominations also use it. Another indications is looking at the terminology used in signage (at least in English speaking areas). A Catholic church will list it's services as Masses, whereas a Protestant church might use the term "service" instead (as they might not consider them to be masses). The officiant in a Catholic church will likely be titled "Father X", and be referred to as a priest (unless you happen to get someone higher in the hierarchy, where they may be a monsignor, bishop, archbishop, cardinal, etc.), whereas if the terms/titles pastor, vicar, presbyter, minister, reverend, etc. are used, it's probably a Protestant church. None of these is entirely diagnostic - some Protestant denominations have many of the same outward appearances as Catholics, differing mostly in spiritual/theological issues. -- 71.35.100.68 (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Very much not diagnostic - many Anglican churhces have kneelers, and some have lady chapels with statues of the Virgin Mary. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You only have to look at Liverpool Cathedral (Anglican) and the Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral (Catholic) to see that architecture hardly plays a role. One looks like a cathedral and the other looks like the Apollo Moon Landers. Both have statues inside, and both have crosses and crucifixes. Both have a gift shop and cafe. Both are opposite universities, and both are on the same street. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Anglicanism is a rather special case as it bridges the Catholic / Protestant divide. Some Anglicans on the High Church wing consider themselves to be Catholics, and you would struggle to tell their services apart from their Roman equivalent. Those in the Low Church side are definite about their Protestant heritage, and have much in common with the Methodists. Those in the middle, sometimes called the "Broad Church", are not really comfortable with either label. To add to the confusion, many English churches and cathedrals were built as Roman Catholic churches and were taken over at the Reformation. Anglicans being traditionally minded folk, have tended to build their new churches in imitation of the medieval ex-Catholic churches that they are familiar with; Liverpool Cathedral (completed 1978) and the Washington National Cathedral (not yet completed), are prime examples. Alansplodge (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I would look around and find someone to ask. Preferably someone wearing a clerical collar but anyone would do. Of course if the person wearing the collar is female then it is probably a Protestant church. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

"Certainly" would be a better word than "probably". Alansplodge (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the collar you can check for horns and a tail. μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't really being 100% serious, but the answers were along the lines of you can tell by looking at... Followed by no you can't. As to it certainly being a Protestant church if you see a woman in a clerical collar. Not so. I don't think that the Catholic Church has banned women ministers of other religions from paying a visit. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 10:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If you are in a Protestant church, only a very few denominations will have people wandering around wearing clerical collars. RNealK (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

In the UK, Roman Catholic churches might have a sign outside which says which (arch)diocese they are part of as well as information such as the time of mass, etc. Astronaut (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

In the UK the same buildings have served as Catholic and Protestant churches at different times in history, so its especially difficult to use architecture as a diagnostic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.106.4 (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Nobody's mentioned that Catholic churches always have a photo of the current Pope in the vestibule, while no other churches ever do. That's a dead giveaway. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it probably would be, but I have never seen a picture of the pope hanging in an American Catholic church. μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Really? Is that the experience of other Americans here? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been to a number of Catholic churches and I can only recall seeing the Pope in the vestibule once, but I've never been on the lookout. Ryan Vesey 22:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

When I saw Jack's comment I asked a couple American Catholics I know to be reliable and was met with an odd look from each at the suggest one would find the pope's picture hanging anywhere open to the public, one of whom then said you could tell Protestant churches because someone had usually stolen Christ's body off the crucifix. I suspect the difference may have to do with the head of state being the head of the state church in the Commonwealth, whereas in America he's a Muslim. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

