Humanities desk
< May 14	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 16 >

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.

May 15

Which ethnic group is the wealthiest in India?

Which ethnic group is the most affluent in India? Is it the Punjabi? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which Christian denominations believe that evolution is compatible with their beliefs?

In 2005, the Vatican announced that the theory of evolution is compatible with the Christian view of creation.[1] What other Christian denominations share the viewpoint that evolution is compatible with their religious beliefs? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theistic evolution mentions many, though I don't think it attempts to be comprehensive. Tempshill (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess in most protestant denominations it is a personal matter, perhaps decided on a parish church to parish church decision, since there are no international overseer that decides these things that can compare to the Vatican in the Catholic church. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would echo Saddhiyama's sentiment. Having been a member of both Roman Catholic and non-Catholic congregations myself, one of the big differences in Protestant churches is the emphasis on the personal relationship with God, which includes the idea that matters of faith are entirely a personal issue, and not to be "mandated" from an organization. There was a large schism among Southern Baptists recently over the move by the Southern Baptist Convention to take a more direct role in making decisions that are traditionally held to be the sole jurisdiction of the individual or the congregation in certain matters of faith. The more recent versions of the Baptist Faith and Message have been seen to be too dictatorial by some Baptists. The moves have been controversial enough to lead to the formation of a new convention, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No source, but I can't believe there are many protestants in Northern Europe, at least not in Scandinavia, not believing in evolution. Jørgen (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Evolution Sunday. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WWI censorship (UK)

Were newspapers censored in the UK during World War I? Yes, they were. But was this voluntary (but with the fear of printing the wrong thing and being hauled up in front of a court martial, perhaps) or compulsory like it was for letters written home from the front? Most short-ish sources writing about the topic I have seen have implied it was compulsory, but a few have referred to "guidelines" and so forth, and a couple have explicitly called it "voluntary". Presumably, if it hadn't been voluntary, the press barons would never have got knighted after the war, but I don't have any sources for that. I could really do with a definitive answer one way or the other, you see. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 08:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but "voluntary" self-restraint cannot be considered censorship by any stretch of the imagination. 79.122.38.222 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I believe the process was the (optional?) sending of pre-publication issues to the bureau for exactly that, censorship. Of course, there was self-restraint (on grounds of patriotism and so forth) but that's not really what I'm interested in, though I suppose that might explain explain the knighthoods. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 10:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the D-Notice system was already in place during World War I, at least, and I would imagine that they were used at the time, what with the war going on and all. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That might explain it, in part at least, as "D-Notices and DA-notices are merely a request and therefore not legally enforceable", yet hard to ignore. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 10:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the articles I'm trying to improve and correct actually. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 12:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might take a look at the truly excellent book by James Vincent, The Culture of Secrecy, Britain 1832-1998. It no doubt has the answer to this (and is an excellent read on top of everything else). I don't know the UK case very well myself (other than a few chapters of the aforementioned book) but in the US during WWII press was compulsory but radio was voluntary—the results were basically identical because nobody in radio wanted to deal with the repercussions of being seen as uncooperative with the war effort. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heir to the title of Duke of Suárez?

Who is the heir to the title of Duke of Suárez - the Duke of Suárez's eldest son (Adolfo Suárez, according to male-preferance primogeniture) or the eldest child of his late eldest child (Alejandra Romero, according to the new succession law)? Surtsicna (talk) 09:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regent of Monaco at the French court

Did Honoré III, Prince of Monaco, live at the French court or was he actually present at Monaco during any part of his reign, and if so, when? After 1784? I have the impression, that the monarchs of Monaco actually lived at the French court between 1662 and the French revolution. Is this true? Which one of the regents during that time actually lived in Monaco?--Aciram (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would not have been unusual for the monarchs of the nominally independent satelite states around France to have spent considerable time at the French court. I am not sure about Monaco directly, but in the case of the Kingdom of Navarre, the Kings and Queens of Navarre spent considerable time in France after the Spanish conquest of Iberian Navarre, and took an active role in French politics, especially the French Wars of Religion. The "rump" of Navarre (Basse-Navarre) was formally annexed into France in 1620, though it had been part of the "French sphere of influence" for quite some time before that.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Identification in Britain

My friend asked me a question and I realised that, even though I've done some of these, I have no idea what I used to identify myself. How are individuals identified in England? The three examples she gave are: Getting married, buying a car, and opening a bank account. What I.D. do you need? 90.193.232.41 (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For opening a bank account you generally need two forms of ID, one of which includes your name and home address such as a utility bill or credit card statement and the other an official document such as a birth certificate, driving licence or passport. Some ask for information on your current job (ie. a copy of a recent payslip) and ask you to note down any other addresses you may have lived at during the preceding three years.

