Humanities desk
< August 3	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 5 >

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 4

"Frazer River"

Is this a historical misspelling of Fraser River? As in the "Mighty Frazer River"? (as can be seen on some old maps) Or is there an another actual river called the "Frazer River" that's distinct from the one in BC? Thanks in advance to anyone who answers. -- œ ^™ 06:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's Fraser River (Colorado), U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Fraser River, with Frazer and Frazier listed as variant names. Also several Frazer Creeks in Canada and Fraser/Frazer/Frazier creeks, brooks, springs, lakes, etc, in the US. But the Fraser River in BC was frequently spelled Frazer historically, so all else being equal I'd guess it was the BC river. Spelling was loose back in Simon Fraser's day, and his name was often written Frazer, even by his close associates. here's one quick example, from 1812. Pfly (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where's The Stream

Acorrding to [1], The stream divided the 2 villages. What did they do with the stream? Did they drain it? Do they redirect it?199.126.224.156 (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they covered it. It was not unusual 500 years ago to have streams or rivers running through small settlements. As the settlements developed into bigger towns or cities the streams were put into drainage systems to enable building. The unknown in this particular case is the size of the stream. Richard Avery (talk) 06:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London has many "lost" watercourses like that; the Fleet River is the best-known example. Alansplodge (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United Countries of America

I recall in one of my college classes that the word "state" historically meant the same as "country". And when America was first founded, it was supposed to be a union of different countries or states, with the federal government acting solely to defend this union from foreign invasion. This is why there's a such thing as states rights, and state laws differing from each other instead of having consistent federal laws that apply to all states. Is this more or less correct or is my memory decieving me? 148.168.127.10 (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All sovereign states are countries, but not all countries are sovereign states. States in the US are different again - if I recall a few of them (Texas and Vermont) were inpendent republics at some stage. --Snowded ^TALK 12:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded, what did you mean by "not all countries are sovereign states are countries"? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and paste error now corrected --Snowded ^TALK 05:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting only on the linguistic part of this question: historically, the noun state had many shades of meaning. The Oxford English Dictionary divides its entry into 41 subdivisions, of which these are most relevant here:

27. The condition of the Church, a country, realm, etc. in regard to its welfare and polity [from c.1290]

28. A particular form of polity or government [from 1538]

29. The body politic as organized for supreme civil rule and government; the political organization which is the basis of civil government [from 1538]

30. A body of people occupying a defined territory and organized under a sovereign government [from 1568]

31. The territory, or one of the territories, ruled by a particular sovereign [from 1602]

So I think it would be wrong to make deductions about the political organization of the United States from the linguistic history of the word state. The word has too many shades of meaning to pick any one of them with certainty. Gdr 13:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might take a look at the Articles of Confederation, which is essentially what you are talking about. This was abandoned in favor of the United States Constitution in 1788 because it was found that the "loose band of independent states" model had serious downsides. (I agree with Gdr that parsing over the vague word is not the best way to make strong historical conclusions, especially when there are copious sources describing exactly what people were thinking at the time, what model of government they were after, etc.) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the 200+ years since the Constitution was adopted, "states' rights" have been eroded in various ways, not the least of which was the amendment guaranteeing "equal protection", which was the basis for federal intervention to abolish legalized racial segregation in the southern U.S. So the U.S. federal (or "central") government is stronger than it was in the 1790s, and people are not necessarily as likely to strongly identify with their state as they were then, but the states still reserve a significant amount of "sovereignty" to themselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In political science jargon, 'state' refers to a political entity that has sovereignty (the absolute right to rule over those people and areas that belong to it), 'nation' refers to a people who are united by cohesive social, cultural, or historical elements, and 'country' refers to a geographical area (usually a subset of a larger area - such as a continent) which is controlled by a state or a nation. The terms overlap in common usage and are often used interchangeably - political entities are often organized around/by social/cultural units and are usually localized to geographic regions - but that shouldn't be done analytically. Thus:

Israel was a nation before it was a state or a country, and is all three now.
California is a state because it has sovereignty (freedom to make its own laws, bounded only by explicit laws reserved to the federation), but is not referred to as a country because the geographical area is considered to be part of the larger federation.
Somalia and Afghanistan are countries (defined as independent geographical regions), and may or may not be nations (depending on how you read their cultural histories), but neither is currently a state, since neither is capable of maintaining sovereign rule over their people and territories.

see the difference? --Ludwigs2 14:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the United Nations considers both Somalia and Afghanistan to be states. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to author and historian Shelby Foote: "Before the [Civil] war, it was said 'the United States are.' Grammatically, it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war, it was always 'the United States is,' as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an 'is.'" — Michael J 22:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original statement above is more or less right. The colonies were originally completely separate entities, all loyal to Great Britain, that occasionally got together on an ad hoc basis to handle issues of mutual concern. It should be noted, though, that even under the Articles of Confederation the central government had more powers than simply defending against invasion. Foreign policy and international trade were reserved to the central government, as were Indian affairs, post offices and settlement of disputes between states. So the concept of the individual states as completely independent entities didn't last long. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the treaty ending the American Revolution, King George clearly addressed the states as a collection of sovereign countries. Under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government was ineffectual, broke and powerless. Some states did not want a national army or a navy. In theory the state militias would man frontier forts and collectively respond to invasions. The federal government had to beg the states for money, which the states would not hand over. By 1784 the national government had practically ceased to function . The national congress was just a powerless debating society, with a huge national debt and no way to pay it down.(Dale van Every, "Arc of Empire," 1963, page 9, p165) There was no national executive department. Foreign governments did not generally judge the US to be creditworthy, since the Continental dollars had depreciated in worth like money from the Weimar republic did in the 1920's. The national government could not even pay the veterans of the army from the revolution the pay they were owed. In the last year under the Articles of Confederation, there was rarely a quorum for conducting business. They tried to collect import duties, without much success.Individual states defied the federal government in many ways, such as by declaring ports to be "duty free" so no import duties went to the national government. Frontier territories like Kentucky and Tennessee negotiated with the Indians as well as foreign governments, and considered creating an independent country, or forming an alliance with Spain.(Van Emery, p162). Robertson declared the settled area along the Cumberland River (perhaps now around Nashville) to be the "District of Miro," in honor of the Spanish Governor of Louisiana.[2]. A bunch of rather independent states and wanna-be-states, with little allegiance to an "American nation." Edison (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And when the States declared independence they considered themselves separate States. That distinction persists today. While states are not necessarily "nations" (a concept that predates not only the U.N. but also the League of Nations by a few centuries), all nations are states. The linguistic debate over the distinction's largely irrelevant. It's a legal distinction, and in the U.S., the fact that individual states were once sovereign (Texas is unique because it's had "5 flags", but all the original colonies were "sovereign") is not particularly relevant to "nation" status insofar as the rest of the world's concerned, since the federal U.S. government (mostly through the President) has exclusive control to make those decisions. Actually that was somewhat the case under the Articles too, but the Constitution solidified that power, not least of all the power of a federal military. Shadowjams (talk) 08:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, many nations aren't states. Theoretically, no nation is a state. A nation is a group of people ("the Americans"), while a state is an entity ("the United States of America"). You may be thinking of nation-states, which are states that represent a particular nation. The United States is a nation-state because it serves the American people (in theory). But many nations lack states, such as the Hmong, the Tibetans and the Navajo. See the book Nations Without States. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nations, states, and countries: consider the Home Nations of the United Kingdom, all of which are countries, which between them make up a country, which is a state. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Automaton and law

Is there any law governing automaton or robot, particularly, autonomous robot, such as its personality and rights, control or prohibition of its production or creation, and so on. Or is there anyone, community or project initiating or discussing that?