See pages 4 and 5 here, -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You might be interested in the Church of Ireland, an autonomous province of the Anglican Communion, which describes itself as "both Protestant and Catholic". In fact, most of the Anglican churches could be described as Catholic; just not Roman Catholic. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Just to add a perspective to the discussion, the idea that Christianity can be neatly divided into merely three categories (Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant) is quite wrong, even if it is common to think of it that way. Perhaps a better breakdown would be as follows (this follows a North American perspective, but I suspect similar divisions could apply worldwide):
  • Eastern Orthodox (Russian, Greek, and others)
  • (Roman) Catholic
  • Original or mainline Protestant (Luthern and Calvinist strains like Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, etc.)
  • Anglicanism (classifying Anglicanism as either Catholic or Protestant is problematic, and will vary depending on which specific definitions you use. Some Anglicans see themselves as Catholics (just not Roman Catholics), some see themselves as Protestants, and some see themselves as representing a "middle way" between Catholicism and Protestantism, using elements of both. There IS no universal answer for all of the "Anglican Communion" so it is best to consider it a category on its own)
  • Evangelicals (Sometimes classified as protestant, but most Evangelical groups developed 2-3 centuries after the Reformation, which makes it hard to classify them as being Protestant. The two main U.S. groups of this type are the Methodists and the Baptists, but the Methodists have a foot in this camp and one in the Anglican camp as well. Pentecostal groups could also be placed here.)
  • Other older divisions which predate most of the above schisms, including various Oriental Orthodox groups, Chalcedonians, Nestorians, and others like that.
  • Other newer divisions which postdate most of the above groups, or which do not derive from any of the above traditions, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Scientists, etc.
• That's probably the most comprehensive breakdown I can come up with, but there's likely many other perspectives. Just know that the "Orthodox-Catholic-Protestant" division is quite inaccurate and does not accurately represent a large number of Christian denominations correctly. --Jayron32 01:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think that definition of Evangelical works. Look at the membership of the National Association of Evangelicals which has Reformed, Presbyterian, Anglican, Baptist, Fundamentalist, Brethren members as well as whatever Vineyard and Salvation Army would be classed as. Rmhermen (talk) 04:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
    • See Evangelicalism which provides a better definition, which overtly states the timing of the Evangelical movement and how it separated itself from earlier movements. Certainly, there are influences in both directions, and Evangelicalism affected earlier movements, and visa-versa, but the Evangelical tradition represents a distinct break with early non-Evangelical protestant groups. As with many of these distinctions, there are NOT hard-and-fast bright line, "you have to be one or the other but not both" categorizations. However, there is a broad categorigal distinction between churches that follow a "mainline Protestant" theology and history, dating from Luther and Calvin in the 1500s, versus the later Evangelical groups which date from Wesley and the 1700s. There are, of course, Lutherans and Presbyterians and Reformed, etc. which have adopted aspects of Evangelicalism within their church, representing as sort of hybrid of the two, but the existance of such groups does not make the distinction between Evangelicalism and mainline Protestantism irrelevant. The fact that we can identify groups that adopt aspects of both merely accentuates the fact that there are two concepts that can be so hybridized. --Jayron32 04:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

@ Jack, above: Oh, yes, I certainly don't doubt that there are Catholic churches with picture of their bishop and the pope in the vestibule. It's just taht I have never seen or noticed such a thing. (Haven't seen it in a movie or on the Simpsons either, which makes me think it's not so diagnostic a phenomenon.)

Recently my sister who lives near Boston was visiting my parents in New Jersey at the same time I was there, and since my eldest nephew is studying for First Communion (we adults are all either lapsed or atheist, including his parents, me and mine) I offered to take him to mass in the church I grew up attending. On either side of the crucifix at the head of the altar and above the tabernacle had been hung a widescreen TV, one at Jesus' right hand and the other at his left. The priest seemed to think this was a great improvement. The effect was morally and aesthetically repulsive. When he mentioned them during the sermon (they must be new) I felt like screaming "Are they named Dismas and Gestus?" (Is there a piñata filled with 30 silver coins hanging in the rectory?)

But no, no picture of the pope anywhere to be seen. μηδείς (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've never visited your fair country, and I take you at your word. But I can honestly say that I have never been inside a Catholic church in Australia that did NOT have a photo of the pope. I went to Catholic schools until I was about 13, and I clearly remember a discussion one day where this very subject arose. Our teacher told us the papal photo was a sure fire way of telling the Catholic churches from the others, and I have to report that all of my own experience has confirmed this. I have an eye for strange detail, and if I ever went inside a church I knew was a Catholic church, and it didn't have a picture of the pope, it would be the first thing I'd notice. But I have yet to have such an experience. That's me. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

And I neither doubt you at all nor deny that having a picture of the Pope in the lobby is pretty telling--it's just not a matter of doctrine or anything I have ever noticed, (I would expect there's a picture of the Bishop and Pope in the rectory of the church I just mentioned above, which is a separate building I was only ever in for my sister's funeral arrangements.) Totally off-the-wall OR here, but I do suspect that part of the difference lies in the fact that Catholics are not oppressed in the US, form a plurality of religious affiliations, and simply don't feel like they need to declare themselves. To repeat what I said half tongue-in-cheek above, if you ask a Catholic he's likely to tell you you can tell a protestant church by the lack of Jesus on the cross, not the lack of the pope in the vestibule. μηδείς (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Moshav inhabited by different groups

