Humanities desk
< August 12	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 14 >

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 13

Danish princes and princesses

Are all male-line descendant of the Kings of Denmark given the title of Princes or Princesses? I mean even great-grandchildren and their descendants as long as they married lawfully even if not equally. What I am asking is if say Prince Henrik of Denmark had great-grandson and, everyone in the current royal family of Denmark have descendants too, would his descendants be entitled to the title of Prince and Princess? I asking this because I notice the Greek Royal Family are fourth and fifth generation descendants of Christian IX and I not sure how the Danish system of someone becoming prince works. Is it anything like the British system?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked someone about that and I believe the answers was that all male-line descendants of the Danish monarchs are entitled to the princely title unless they forfeit it. I am not sure how it will work now when equal primogeniture is in effect. I mean, how equal is having children of a prince bear the princely title, while the children of his sister are not entitled to the princely title? It's just like styling the king's wife as queen and queen's husband as prince because the title of king is supposed to be higher than the title of queen - is that gender equality? Anyway, your question would've been answered much easier a year ago. Surtsicna (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What language did Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh grow up speaking? Danish, Greek, English? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was born on 10 June 1921, evacuated to France on 22 September 1922 and started at Cheam School in England in 1928 so would have been obliged to speak English from that point on. According to "H.R.H. The Story of Philip, Duke of Edinburgh" by James Hilton he never learned to speak Greek. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 03:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meles Zenawi's skin so tan

how come Meles Zenawi's skin color is not as black as he should. He is born in Ethopia. Is part of his family white? is it just images strangeness or he have some white family ancestory. Even his wife is darker than him.--69.226.34.249 (talk) 03:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Should"? Skin color is largely determined by melanin, and production of melanin is largely genetic. See the Human skin color article. Tempshill (talk) 05:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopians in general do not have particularly dark skin tones. From pictures of Zelawi available on the web, his looks do not differ from those of average Ethiopians. --Xuxl (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not all Ethopians is this tan. Azeb Mesfin is darker skin tone. Some ethopians is pitch black. Yes I know not all blacks is truly black.--69.226.34.249 (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Satan, Lucifer and the Bible

Is it true that the Protestant-canonical books of the Bible don't support the idea that Satan is the fallen angel Lucifer? Neon Merlin 04:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From our articles on Satan, Lucifer and Christian teaching about the Devil, it seems that whilst a "Lucifer" is mentioned in the bible, it's not explicitly said to be the devil. Early Christian authors connected the two, and this has continued to the present day. I recommend you go and read the articles I linked to, they are fairly in-depth. — QuantumEleven 12:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is some biblical evidence to back this up, but not much. Jesus says "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven" in Luke 10:18. The rest is, well 'doctrine added later'. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it says near the beginning of the Satan article, the name Lucifer is sometimes used in Christian theology to refer to Satan, as a result of identifying the fallen "son of the dawn" of Isaiah 14:12 with the "accuser" of other passages in the Old Testament... AnonMoos (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE PRESIDENTIAL SUCCESSION

IF BOTH THE PRESIDENT AND THE VICE PRESIDENT DIE IN A DISASTER, THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE BECOMES THE PRESIDENT. QUESTION: WHO BECOMES THE VICE PRESIDENT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.97.156 (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're asking about the US. See Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Rckrone (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) 1. Please don't use all-caps. It's considered "shouting", and it's hard to read. 2. I assume you mean in the United States. The Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to determine who becomes President if both the President and VP are unable to serve; it has done so via the Presidential Succession Act. The 25th also states that vice-presidential vacancies are filled by the President and confirmed by Congress. So, the Speaker becomes prez per the P.S.A., and then the new Prez appoints a new VP, who must be confirmed by Congress. Tempshill (talk) 05:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that (partially) to avoid problems like this (but mainly for bigger reasons) most countries have a system whereby all heads of state or potential heads of state can't travel on the same plane/car/etc at the same time. Prokhorovka (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much like designated survivor -- the Cabinet member who gets to skip out of things like the State of the Union address. Apparently for Obama's inauguration, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates got to sit out. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Less known cutting-edge authors from around the world

My usual literary diet tends towards western classics, but I’m interested in reading more contemporary art fiction. I’m looking for young (at heart), cutting-edge authors that maybe haven’t yet received overwhelming acclaim. Author who are artists, and who write with a higher goal than entertainment.

