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.
the wife and i have a child her sister has a child that would be cousins, my sister has a child that would make mine and my sisters child cousins,how are my sisters child and my wife sisters child related would that make them cousins horozontaly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rougher bob (talk • contribs) 02:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They could think of each other as cousins, but they are not related by bloodline, only by marriage - UNLESS you and your wife have a traceable common ancestor. For example, in the 19th century and prior, marriage among cousins was common. So if you and your wife are first cousins, then your wife's sister and your sister would also be first cousins; which would make your child and your sister's child first cousins to each other; your child and your wife's sister's child first cousins to each other; and your sister's child and your wife's sister's child second cousins to each other. Got that? :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your sister's child and your wife's sister's child are not "blood" first cousins in the usual sense (i.e. both descended from a common grandparent). I don't think that there's really a usual or accepted name for this in English, but it might possibly be considered a kind of "step"-cousin relationship (i.e. substituting a marriage link in the first ascending generation in place of common ancestry, which is also the difference between a sibling and a step-sibling)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In many families they would never meet each other, and not even know of each other's existence. If they regularly meet at your house then they might come to think of each other as cousins, even though "cousin's cousin" is not a "real" (blood) relationship in terms of a "family tree". Dbfirs22:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's no common blood at all, but there's still a traceable connection, and "cousin's cousin" would be more accurate than just "cousin". Unless we're talking about societies like Australian indigenous communities, where "cousin" encompasses a far wider range of people than merely non-siblings who have one set of grandparents in common. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they were close contemporaries, and both were somewhat prominent in London society, so they could well have been acquainted. What reason do you have to think they were more specifically linked? Quiz question? (87.81 posting from . . .) 87.82.229.195 (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, actually. Given the vast number of people who've held national political office throughout the world for as long as such records have existed, and that's what's in technical scientific jargon known as "a lot", the instance of husbands and wives being involved is pretty infinitesimal. What I'm waiting to see is a husband-husband or wife-wife pair holding political office. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of such an instance. Angela Eagle is a former British minister, and her civil partner Maria Exall is a political activist on the NEC of the Communication Workers Union, but they are clearly very different posts. Warofdreamstalk15:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of the details. Philip II was king of Spain and (later) also of Portugal (where he ruled as Philip I). There was a serious Morisco Revolt during his reign. The rebellion was crushed and the survivors were expelled. I presume that they were also expelled from Portugal. Flamarande (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weird, it seems that the expulsion of the Muslims of Portugal is one of the unclear historical issues. This book states that the Muslims were expelled by order of Manuel I of Portugal around 1496 (therefore before Philip). Manuel I is more (in)famous because supposedly one of the conditions of his marriage (to a daughter of Isabella and Fernando, rulers of Spain) was the expulsion of the Jews from Portugal. Flamarande (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but here's a picture of him in the trunk: [1]. It was disguised as a taxi, so something taxi-ish, one assumes. --Sean18:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This site [2] says it was a Chevrolet. The link has a clearer picture from the side of the vehicle that could help car buffs identify the make and model, but it looks like an Impala circa 1968 to me. --Xuxl (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Depends entirely on the countries involved, but if they allow more than one citizenship then there's usually no restriction on three or more if they qualify. I know someone who was born in Northern Ireland and thus automatically has British and Irish citizenship, who has since naturalised as a Belgian citizen... -- Arwel Parry(talk)17:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Citizenship of more than one state (Country) is OK, provided it is not outlawed by any one of the states. It is OK to be a citizen of the UK and Ireland at the same time as both states allow. However, if the third state is one of those who forbid it then you have to pick which one you belong to and delete the others. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I ask that question is because we have immigrants in Canada where they come from countries that Canada doesn't have an embassy in, like for example, we have people from Grenada and yet Canada doesn't have an embassy in Grenada. How can Grenadines come to Canada, then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.18.229 (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While Canada does not have a resident embassy in many countries, there is always an accredited embassy which handles diplomatic relations with the country in question. In the case of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, it's the Canadian High Commission in Bridgetown, Barbados. Visas are issued in non-resident embassies all the time; if there is a high demand for visas, there is sometimes even a mechanism put in place to facilitate applications, such as a special courier service between a location in the country where there is no embassy and the embassy where the visas are issued. In the case of St. Vincent, the responsible Canadian visa office is in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad. Applicants can download application forms on-line and send these to the visa office through the mail. The web site of the Canadian High Commission to Trinidad and Tobago has more information; see here. --Xuxl (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My girlfriend has a stunning print on her lounge wall, that neither of us can identify. All I can do is say it looks Leighton-esque, as the luxury of the fabrics and skin tie in with Flaming June and other works, but it's not shown on his gallery here, nor in google images.