How many moshavims are inhabited by Kurdish Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Moroccan Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Algerian Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Tunisian Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Persian Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Iraqi Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Bukharan (Uzbek and Tajik separately) Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Afghani Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Syrian Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Bahraini Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Saudi Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Yemenite Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Emirati Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Egyptian Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Libyan Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Kuwaiti Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Omani Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Qatari Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Jordanian Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Turkish Jews?; How many moshavims are inhabited by Mountain (Azeri) Jews?--Donmust90 (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

Well, here is a list of moshavim. The article for Avital moshav says it was "founded ... by immigrants from Iran, Turkey and Kurdistan" and has a population 472. The population figure is referenced by a file from the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. Perhaps they have other files for other moshavim, and maybe they have a breakdown by origin, or at least a record of Israeli and non-Israeli residents. Astronaut (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, DonMust, moshavim is the plural of moshav in Hebrew. In English, you could either use moshavim or probably moshavs, but moshavims is odd. (There is a precedent in cherubims in the KJV, but information about other languages was not so available in 1611). --ColinFine (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Most moshavim (and kibbutzim for that matter) were founded a long time ago and their original founding families, even if once uniform of origin, will have been much diluted since by people from other backgrounds marrying in or joining. --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Short story

What was the title of, and who wrote the short story where a systemic computer failure dealt the death penalty for a parking ticket? Rich Farmbrough, 18:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC).

That happened during part of the "ARM" phase of Larry Niven's future history, but not as a result of a computer error (instead due to an insatiable demand for organs to transplant to prolong life); it said something like "traffic violation" instead of "parking ticket" (as far as I remember)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a shot in the dark, and I don't have any specific examples, but this sounds kinda like something that would appear in a work by either Philip K. Dick or William Gibson. --Jayron32 03:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a parking ticket, but a computer error, sort of: Computers don't argue by Gordon R. Dickson, telling the story of a man trying to convince computers that they made an error. Sjö (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Fairies, who are princesses?

There are princesses, and there are fairies. I'm looking for princesses who are also fairies. The only examples like it I can think of are Titania and Mab, but those are both queens, not princesses. Any help? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.106.4 (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried typing "fairy princess" into the search box? It brings up a few results. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I checked the category Category:Mythological fairy royalty for you (presumably not to be confused with real-life fairy royalty). Of the figures listed there, Aibell is female but not specifically referred to as a queen. The same can be said for Belphoebe, although she's apparently an allegorical Queen Elizabeth. All other females there are listed as queens. --BDD (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

has anybody purposefully simultaneously been the leader of two different religious movements under two different names?

Has anybody purposefully been the simultaneous leader of two different religious movements under two different names/identities?

I was reflecting on the different interpretations different denominations have for the meaning of the same historical person, and might call that same historical person under different names. So I was wondering whether any such person has ever been aware of this possibility in their own lifetime and actively and simultaneously under two different names led two different movements? I realize this might be somewhat modern due to more modern forms of communication but I'm curious if there's any record at any time. Fgtpwd34 (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Not quite the answer, but the Duke of Edinburgh was revered in the Prince Philip Movement at the same time as his wife was head of the Church of England. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Another not-quite-the-answer, but maybe getting closer: James VI and I was head of the Church of England as James I, and head of the Church of Scotland as James VI. This situation has never been repeated in the UK; the first of James's successors to have had a different number of name-sharing predecessors in the two countries is Elizabeth II, but she is officially 'the Second' in both countries. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

His grandson James II and VII would disagree with you. Valiantis (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh pants. Yes, you're right. I knew as I was writing that that it was wrong, but I couldn't for the life of me think who the other one was. What a numpty. Thanks for putting me right. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

"Numpty", eh? I'm afraid I may have to report you for incivility, depending on what I find when I look that term up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The King of Scotland definitely wasn't the head of the Church of Scotland; he wasn't even particularly fond of them (or them of him), as you'll see if you read accounts of the relationship between the General Assembly and the Crown. Nyttend (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

After James, Mary II matched neatly in both England and Scotland, but her husband William of Orange was William III of England & II of Scotland. A century of matching numbers followed, then William IV of the United Kingdom was the first to use the "of the United Kingdom" style with a number that only matched England. In the twentieth century, Edward VII, Edward VIII and Elizabeth II all did the same. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Haile Selassie visited Jamaica and gave reasonable encouragement to his Rastafarian devotees, whilst at the same time being a significant lay figure in the Ethiopian Orthodox church himself. I'll be surprised if you can find a stronger example. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)