Humanities desk
< January 12	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 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.

January 13

Queen's Guard

Y'know those guys in the hilarious hats and ceremonial garb who guard things in London?

I hear stories about tourists trying to make them flinch/laugh/react/etc. do any of you know if there's a point where the guards can/will say "Oi quit being an arse ye sodding yank"

71.232.50.212 (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean these guys: Queen's Guard... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know it never ceases to amaze me how far people will go to provoke a man who is holding a loaded gun with a fixed bayonet... --TammyMoet (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It always struck me as being counter-productive to have guards stand still and look straight ahead. Shouldn't they be looking around to assess potential threats ? I suppose you can have a few purely ceremonial guards for the tourists, but don't you also need some fully functional guards to actually provide protection ? StuRat (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do they have guards looking straight ahead facing in different directions? Also, just because they are facing forwards doesn't mean they aren't moving their eyes around. You can see quite a lot just by moving your eyes. --Tango (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're pretty much a ceremonial guard these days, so the idea is to show off the discipline that they've gotten from their training. The people actually guarding the Queen will probably be either more threatening or less conspicuous (or both). Steewi (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say the same thing. The UK has really two sorts of government structures; the old traditional ceremonial structure based on the old monarchy which pretty much ALL wear funny clothes and participate in weird ceremonies, and then there's the real government that keeps the country running. The guys in the big hats who don't laugh much fall under the former category. They guy on the rooftop with the sniper rifle and walkie-talkie probably falls under the latter type. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying the Buckingham Palace guards don't work for the same organization ? I thought they did, but just have to act that way when stationed there. If all the Queen's guards were that silly, then I'd expect the royal family to be far more vulnerable to terrorism, kidnapping, etc., than need be, so I bet that Steewi is right. StuRat (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some people see "bit hats" and "funny clothes" as a link with history, and ceremony as formal recognition. Thus the ceremonial appearance of the Swiss Guard or the round-the-clock guarding of the Tomb of the Unknowns by the U.S. Army's Old Guard. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To return to the original question, yes, they have been known to retaliate "due to the continued pestering of tourists and sightseers, the guardsman kicked the tourist on the ankle as he marched" (from our article). Good for him. DuncanHill (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, the guys in red with the funny hats do "work for the same organisation". They are part of the regular army, the regiments of guards. And at other times they can be found driving tanks and shooting Afghan insurgents. I'm pretty sure if the need arose the gun would be fired.

Second, an anecdote. I was once watching a group of tourists take pictures of the guards at Windsor Castle. They don't have the red uniforms and furry hats, but otherwise do the same job. One tourist, probably assuming the guards weren't allowed to react, walked across the yellow line (the one clearly labelled "do not cross this line") to take a picture. The guard snaps his rifle up from his side to 'ready' position and yells, in his best parade ground voice "GET BACK BEHIND THE YELLOW LINE!". You've never seen a tourist move so fast.

Thirdly, an interesting thing from a documentary I saw. The people in charge of security for the Queen's carriage-parades were, apparrently, concerned that they couldn't get security guards close enough to the parade but with a good view of the crowd. Someone it seemed realised that they had several dozen trained soldiers around, very close to the Queen and raised up above the crowd - i.e. at about horse height. So now the horse-guards are actually a significant part of parade security. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This probably came about from Marcus Sarjeant's 'attack' at the 1981 Trooping the Colour parade. There is also an iconic image somewhere of a bearskinned soldier charging a member of the crowd at a royal parade from the 1980s or 1990s which I just can't seem to find at the moment. If I recall correctly someone tried to get onto the road in front of the Royal State Carriage and the soldier bayonet charged them with an SA80 rifle. Nanonic (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PAR BRAHAMAM OR PARA BRAHAMAM's location in India please

Hai friends, I overheard about an ashram or spiritual organisation in India by name PAR BRAHAMAM/PARA BRAHAMAM. can u please tell me as to where it is located, it address or contact number. Bye, by KVEES164.100.1.97 (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps what you heard was Bheemunipatnam? If so then it is located in the state Andra Pradesh. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the ashram you heard of is named after Para Brahman, Ultimate Spirit. Unfortunately, that makes it difficult to find, as googling that term leads to more religious and philosophical pages than to ashrams. Perhaps you might try an ashram directory such as this one. It's also possible that it's an ashram containing the name Paramahansa, a spiritual title. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Europe-wide prepaid SIM card?

Hi. A group of us intend touring Europe in April. Is there a cellphone network that operates across most of these countries: Spain, France, Italy, Greece and Croatia? I'd like to buy a single prepaid SIM that works in as many of these countries. It's just to send SMS's back home and possibly surf the net using a Huawei E220 laptop modem (although more likely we'll just use an internet cafe and leave the laptop at home).