For marriage, you just need a form of ID showing your name, age, nationality and address.[2]

Having never bought a car I can't help on that one. Nanonic (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) It's almost always passport/driving license for photographic ID, although if you don't have either of these, you can generally apply for a ID card which will be accepted for identification when you go to vote, for example, although perhaps not for other activities. Birth certificates are commonly requested (you need it to apply for a passport, often to open a bank account, get a mortgage etc.), and often the long-form version will be demanded. Utility bills are usually needed when you have to confirm your address, generally with non-governmental bodies, eg. banks.

I first voted in Britain in, I think, 1969. In all that time, I have never been asked to prove my identity; I simply give my name and address, and am crossed off the list. And, although of course there have been abuses, there has not so far been any suggestion of widespread voter-identity fraud. RolandR) 18:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To open a bank account, you need photographic ID (ie. passport, driver's license, in the future, probably one of these shiny new national ID cards), as well as separate proof of your address (utility bill, another bank's statement, sometimes a payslip will be accepted). Depending on the bank, you may need 2 forms of address confirmation or ID.

As far as I know, you don't need any documentation to buy a car, if you pay in cash. If you are making a credit arrangement, however, the car dealer will need ID, and will likely check you through a credit rating agency. What you will need to do is change the vehicle registration and you will receive updated documents with your information on them, which you will need to pass on when you sell the car.

In order to marry, I think you may need proof of nationality, including a visa if you are not a British national, and proof of the dissolution of any previous marriages. You may also need your birth certificate, and if under 18, written permission to marry from your parent/guardian. (disclaimer: This is mostly OR and I live in Northern Ireland, so not all of this may be applicable throughout the UK)--Kateshort forbob 11:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. 90.193.232.41 (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a time when you didn't need any ID to open a bank account. I opened my first bank account writing my name and address on a form and depositing £5 in my new account. No ID was needed; they just believed I was who I said I was. Sadly, those days are long gone. Astronaut (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the governmwent treats us all like criminals now, including watching us on CCTV all the time. Its disgraceful. Any party promising to axe the pole-cameras gets my vote. 78.146.190.197 (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will those National ID Cards apply to UK nationals who live overseas? How will that work? Or will they be only for residents?--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 07:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they've got that far yet. I'd imagine it would be UK citizens, and act in a similar way to passports while abroad. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 11:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know. They are not getting introduced until 2010. And they will only act as passports within the EU. For countries outside of the EU, they cannot act as passports, as there is no space for the visas and entry/exit stamps. I am asking this because I am soon to be moving overseas once again (and outside of the EU), and would like to know if I will need to get an ID card while I am abroad (when they are introduced).--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the time being, the ID cards will only be mandatory for foreign residents and airport workers. If they make the ID cards mandatory for everyone (citizens and UK residents), you will probably be able to get one through any British embassy while abroad, though it might take longer than it would back in the UK. Astronaut (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is sort of related, because I thought of it when I saw the title. In the US we have Social Security numbers, originally used for Social Security, and now used any time you need to "commit" to your identity (on legal forms, etc.). It basically is the one constant identification you will always have, as your name, appearance, or address could change. Is there an equivalent in the UK? --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 19:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have National Insurance numbers, which seem roughly equivalent. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NI numbers aren't generally used for anything other than tax stuff, are they? --Tango (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two months ago, I was able to apply online for a bank account using only my NI number (plus providing all my other details, etc.). Maybe it helped that I already had an account at that bank. Some banks let you do this, but others (HSBC for example) send you confirmation but still ask you to go to a branch with photo ID.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it will be because you already had an account with them so they had already identified you. That is fairly standard, you only need to identify yourself to a given bank once. There are money laundering laws they need to obey, which I think require photo ID, so it shouldn't depend on the bank. Your NI number was probably just required so they could sort out charging you tax on any interest earned. --Tango (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, NI numbers are not much use for some tax stuff. To fill out your tax return online, you will need HMRC's own individual identity number for you. Astronaut (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's used for PAYE stuff, although I don't know if that's just the NI side of it. That's still tax, though. --Tango (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National insurance and tax are just not the same thing hotclaws 18:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure they are. It's money taken out of your pay to fund government spending. That's tax. The only difference is the name and that it is earmarked for specific spending rather than going into a general pot. --Tango (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aung San Suu Kyi popularity