203.131.212.36 (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For question #1, the answer is "no". For question #2, we're discussing it right now! Perhaps others are, as well. --Sean 13:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robots are machines. They have no awareness of their own existence, hence no "personality" or "rights". Is that what you're asking about? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove any of that? What about machines like Watson (artificial intelligence software) or Deep Blue (chess computer) or Marvin the Paranoid Android (the last only half-joking - is a personality less of a personality because we programmed it?). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone asserting that robots are somehow self-aware creatures, rather than just machines, are the ones who must prove that claim. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? And what do you mean by "rather than just machines"? It's quite possible to be both - after all, we are only meat machines, and I'm very much self-aware (according to me). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who invented us? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who invented the inclined plane? More to the point, why would that matter? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know any inclined planes personally? It's the process of biological evolution that gave us whatever we have. We deny the existence of a God, yet claim we ourselves can imbue a machine with a soul. That's pretty funny. As a scientist, unless someone can demonstrate that a particular machine has self-awareness, then I can only conclude that they don't. There's no practical difference between a sophisticated robot and a screwdriver. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But is there a practical difference between a nematode and you (or, to de-personalize it, a nematode and the Dalai Lama)? I can make a machine print out "cogito, ergo sum" - can you refute it? And where does the soul come in? Do you think there is a binary switch between self-awareness and the lack of it, and the difference is the presence of a soul? Are dolphins self-aware? Chimpanzees? Cats? Magpies? Human babies? I don't believe in magical transition. Self-awareness is an emergent property, and it emerges along a spectrum. There is no rational reason why a sufficiently complex machine could not reach the same level of self-awareness as a human. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Three Laws of Robotics. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the OP see a page about fictional robots? The OP is clearly talking about the real world. --Tango (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction is the perfect avenue for exploring legal and ethic issues involving machine autonomy, given that we have no interesting real-world examples. Paul (Stansifer) 19:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the original question, there are no such laws, and there will be no such laws until computers stand up on their own and ask for them. You go ahead and create a computer/software that can run its own civil rights/suffrage movement, and we can revisit the question of whether computers have awareness of their own existence then. --Ludwigs2 16:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wait for the first industrial action ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If they go on strike, we can just build more of them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh, yeah, THAT will work out well. see The Terminator, The Matrix, I Robot, etc... Why not just go ahead and start making zombies, too? --Ludwigs2 23:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are fictional stories, yes? Or have we perfected backwards time travel? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We might have been going to have perfected it. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See IEEE Spectrum: Who's Proposing Ethical Guidelines for Robots?. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See The Measure of a Man Hemoroid Agastordoff (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that we don't have any significant such laws in place for great apes (see Great ape personhood), most of whom are arguably more complex, empathetic, and sentient than any of our current AI designs. It is possible that should the technology get sufficiently advanced that we might have to have such a conversation seriously, but I don't think anyone is really advocating very loudly for this at this point. In Sci Fi it is a major concern, of course. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is San Francisco such a popular destination for French tourists?

I was just visiting San Francisco, and the number one language I heard spoken by tourists from outside the US was by far le français, and it was the third most prevalent language overall, short of English and possibly Chinese dialects (which being Asian I inevitably exposed myself to in Chinatown) surpassing even Spanish (and considering California's closeness to the Mexican border). In fact on one occasion I boarded a bus, and three French-speaking families boarded the same bus from three separate stops. I realise that some of these Francophones may have been Québécois or Belgian or Swiss, etc. 68.76.147.53 (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While California may border Mexico, San Fransisco itself is 500 miles from that border. Googlemeister (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SF is a popular tourist site to begin with, and SF has always had close ties with France (it was long considered the 'Paris of the West'). --Ludwigs2 16:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign visitors in general like to go to San Francisco. I think it reminds them of their own cities to some extent, and is also just a varied and interesting city. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your anecdotal experience, while interesting, is probably not all that probative. The coasts tend to attract most visitors, namely New York, L.A., and San Francisco, maybe D.C., with the other cities distributing down the list accordingly (maybe Las Vegas is a special case). I don't have a lot of stats backing that up, but as an experiential matter, most foreigners wanting to visit the U.S. think about those cities. I'm sure there's a tourism board somewhere, or maybe a subsection of the state department that has statistics on this kind of thing. Shadowjams (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also true that the French tend to go on vacation all at the same time, in one vast wave. A month earlier, you'd probably have seen French speakers outnumbered by Germans. I live in Berkeley and pass through the tourist heart of S.F. pretty frequently, and don't have the impression that French is always the prevalent foreign language. Looie496 (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lies of the U.S. federal government to the American people