In brief, can you please give the cost of the SIM and the charges per international SMS (to South Africa) as well as cost per MB for surfing? Thanks. Zunaid 09:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than buy for a specific network, there are a few companies offering international SIM cards. Prepaidgsm website is a good reference. I suggest you go there, follow the links, and look up prices yourself. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely the vast majority of European networks will offer service across Europe. The trouble is, in most cases you will be paying roaming charges outside of the SIM's home network. However it appears Europe wide roaming charges may not be too bad, e.g. [1] [2] [3] Nil Einne (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just get your phone un-locked,then you can buy a pay as you go sim card in any country that you are in to use your phone.The sim card comes with time on the card which can be purchased in five or ten euro"s. Fluter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.86.15.15 (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HEATHROW

HOW MANY PLANES FLY IN TO HEATHROW EVERYDAY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.70.101 (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you scroll down a bit on this transcript, you will see that there were about 236,000 takeoffs from Heathrow during 2005. The number of landings has to be about the same. The number has changed little since 2005, since Heathrow was and remains near capacity. This works out to a daily average of 647 takeoffs and 647 landings. The number is probably a bit higher around weekends (Fridays and Sundays) and a bit lower midweek. Marco polo (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article World's busiest airports by traffic movements states that Heathrow had 481,479 movements in 2007. Airports Council International has last data from August 2008 with 321,499 (2008) or 481,382 (last 12 months). Essentially, that works out to about 660 per diem, close to the figure given by MP above. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the majority manage to land at the airport, instead of flying into Heathrow, London, which, among other things, would require a time machine. :-) StuRat (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Highest French Army Rank????

Can someone please tell me what is currently the highest rank in the French Army as of the new millenium???(LonerXL (talk) 03:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Note. Question moved from the talk page of Marshal of France, user notified.

Reply. The higest rank in the French army is that of Army General ("General d'Armée"). A general can become a Marshal of France ("Maréchal"), however, this is not a rank but a distinction ("dignité") granted to victorious generals in war time. Equendil Talk 16:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you want confirmation. The French Ministry of Defense has a webpage showing the various ranks, copyrighted 2009, where it sort of confirms your answer. It gives a date for the inception of the current rank structure of June 6, 1939. It also says that, technically, Army General remains a special case of Divisional General, as does Corps General, the law mentioning "divisional general having the rank and name of" each of the two higher officers. When the French say "rank" (rang), it's a little different from when we say it; grade is a better translation of our "rank". So a case could be made for Divisional General's being the highest "rank", per se. Indeed, our article Corps General says, "In France a général de corps d'armée is actually an appointment of Divisional General, rather than a substantive rank." --Milkbreath (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latin American Presidential Rival Political Parties and number of terms

I know that most of the Latin American nations, including Brazil and except Haiti, have presidential system as their form of government, meaning that their president is both head of state and head of government, regardless they are unitary state or federation. You know how in the United States of America, the two rivals are Democratic Party and Republican Party and the number of terms is two euqalling to 8 years. So, who are the political rivals and what is the limited number of terms in Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile and Panama? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.21 (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like there is the mistaken assumption that a presidential system always means a two-party system. StuRat (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles titled things like Government of Argentina and Politics of Argentina. There are articles titled Government of XXXX and Politics of XXXX for every country you listed above. If you are interested in the politics and government structures of Latin American countries, feel free to start at those articles and follow any links therein to help you research your topic. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Next President of Bangladesh?

Who will be the next president of Bangladesh after Iajuddin Ahmed?

Stay tuned.--Wetman (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slobodan milosevic

is he dead? or still alive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.245.207 (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Slobodan Milosevic answers this question posthumously. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And we even have this article: Death of Slobodan Milošević!!!! Fribbler (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese Civil war battles

Was there any battles between: a)Amal Movement vs. Lebanese Forces b)Amal Movement vs. Phalanga party c)Hezbollah vs. Lebanese Forces d)Hezbollah vs. Phalanga party —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.21 (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in our articles on:

Reading those articles and following the links therein to new articles is likely to help you answer your own questions. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Form of governments of Arab World

What are the forms of government in Arab World, including Comoros, Somalia, Djibouti? Who are the political rivals and if it is presidential, how many terms does he serve? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.21 (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the articles and subarticles at each nation you are seriously interested in.--Wetman (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can also check List of countries by system of government. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this?