Could you suggest English language (or translated) authors who fulfill these criteria, from the following locations? (Feel free to list under headings.) Respectfully, --S.dedalus (talk) 08:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to look up Granta's recent issues entitled "Best Young British Novelists" and "Best Young American Novelists". Both are available from the magazine's web site or from a good library and contain examples of the work of around 20 authors from each country meeting your description. Although I should caution you that "cutting-edge" is often a synonym for "experimental", which may not be what you're looking for if your usual diet is classics. See a few more notes below of what could be called "future classics". --Xuxl (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I was looking for something like that. (I include Joyce as a "classic," so yeah, experimental is fine.) --S.dedalus (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North America

Louis Hamelin and Jacques Poulin are two great contemporary novelists from Quebec. Hamelin deserves an article, by the way. --Xuxl (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South/Central America

Great Britain

May I suggest David Devereux? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mainland Europe

Africa

A few good contemporary authors: Ahmadou Kourouma, Ngugi wa Thiong'o, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. Also check out the Egyptia Alaa Al Aswany. --Xuxl (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asia

A lot of good Chinese authors have been translated recently: Mo Yan, Jia Pingwa, Yan Lianke, Jiang Rong. Hitonari Tsuji is one of a large number of very interesting younger Japanese writers. In the Middle East, look up Fadhil Al Azzawi, Hoda Barakat, Ibrahim Nasrallah, Alia Mamdouh and in fact the entire American University of Cairo contempoorary Arab Writers series. Elif Shafak is a great young Turkish writer. --Xuxl (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly lesser known but the japanese author Haruki Murakami is really popular both in Japan and in the west.--203.214.35.215 (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australia

Sri Lanka

I understand the LTTE was formed in response to instititional discrimination against Tamils - for example, the Sinhala Only act and different university admission criteria. The LTTE has been defeated but does Sri Lanka still practise such institutional discrimination? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.251 (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your question does not have a simple "yes or no" answer. I think that the Sri Lankan government would deny that it practices any form of discrimination toward Tamils; however, Sri Lanka has a long history of politicians from the dominant Sinhala majority demanding that the government adopt Sinhalese as the exclusive official language or Buddhism, the religion of the Sinhala, as the state religion (few Tamils are Buddhist; most are Hindu). This is evidence that some Sinhala at least do not believe that Tamils should be equal partners in Sri Lankan civic life. Many Tamil feel that they are treated as "second-class citizens" and subject to informal discrimination. This article has a good summary of the current situation. Marco polo (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Sri Lankan government dialed back some of the formal linguistic discrimination which formed the original early basis of Tamil grievances a while ago -- however, it was always too little too late from the point of view of preventing the slide towards civil war. And the basic political dynamic which mostly led to the past problems still remains -- namely, that that Tamils are in a permanent small minority in parliament, so that Sinhalese politicians can easily form governments without any Tamil participation, and therefore the various Sinhalese parties and political factions tend to compete to "outbid" each other in extreme and sometimes irresponsible Sinhalese nationalism in order to attract the most support from Sinhalese voters (not even bothering to appeal to Tamil voters)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Roofed Buildings

hi, after looking about on Google Earth i was just wandering why there are so many blue roofed buildings in places such as China and the Korean Peninsula, and what they are for?

thanks, --81.79.169.100 (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer, but note Blue House. It appears to be a roof tiling preference, but what are antecedents?--Tagishsimon (talk) 11:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - what kind of "blue" is this? Could you show us a link for what you are referring to?