I'm looking for an article or a list in Wikipedia, or a good website, concerning untrue "facts" which were served by the United States government or their agencies throughout history such as Gulf of Tonkin Incident etc. --77.4.60.146 (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that you are thinking very unclearly, that you are asking us to give you something that can't logically exist. It's simply not possible for the Government to tell a lie, you will find, if you look into the definitions of those two words. One individual employee of the government can certainly say something he thinks is otherwise. But the Government as a whole cannot lie. You will never find a New York Times headline, or any other respectable newspaper's, that would indicate the Government "lied" or "is lying", since the Government just physically, logically, cannot do just that. 84.153.232.44 (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, not the government but their servants suchs as ministers, presidents, secretaries and such. What I mean are topics people of the government were making up something like a false flag operation making it up as it is the truth. First a denial then a small excuse, get it? --77.4.60.146 (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, do you ONLY want instances in which part of the government took a particular stance and then admitted that it was wrong? If you look for any instance in which some part of the government has been called a liar, you open yourself up to stuff like the government being accused of completely making up everything about the moon landing or the government making up the whole 9/11 thing (there are even sites that claim that Bin Laden is a CIA employee and all of his videos are filmed in a studio in Washington DC). -- kainaw ™ 17:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the intent of the question is perfectly clear and it is an interesting question. I would rephrase it, to satisfy the pedants, as: Is there a list of demonstrably false statements that were deliberately stated publicly as truth by any element of the US government, while known to be false? Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at Political scandals of the United States for a starting point. You may also be interest in Propaganda in the United States. The section of the main Propaganda article on the Cold War may be of interest. 84.153 - i'd be intrigued as to how come you believe a government cannot 'physically or 'logically' lie - unless using some technicality about what a 'government' is as opposed to what 'government' is short-hand for. ny156uk (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised it's not mentioned there, but Eisenhower's inept coverup of the U-2 shootdown was the most unequivocal case of a US president lying to the public that comes to mind. --Sean 18:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you haven't forgotten "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". That's not a great example of the government as a whole trying to deceive- just the president on his own. Staecker (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is arguably true that he did not have "sexual relations" with "that woman," since his penis was never in her vagina. Fellatio is not "sexual relations." A contemporary survey published by the Journal of the American Medical Association substantiated that difference of definition, that those surveyed did not consider oral sex to be "sexual relations." You are confusing a "lie" with "shading the truth" or "prevarication." In the present question, the list should include cases where the president or a cabinet secretary or chairman of the joint chiefs made a declaration which they or their successors explicitly stated was a lie. In the Tonkin Gulf incident, Johnson engaged in a careless disregard for the truth. There was no convincing evidence of a North Korean torpedo attack, but there was a confusing incident. The CIA recordings made on board an involved destroyer are classified even to the present day, and we only have the statements of the Navy personnel on the radio and radar stations. Eisenhower definitely lied, in full knowledge that the U2 was a spy plane, hoping that no conflicting evidence had survived the crash. Bush administration spokesmen definitely lied when they stated we had certain knowledge of where Saddam had factories for making weapons of mass destruction. It is not so clear FDR lied when he stated during a presidential campaign that "He would never send American boys to fight overseas" while making all preparations to do just that. It could have been "Hope for the best, plan for the worst." Nixon said "I am not a crook" but he probably had in mind a prevaricating definition of "crook" like Clinton did of "sexual relations." Nixon certainly told a number of demonstrable whoppers to try and save his presidency from Watergate. The real issue is who gets to declare a statement a lie. The media or members of the opposition political party are just not good enough, since on both sides they have a track record of calling truths lies, besides all the 9/11, moon landing, and birth certificate lunatics. Such a list should not include generalities such as "I will fix the economy" or "I will keep us out of war." It even becomes problematic when a president being sworn in swears to uphold the constitution, then quickly starts violating it, like Lincoln arresting anyone who disagreed with him and ignoring habeas corpus. George H.W. Bush stated firmly and definitely that he not allow new taxes, then he raised taxes. (Maybe raising an existing tax is not a "new tax" in his prevaricating mind). George W. Bush stated he would fire anyone behind the Valerie Plame outing, then he did nothing of the kind when those in his administration behind it were identified. Edison (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you're wrong. Engaging in any kind of sexual act with someone else constitutes "sexual relations" with them, even if Bill and Monica had themselves convinced otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion was shared by the minority in the published survey. It is good to know that someone who disagrees with you is just plain wrong, in an absolute sense. Edison (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there are so many. Where does one begin? "We have proof that Iraq has WMDs". Yeah, right. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