If a fair election is held today in Burma, would Aung San Suu Kyi and her party win? F (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask my Magic 8-Ball. It says "Cannot predict now" 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. She is facing fresh charges for having a foreign visitor.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster said a "fair election", which presumably would not involve candidates being restricted for having foreigners visit them. As User:65.121.141.34 pointed out, nobody knows what would happen. Aung San Suu Kyi's party did win the last election (see Politics of Burma#Legislative branch), for which the elected legislature was not allowed to take office, although that was almost 19 years ago. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me ask this in another way, do people in Burma still like her? F (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such things are hard to predict. There are precedents for the former-autocratic party retaining government even after fair and democratic elections are instituted. Many different factors will come into play if such an event would occur. Whether they "like" her as a person or as the leader of a cause may well be different to whether they will vote for her or believe her to be the best candidate to be the leader of the country. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question cannot be answered, as there are no valid popularity polls in Burma. But, any non-governmental person from Burma, or closely watching Burma, would probably say (1) the ruling military dictatorship is a disaster; (2) anything would be better; and (3) if the choice is the status quo or Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, will take the lady, thanks. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Western hemisphere politics

Hi people of Wikipedia, I don't want to criticize or suggest anything but there are some things in which I want you guys to elaborate: a) Don't you guys elaborate on the pages of "Presidents of..." for Latin American politics and "Prime Ministers of..." for Caribbean politics when it comes terms and years of office like you put "number of years: 5" for "Prime Minister of India"; b) Don't you guys ever elaborate whether a political party in Western Hemisphere is based on Conservatism, Liberalism, Nationalism, Socialism, or say it is a left-wing or right-wing, that way we will consider them as "Republican Party of Mexico, Democratic Party of Mexico, Conservative Party of Jamaica, and Liberal Party of Jamaica; and c) Don't you have an article where you list political rivals in each nation?

I am sorry if I didn't make sense. Thank you for answering my question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.95.73 (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of standardizing your link syntax, consistent with your apparent intent. —Tamfang (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you know the information and have reliable sources then be-bold and add the content yourself. Wikipedia is all about people coming along and adding extra bits and bobs of info to articles. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anon is correct; please feel free to add the information yourself (with references). You should generally request information of this sort on the discussion page of the article itself. I didn't understand your thing about Mexico and Jamaica. Are Political parties in the United States, List of political parties in Jamaica, and List of political parties in Mexico the sort of article you are looking for about political rivals? Tempshill (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, describing something as "Liberal Party of Jamaica" only makes sense if you are Canadian (well, according to the way your question is currently linked) and are telling other Canadians about Jamaiacan politics. It doesn't make sense to describe anything like that in general. There was also a similar argument a few years ago about taking info from the CIA world factbook, which describes the sizes of countries in relation to American states. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annual review of operations / management report

I'm trying to find examples from US companies of what usually gets translated as "review of operations", "position report", "operating review" or "management report". (Same thing, different translations.) Since I couldn't get any relevant results by googling these terms I'm beginning to suspect this comes under a different heading in the US or companies just don't publish those online. The report basically includes a brief description of the company's business, their market, it's structure, some financial data and a bit on risks and risk management. I hope s.o. can help me find an example from that description. 71.236.24.129 (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, publicly traded companies are required to file many forms, including the Form 10-K annual report and the Form 10-Q quarterly reports. You can get them here at the SEC website. Is that what you're looking for? Tempshill (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you describe sounds like what's commonly referred to as an Annual report. These are publically available, and most companies provide access to their most recent Annual Report on their web page, usually under a tab or heading of "Investor Relations". --Zerozal (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Annual report helped a bit. It got me to this site [[3]] They at least mention it (right under the "sponsored links" block). I had tried to find the term at the SEC site [4] but all I got was "term not found". Form 10-K is similar, but the structure is a bit different. I think it's an IFRS thing. (Now, where did I last see that book?) I thought I should be able to find it online and it was just a case of me not looking in the right place or in the right way.71.236.24.129 (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could it perhaps be the Management Discussion and Analysis section of the annual report? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World War Two Weapons

What gun was most commonly used by the United States Army in World War II? 63.171.102.131 (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The M1 Garand, M1 carbine, M3 Grease Gun, Thompson submachinegun, and Browning Automatic Rifle were the most commonly issued non-pistol firearms for that time period. While I'm not certain of actual numbers of issue, the order above would be my best guess, from most to least common. — Lomn 15:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The M1 Garand article says it was the standard service rifle from 1936 to 1957. The M1911 pistol article says it was the standard-issue sidearm from 1911 to 1985. Tempshill (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 169.139.98.194 (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting is that while the Garand was undoubtedly the standard front-line infantry rifle, the M1 carbine was produced in greater numbers (about 6 million to 5 million) and was the more common issue for Army personnel who weren't front-line infantry -- paratroopers, tank crews, officers, truck drivers, support staff, etc, etc. Greater production suggests that it was also deployed in greater numbers. At some point, then, you'll need to decide what "used" means -- "issued" may tilt toward the carbine while "shots fired in anger" may tilt toward the Garand. On that note, "shots fired" could easily tilt even further toward automatic weapons, so on that note I'll list the M2 Browning machine gun, standard weapon on virtually every armed vehicle and aircraft in Army service (and remember that the WW2 Army included what we now consider the Air Force). — Lomn 16:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]