If it's a darkish ceramic grey-blue, that's roof tiles. If it's a bright blue, that could be corrugated sheet metal roofing, or tarps. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious example is the Temple of Heaven in Beijing, and its near-mirror in Taipei. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allied Bombing in WWII

How many of people attributed to being killed in the Hollacaust durring WWII were killed by Allied Bombing of factories and transportation work-crews staffed by slave labor ? ≈≈≈≈≈ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.6.182 (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The highest estimate of all German/European civilian casualties of Allied strategic bombing in WWII is 600,000 - see Strategic bombing during World War II - as compared to the generally accepted estimate of 6 million deaths in the Holocaust. Also, the extermination camps, where about half of the Holocaust victims died, were deliberately located away from major population centres. So Allied bombing casualties cannot have been a significant factor in the Holocaust. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I think that the term Holocaust refers to the deliberate mass murder of Jews by the Nazi Germans, not accidental deaths due to other causes during World War II. So I think that the answer to the original question is zero. Marco polo (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust in general refers to Jews, but I do believe that other groups such as Gypsies and homosexuals are included in the count, though I could be wrong about that. But forced labor in factories and transportation work crews was not done by Jews so much as by kidnapped Slavs, etc. See Forced labor in Germany during World War II. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6 million jews, 11 to 17 million if you count everyone, according to the article. TastyCakes (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call the deaths of civilians resulting from bombing of cities "accidental." Besides bombing of military installations and armaments factories there was terror bombing. Terror bombing was an Allied policy, to try and break the will of the German and Japanese people to continue the war. Edison (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to the non-terror bombing used by the Germans a few years earlier. Googlemeister (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the deaths of German civilians as a result of Allied bombing were not accidental. However, the Allied bombers did not intend to cause the deaths of captive Jews, Gypsies, and others, so those deaths were accidental. The issue here is whether Jews (or Gypsies, or homosexuals, or Slavs) killed by Allied bombs are included in the numbers of those killed in the Holocaust. The Holocaust was the deliberate murder of these groups by the Nazi Germans, so Allied bombing was not part of the Holocaust. The numbers for the Holocaust are estimates with a reasonable degree of accuracy, but the numbers (of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, etc.) incidentally killed by Allied bombing are probably within the estimates' margins of error. According to a strict definition of the Holocaust, however, those deaths should not be included, since they were not deliberate killings by Germans or their allies. Marco polo (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental is an unforunate word in this context - incidental might be better. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best answer I can give is "Not many proportionately, but at least some 400 in one incident alone". On 24 August 1944, an American air raid on the Wilhelm-Gustloff-Works, an armaments factory inside Buchenwald camp, also struck nearby I-Barracks, and an adjoining temporary structure. Many of the prisoners housed there died almost immediately, while others died later from their wounds. Among the dead were Dr Rudolf Breitscheid, who had been a Social Democratic deputy in the Reichstag, and Princess Mafalda of Savoy, wife of Prince Philipp of Hesse-Cassel. (Source: Royals and the Reich, Jonathan Petropolous, 2006; Petropolous in turn cites The Buchenwald Report, edited by David Hackett, 1995.) AlexTiefling (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polity IV and Freedom House

The Polity IV and Freedom House measures of democracy are highly correlated. Which point on the Polity scale is roughly equivalent of Freedom House's "electoral democracy"? Someone should have done research on this, but I cannot find any. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Paul Biya look so young

Paul Biya don't even look differnt since the 1960s. He is 76 right now and he don't even look 35. Even some 30 year-olds look older than him? Why is that he look so younger, even looking younger than Jakaya Kikwete.--69.226.34.249 (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See The Picture of Dorian Gray. --// BL \\ (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having never heard of the gentleman before (and therefore having no preconceptions about him), in the linked picture he looks to my (52 y-o European) eyes to be in his late 50s or early 60s. He certainly does not look as old as 76 (I assume the picture is contemporary), but apparent ages can be greatly influenced by different (inherited) bone structures and complexions; did his parents look younger than their actual ages? He may also have avoided the skin-ageing effects of such things as smoking and undue exposure to sunlight. Amusingly, exactly a year ago a couple of new acquaintences in their 20's estimated my own age as 35, but admittedly we were in a poorly-lit pub at night. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because black don't crack? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if the OP posted the correct link, because I think the link is actually for Janet Museveni. The question did made me curious though and a quick Google search yield this - a photo of Paul Biya in Paris on July 14, 2009 from Daylife. I have to agree with the OP he does look 30 ~ 40ish. Maybe the effect from some sort of secret anti-aging treatment/drug reserve only for Cameroon President? Royor (talk) 07:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some pictures of Biya (along with his notably-coiffed First Lady) further down. Speaking of African leaders who don't look their age, Robert Mugabe could easily pass for a man in his 40s, while he's actually 84. --Sean 14:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the Paul Biya article