It's a sultry picture of a youngish lady, in a silvery gown, with a slightly blue sheen, wispy drapes of lace etc, sitting upright on a pale blue and silver banquette, which is visible behind her, and ending to her right. She faces us, although looks to the viewer's left shoulder, and has both arms up, seemingly clasping her blonde hair, which is tied back, behind her head.
All in all it smacks of Lord Leighton and his kin, and is definitely a quality image of that era - but I know nothing more, as I can't find anything like a signature.
Unfortunately that does not match all of the description given. There are lots of paintings that are partial matches. The blonde hair may be most distinctive, as black hair in the paintings is the norm. The blonde hair could indicate that it is a Pre-Raphaelite painting. 92.28.247.204 (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If lace is depicted, then lace is only known to have existed from the 14th. century. This would mean it was not something set in Ancient Greece or Roman times which Leighton and other painters are known for. 92.28.255.157 (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well many thanks for all the suggestions, but as yet no soap. I've looked through the oeuvres of all mentioned and got nothing. Just as said girlfriend does not currently have a card reader or scanner.
It seems a classical portrait, and if I threw anyone with mentioning lace then I'm sorry - the gown certainly has diaphanous layerings to it. It's a closely cropped upright portrait, something like 14" and 24" tall in print. The classical suggestions continue with a green laurel band on her crown, and a marbled wall behind her, with something looking like a windowframe over her right shoulder. Said arm is at an angle that her right elbow points almost horizontally out of frame.
I shall endeavour to get it uploaded somehow, somewhen.
Closing this. The answer is "that's what they believe." Continuing to insult Hindu beliefs is not what the RefDesk is for. If you created the article, I would hope you have references to satisfy your own question. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite13:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
From the article: "The main cause of this problem is of course the religious belief among Hindus that cow is a sacred animal and under no circumstance should be killed." Or is there something else you had in mind? TomorrowTime (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I wrote the article the wording I used was "superstition" (the exact and justified term) not "religious belief" as it is now. Some hindu who felt insulted made the change. By all rights I should change it back (but that will result in a useless edit-war) Jon Ascton (talk)03:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see you posted the same thing on the talk page as well. Perhaps a better way of putting your question would be: "Why is the cow considered sacred to the Hindu?", or is this not what you meant? TomorrowTime (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am uncomfortable with the wording of the question and, also, the asking of it. Disagreeing with religious beliefs is perfectly acceptable, but there's no need to deride them as "stupid superstition(s)". Given the fact that the user asking the question created the article in question... The Rhymesmith (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Rhymesmith. I made this article, what's more I have A usual scene I see every day. The day I shot this pic only one gaumata was there. Usually there are two or three, it's morning when school-kids have to pass through. Usually one responsible adult has to be "on duty" to make sure they get through unhurt.first-hand experience of the problem myself. In fact the first image (top one) of a cow wandering about is the street where I live. For you it's academic inquiry, for me a practical problem ! When I get out of house, they impose a danger to me. At certain time of the year when the bull are in heat, they fight over cows. I have seen people spent months in hospital ( a cow is several hundred kilograms in weight .) Hence, the strong wording. Jon Ascton (talk)02:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, it's not clear to me (or to Richard Dawkins) why society has decided there should be a mandatory, vocal respect for all religious beliefs, when other sorts of beliefs (including moral beliefs) don't have the same stature. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The cattle in religion article mentions the religious reasons. The background for why these came about is here, though I don't know if it's a reliable source; cows were made unkillable because cows were valuable, and had to be saved from ritual sacrifice to save money. So it says. Vimescarrot (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Link you have provided is not only not reliable source as you are (thankfully) already aware but its the usual Hindutvaist apologetic propaganda which no one should take at face-value. There are temples exclusively dedicated to cow. Just have a look at this please. The fact is that hindus are mad over the cow ! But educated (should I use that term ????? ) don't want to admit that ! Hindu mind is very complicated. Jon Ascton (talk)02:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, they shouldn't be pampered and stuffed with delicious food. Or kept in homes with no rodent problem. Nor bred so they can't leap and capture properly. Nor declawed (frankly, they shouldn't be anyway. D:). Nor given expensive veterinary treatment when they're ill, old and infirm. Clearly, the widespread practice of pampering pet cats has little to nothing to do with rodent prevention. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is, of course, not really the same; horny cats might keep you awake at night, but they're not going to trample you while you're walking down the street. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merino has tried to imply the normalcy of the hindu obsession by providing a parallel that what hindus are doing is also happening somewhere else in world (African wildcat thing). I have given a link above to this page. There are several videos here where you will find a) Hindu holyman doing emotional appeal (by singing) to give cow more love, as if it were not enough. b) A sadhu giving a very unimpressive lecture in pseudoscience. He is telling us that cow is great because it's products milk etc. can solve "modern" problems like cancer and heart-disease which western medicine cannot. Drinking its urine (yes, many pious hindus do that including one former PM of India ) can save you from many troubles. c) A skit to educate people about importance of gaumata - when you die the angels of death will drag you across a river where a cow is waiting for you to help you cross it so better keep your relations with her fine ! Jon Ascton (talk)08:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No ! That won't help anyone. My concern is that people are overly sympathetic with this foolishness. Just imagine how harshly you would have dealt with such superstition in west. Is not India a part of world ? I'd also like to know what do you mean by "prejudices" ? Where are the prejudices ? Or perhaps you don't even know what this term means...or maybe ya afraid that perhaps I'll also switch to ridiculing cat-lovers as I blackguard cow-lovers !!! LOL :) No, I love the guys who love their cats, believe me. Jon Ascton (talk)11:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Where did the old stereotype that Communists don't drink come from? I thought the Russians were known for...um...warming up on a cold winter day with a shot of vodka, if you get my drift ;) 76.230.150.36 (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide us any references to it being used in context? The only place I find it on Google is in relation to the Simpsons. Or maybe in the (purposefully bizarro) bit in Strangelove where General Ripper claims that Communists don't drink water because of the fluoridation conspiracy. The Soviets did have a brief prohibition campaign, and many anti-alcoholism campaigns later, but the reason was because drinking was rampant, not because it was scarce. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Back in the day, American communists didn't drink water, some said, because, as everyone knows, the commies were poisoning our water via fluoridation; see water fluoridation controversy. The belief was famously parodied in Dr. Strangelove, as mentioned above, and briefly mentioned in an episode of M*A*S*H. —KevinMyers00:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be most likely what The Simpsons were referencing. Many of their jokes are rooted in old cultural references, and you either get it or you wait for the next joke. "On no occasion will your Commie drink water; Vodka, that's what they drink - Vodka." And so on. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 10:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was recently listening to a speech given by Hitler in 1939, where he stated quite rightly that it was England that declared war on Germany. What he went on to state is what I would like to question. He said that England attacked Germany but that Germany being a peaceful nation did not retaliate for several weeks. So my question is, who fired the first shot in WWII, and, assuming it was England, how long was it before Germany made a retaliatory attack on England or English forces. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.16.154 (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Germans fired the first shot of WWII, not on England or France, but on Poland. England and France had told them before hte invasion that if Poland was invaded a state of war would exist between them.--178.167.247.172 (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That speech could also have been part of the German follow-up to Operation Himmler. In what seems like an exercise in absurdity to modern mindsets, the German government actually ran a very thorough propaganda campaign to convince people that for some reason the Polish armed forces had attacked Germany, and Germany was just reacting in self-defense. Foreigners were not fooled, but since the German government had a strangle-hold on the flow of news, they actually were able to confuse their own citizens about the truth. --M@rēino20:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
France finally told Germany that it would be war if Germany invaded France's ally Poland. Germany went ahead and invaded Poland, and then when the French delivered the declaration of war to the Germans, the Germans excitedly said "Then France is the aggressor." The French diplomat said: "History will be the judge of that." Source: Memoirs of the Second World War, by Winston Churchill, which I recommend as a readable history of the war. But which I obviously don't have at hand, or I would be specific and not use the lame descriptor "diplomat". Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for treating me like an idiot. I know Germany invaded Poland and was prewarned, and thus England declared war. That was not my question. You input was appreciated but misdirected, I want to know who attacked first between England and Germany, and if England, how long was it before Germany retaliated against England with an attack on English forces. Sorry for the sarcasm at the start but so often I see questions on here that are answered by various people going off on a tangent and discussing vaguely related topics. Thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.145 (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you intended to be humorous, but a route is a course or path, whereas a rout is a military victory where the opponent is caused to flee in a disorganized fashion. That said, the goal of the Germans probably was to rout the UK food supply routes. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rude response considering that you said, "So my question is, who fired the first shot in WWII ...", which will obviously invite people to mention Poland. Back to the question: a German U-boat sunk the SS Athenia just hours after the UK declared war, but perhaps someone will be along to mention something earlier. You might also like to clarify what you mean by "fired the first shot" -- literally or figuratively -- as declaring war on Germany is obviously an act of war. --Sean21:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which by no means demonstrates that somehow the British "started it", which is what the OP seems to be fishing for. The way alliances work is that if you attack one, you've attacked them all. So it was the Germans who fired first, when they invaded Poland. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not, who started it, but rather what were the aims of the sides involved, who the aggressor and who the defender. Today so many years ago: "Never was so many...by so few...." He was referring to all who benefited who live in a free world, (You and me). (We owe so much..to them). (Also, we might add the few that defended China, and the East, often forgotten). MacOfJesus (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
what are three reasons why Canada has federal system and explain why these three factors neccessitate the federal system of government? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.148.30 (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite13:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do your own homework.