I'm trying to remember the name of a minor religious leader, I believe in Harlem, during the Great Depression era. His followers were mostly black, but his wife was white. He was called Father Something, and his wife Mother Something. I seem to recall that his followers lived communally in buildings that they called heavens, and were not permitted to buy anything on credit. Lantzy ^talk 22:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, looking through some articles I could find no mention like you're refering to, but what about Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.? Grsz ¹¹ 22:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, how about Father Divine. Grsz ¹¹ 22:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's him. Thanks for the prompt reply! Lantzy ^talk 00:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Father Divine was sufficiently well known that Grandpa Vanderhof refers to him in Moss Hart and George S. Kaufman's 1936 Broadway comedy, You Can't Take It with You. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Seraphim

Greetings in the name of Our Father His Imperial Majesty Emperor Haile Selassie I The First JAH Rastafari. Good day to you. Today I happened to be in your repository of knowledge (wikipedia) and came across some information that is incorrect. The Order of the Seraphim is an Ancient Ethiopian Order that was created as well as started by the High Preist Melchizedek, King of Salem. This order has nothing to do with any order from or pertaining to Switzerland. The rules of the order state that there will only be one Knight of the order at all times. This Knight would have to be of the bloodline of the Seraphim Melchizedek considering the fact that there are no other Seraphims named in any text script or book. So if the order was started by our creator and givin ecclesiastical dominion you must take into consideration that ONLY a seraphim or descendent there of could be a part of the order or give its vested power unto others. Those people who do not know that Emperor Haile Selassie I is the direct descendent of Melchizedek himself. Unaltered or tampered bloodline of a seraphim. Our Emperor would be the only person to give vested power. As a Mason under the Order of Melchizedek and humble child of JAH. I emplore you to make the appropriate corrections....... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.189.198 (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Order of the Seraphim / Kungliga Serafimerorden is Swedish and not Swiss. It seems that HRH Crownprince Ras Teferi of Ethiopia was awarded the Seraphim (Knight no 650) on 10.06.1924 at Stockholm Castle. He was later awarded the Collar at the same place on 15.11.1954. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings to you. The mistake you're making is assuming that the origion of this order is from anywhere but Ethiopia. The demographics of this order are of the language Amharic which everyone knows did not originate from anywhere but ancient Abyssinia(Ethiopia). Now why it states that Majesty was Knighted by someone within his own order doesnt make any since. Also you must still realize that out of all the so called orders from the Kights Templar to the order of the Dragon have no vested power because it was not givin by the only order with ecclesiastical divinity. This order. The Order of Melchizedek is the ancient order of King Solomon himself also being within the Habesha Line. Therefore we already know that the Knights of Templar stole Masonry from the Temple of Solomon not realizing that they couldve never stole the whole thing which is why the rest of the orders on this planet do not consist of the remaining 57 degrees. Hence forth showing as well as proving that there is only one Masonic order on this planet that is valid within the sight of the Creator. The Order of Melchizedek...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ras Salem (talk • contribs) 00:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number one: Facinating story. I assume you have reliable sources to back it up? Because our article on the Order of the Seraphim does; of course there very well could be two different Orders of the Seraphim, and the Swedish and Ethiopian ones could be unrelated. If so, please feel free to gather your references and start your own article about the Ethiopian one. Number two: The reference desk is really not the place for starting a debate. If you have a question someone here could answer or point you towards the correct article, please ask away, but we really aren't here to start debates about the history of Masonry vis-a-vis Ethiopia. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings in the name of the most High JAH Rastafari. This is why I never said anything before because this always turns into a debate. Im sure you read the first excert that I placed here. It was not asking any question to anyone. It was merely stating the truth. Now you do know what a Seraphim is correct. The one thing I'm going to say is can you name a Seraphim that is one of the Knights in this so called order besides Majesty(Haile Selassie I) or someone of his bloodline. The first person in your list would have to be Melchizedek King of Salem,King of Righteousness. The line of knights you have I'm sure are at least of African descent correct? You clearly can see which order came first because of the language spoken. I dont need info to back my story. look in this very search engine and use common sense. If this order came first why are they speaking and using a language that is no where near to in any form or fashion Swedish should tell you alone. The line of so called Knights would have to have the line of Habesha as its first and origional members because this is an order of Masonry and Preisthood. Swedish people could not read the tower of Babel. No one could who did not speak Amharic. How do you claim something and you cant even reference its origion because you cant translate the language of the ancient ones Ge'ez without the Fidel of Amharic. Now Sir whomever you are if you're smart enough to respond then that means that you've read the 2 exerts that I've placed here and nowhere in either does it ask any questions. Bottom line if your order does not start with Melchizedek the only Seraphim known to us then it is not correct. Name the first man of this Order. In this website type in The Knight of the Seraphim who shows up in this very repository as that. He doesnt look swedish. That looks like Majesty to me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ras Salem (talk • contribs) 14:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not claimed to know anything. You have claimed to have access to information which is not currently part of Wikipedia. Please feel free to make it part of Wikipedia so long as you have reliable sources to back it up. Things which are the truth are written down somewhere. Simply find those writings (its called research) and use them to develop and write your own article at Wikipedia. So long as you cite the writings you use, you can add information to Wikipedia. Its how every single fact and article has happened. There is no authority at Wikipedia you need to "report" an inadequacy to, there is no one "in charge". The entire encyclopedia has been built by people just like you, who simply followed the basic rules of research. Go ahead and improve Wikipedia as you see fit! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings in the name of the most High JAH Rastafari. Sir look up in wikipedia. Habesha, Melchizedek, The Order of Melchizedek, Amharic, Abyssinia(Ethiopia) and the most important of them all the timeframe of these things. You can't dispute Ancientcy no matter who you are or what you may feel. The knowledge here is not even old enough to stake claim. Look at the influence of Ethiopia over the Swedish as well as the rest of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ras Salem (talk • contribs) 20:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on Melchizedek which mentions only the "order of Melchizedek". There is, of course, the important Ethiopian Order of Solomon, while the last Emperor of Ethiopia, Amha Selassie, was a holder of the Swedish Royal Order of the Seraphim, so the two could easily be confused. Strawless ^(talk) 21:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction Amha Selassie would not take the thrown because he knows that his father is still alive contrary to popular opinion. Previously stated the influence of Ethiopia over the world is shown in every aspect of most cultures. Nothing but Jewish customs with a different name. Age is the key. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.189.198 (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Cordon is a title givin in a line of Kings or Generals clearly showing that the order of Solomon would have it's vested power givin to it by a High preist and Mason under the Order of Melchizedek considering it's age also clearly stating that if there are any orders that have been givin the vested power of the bloodline of Melchizedek would be the orders mentioned above such as the order of Solomon. This order gave no vested powers in the days of the crusades thereby showing that the masonic orders that arised during and after the crusades would have no vested power and would not even be considered an Order. I'm sorry if this has turned into something that is not ment for this section. Please redirect me to where a discussion can be made that people who read this particular section can comment.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.189.198 (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, "seraphim" is plural, the singular being "seraph". But it may be different for members of the Order of the Seraphim. Is an individual member known as "a Seraphim" or "a Seraph", or simply (but, paradoxically, less simply) as "a member of the Order of the Seraphim"? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are ~~all~~ called Knights of the Seraphim (or more formally Knights of the Order of the Seraphim), as there is only one class, as with the English Order of the Garter. Unusually, Swedish princes are born into the Order of the Seraphim. Xn4 (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read through our article Royal Order of the Seraphim, and I must correct myself. Although there is only one class, women can be appointed to the Order and are called 'Members', while it seems clergymen are called 'Members of the Cloth'. Xn4 (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Xn4. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly you are correct which would truely show it's age considering the fact that women are not allowed to be in an Order of Masonry. Most orders have a specific side of it's structure made specifically for women to which they had to be a part of considering the fact that in those times women were not allowed to hold positions designated for men. This is why Masonic orders were so secret. Women used to dress and pretend to be men in order to get in. The example of this is; most women in the united states who are part of an Order under the Left with the Prince Hall Masons and Ancient and Excepted Free Masons are called The Order of the Eastern Star. As well as the definition of a Seraphim equates to Ethiopians being the burnt skinned ones or the burnt skin children whom were spoken of in Greek mythology which is said to be before History's so called Adam and Eve which clearly shows it's age therefore proving which of the two would have or could even come close to being the origional. As I stated before age is the key. You can't dispute Ancientcy because there is no info old enough to dispute it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ras Salem (talk • contribs) 13:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Ras Salem. Just as you say, you can't dispute ancientcy. Xn4 (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know. If you're going to be a repository of truth and knowledge that is not just looked at by those of us who have input but; by those who seek to learn the truth and not from one man's perspective but from a level of honesty and integrity, then you have done nothin to contribute to education. A part of the truth or the truth told in the wrong order is not the truth. I say this in closing. you all have said to me where's your proof, where's your research. Where is your proof and your research, because the timeline of information that you have is incorrect from numerous standpoints. Proof in the pudding. If any masonic order of any country was started after any order whose vested power comes from any period dating before durring and after the Crusades HAVE NO VESTED POWER. The Knights Templar did not go to the holyland and recieve the blessings of the descendents of David and Solomon also any order started by Rehoboam would also have no vested power for the simple fact that Solomon was the heir to the thrown according to David himself. Therefore showing that the blessings as well as vested powers went forth in the seed of Solomon and not Rehoboam. I'm sure that there is no point in the time of the crusades that these descendnts would give vested power to some people that were not of their culture knowing the true knowledge of these Masonic orders and how they are to be passed from one to another. So as I have stated from the start. What order does this particular order get it's vested powers from, because if it is through the Knight's Templar which I'm sure it is. It HAS NO VESTED POWER therefore being a fraud and illegitimate.Ras Salem (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]