The historian David Wallechinsky, in his book Tyrants, the World's 20 Worst Living Dictators, ranked Biya with three others in sub-Saharan Africa: Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea and King Mswati of Swaziland.

With the exception of King Mswati, all three sub-Saharan Africian leaders don't look their age. Coincidence? I don't think so - it got to be some sort of secret anti-aging mineral/drug/plant/voodoo magic found only in sub-Saharan Africa! That must also be the reason why they are all so keen on holding on to their power there too. XD Royor (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usually black people don't look their age. In General none of those African genocides look their age. No, Paul Biya don't even look 40s even clear pictures. None of his hairs is gray or white. One poster who said 3 worst dictators, Paul Biya isn't that bad ruler. I have no idea by what's a worst dicators. The equator guinea guy i don't know him. I've hear Abdoulaye Wade and John Kufuor won gold prize, they are known as best buddies. i think Paul Biya and Robert Mugabe is just excellence, this is why I think they stubborn on hopding their powers. I don't think tose 3 guys is that bad in power. Omar Bongo is also a long lasting guy, but he die two month ago. Daniel Arap Moi I think is a worst dictor. in 1982, Raila Odinga try to kick Moi out of power. It is all people's opinion base on the rulers of powers.--69.229.39.33 (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh...Wallechinsky is hardly an historian. He just makes lists that are even more poorly referenced than Wikipedia. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In every clear picture I've seen of him, he does not look that young. He looks 70ish. It shows through. Vranak (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it is misleading but I was just quoting the article, and I have no knowledge whatsoever in the topic of African dictators. Vranak do you have a link to clear picture of Mr.Biya? Royor (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More on US presedential succession

The above all caps question made me think a bit, and I wondered: Who would succeed to the US presidency should everyone in the line of succession be killed in one event, such as a nuclear attack on Washington DC (or an assault on an event where everyone in the line was present, such as the State of the Union address)? Does the government take any steps to prevent such an occurrence? Ks0stm ^(T•C) 23:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Designated survivor has some info. Algebraist 23:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: yes, they take steps, by always having one person in the line somewhere else when events like that take place. They have been doing this since the Cold War (probably ~~since the early 1950s~~, actually, I haven't found any evidence of them using it before the 1980s, which is kind of odd, but does coincide with decreased warning times of potential attacks). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IThe Secretary of Agriculture or some such constitutional/statutory successor would be always be away from Washington during the inauguration. If they too were snuffed, then the various Governors could appoint replacement Senators, and the new President Pro Tem of the newly appointed Senate could become President. House elections would take place eventually, after several months as state laws decree and the U.S. government would be reconstituted. Edison (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe then it would be time for President Starkey to assume his position. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer is that you would have a constitutional crisis and all bets would be off. Googlemeister (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's incredibly naive to assume that if the US government were decapitated that the military commanders who would be running the response would all roll over for a civilian far down the line of succession. Here's what General Tommy Franks had to say on what would occur: "[an attack could cause] our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event". --Sean 14:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be tough for some general to convince all the other generals and admirals that the U.S. should abandon 220 years of democracy and government by elected civilians just to further his ambition to rule. Interservice rivalry would be a problem, just like separation of powers. This is about a decapitation, not the general downfall of civilization by some attack that wiped out most of the population and totally disrupted civilization. Edison (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it is a situation the rules (Constitution) has not fully contemplated, and in a "crisis" it is a lot easier to make up new rules. Googlemeister (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]