84.153 is just a troll. Ignore him. Take a look at his contributions list if you need proof of this. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ kainaw: Just stuff which can be proven lies/misinformation is interesting for me. Thanks for the link. --77.4.60.146 (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. officials don't always tell the truth? Now there's a news flash. Right up there with the revelation that the Pope is Catholic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why limit it to U.S? Politicians lie. -- kainaw ™ 12:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all the time - only when their lips are moving. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that's all the time when they're out of bed. And even in bed, they're still lying. There's no stopping these people. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

The best source I know of for the sort of thing you're looking for is Howard Zinn's A Young People's History of the United States. But the basic fact is that lying is an essential part of government, and in the long run we blame leaders not for lying, but for lying in a bad cause. Franklin Roosevelt lied over and over again about not wanting to get the USA involved in World War II, but we forgive him because we realize that he was right and the mass of people were wrong. We blame Johnson for lying about Vietnam because we realize that there was no critical need for us to be involved there. Looie496 (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

estates-general

On June 28th 1593 the Estates-General of France met to discuss the issue of the succession following the death of king Henry III. Can anyone give me a short summary of typical French politics of the time, how things would have worked, what would have happened there, what different groups would have claimed and argued, and such like? 80.47.208.141 (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic League (French), Politiques, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also see War of the Three Henrys and French Wars of Religion in general. Major players included Henry, Duke of Guise, Henry, King of Navarre, and the aforementioned Henry III, also Henry, Prince of Condé (not one the three Henrys), François, Prince of Conti. The politics of the time was muddled (to be polite, a better term would be a complete clusterfuck). The Wars of Religion would be a major civil war in France's history, as protestant and catholic princes lined up to succeed the childless (and possibly gay) Henry III. The protestant camp would end up winning, sort of, as their leader Henry, King of Navarre would be the one to become King of France, but only after converting to Catholicism (the quote he said was something like "Paris is well worth a Mass"). The whole thing ended with the Edict of Nantes. --Jayron32 05:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the nice and hopefully useful outline of the events of the time, but what I really want to know now is more on how the french government was organised back then, how the whole system usually worked, that is something I have found almost nothing on wherever I looked. 80.47.235.134 (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ancien Régime in France covers the administrative structures of France during the Kingdom of France. The French States-General covers the legislature specifically, and has information specifically on the time period you seek. --Jayron32 04:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bells and smells

If a married vicar defects to the Church of Rome, what provision is made for his wife, given that priests are supposed to be celibate? 87.112.158.100 (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A special exemption from that rule was created for CoE vicars defecting over the women bishops issue. See here for a newspaper article on the subject (it's the Daily Mail, but it's the only one of the first page of Google results...). --Tango (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unheard of at all, actually: Married priests as described on 60 minutes. There are a few in Canada that I know of too. Aaronite (talk) 02:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the rule says that a priest may not marry; it does not say that a married man may not become a priest. It is relatively unusual, but in absolute terms it's far from unheard of. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an explanation by a Catholic priest who wrote it originally for the Arlington (Virginia) Catholic Herald, a diocesan newspaper. As far back as the 1980s, the Vatican waived the requirement of celibacy "as a favor to those married clergy [from the Episcopal church, the usual term for Anglicans in the U.S.], given their particular circumstances and their desire to unite with the Catholic Church." As Father Saunders points out, these new Catholic priests may not remarry on the death of their current spouse. Nor in the Latin rite can married clergy become bishops. --- OtherDave (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, married priests are common in the Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholic churches; one can't marry after ordination or become a bishop if married. If I understand rightly, a typical married man can't be ordained to the priesthood in a Western Rite Catholic church; one must have been married while a priest in some other church that has what the Catholic Church sees as proper apostolic succession. Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]