Humanities desk
< May 6	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 8 >

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 7

April Fool's Day

Is it true that Crusaders originally did the April Fool's Day prank on the Muslims? Could this be the reason why Muslims hate April Fool's Day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonic The Xtreme (talk • contribs) 01:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard a lot of wacky things about the crusades, but I've never heard that! Where did you hear this? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is an April Fools joke itself. Someone posted a story on April 1 that claimed Muslims should not acknowledge April Fools because it is actually a celebration of the infidels that overthrew Muslim Spain. Therefore, it is an anti-Muslim holiday that is yet one more reason to hate everyone who is not Muslim. Of course, there is absolutely no truth of any kind to the joke that was posted, but many people want to find reasons to hate others (it doesn't matter if they are Muslim or not - many people just feel better if they hate others). So, a large number of Muslims have copied this story and passed it around to others who may want a little extra justification for their feelings. Now, it is at the point that any attempt to slip some truth into the story is seen as infidels trying to alter history to hide how evil they are. -- kainaw ™ 05:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From April Fool's Day:

Before 350, this date was used to celebrate the Birth of Christ (and so can be thought of as the original Christmas). In 350, Pope Julius I declared that Christ's birth would be celebrated on December 25. The cause of this shift is thought to be to align the major Christian event to the Pagan holiday that occurs on December 25. In this way, the transition from Pagan, as most of Rome was at that time, to Christianity would be as painless as possible. April 1, the original date set to be the Birth of Christ, was then condoned, and anyone still claiming this date to be Christ's birthday would suffer pranks from others, claiming that those who believed that April 1st was the Christian event was a fool and therefore acceptable to punish. This ideology of pulling pranks has evolved from that time.

--Melmann^(talk) 15:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Race

Is this true that Noah's three sons married different women: Jaspheth married Oriental, Shem married white and Ham married Black? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonic The Xtreme (talk • contribs) 01:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible does not say it, but it is true that there is a long tradition of interpretations of connecting Noah's sons as relating to the origins of human races and the founders of the three then-known continents. See Noah#Christian_perspectives, Shem#Racial_connotations, Ham,_son_of_Noah#The_existence_of_Ham, and Japheth#Ethnic_legends. There is no scientific backing for this, of course. Three sons, three continents... it's literally medieval logic. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the tabula gentium in the book of Genesis, chapter 10, you'll see that Ham is basically listed as the ancestor of African peoples, as well as of those speakers of Semitic languages whom the Israelites didn't like, while Shem is basically the ancestor of the remaining Semitic-speaking peoples whom the Jews knew about, and Japheth is actually associated with Media ("Madai"), Anatolia (Gomer conventionally identified with Cimmerians etc.), and the Aegean. Very reputable scholars have speculated about the possiblity of a Japheth / Iapetus connection. Peoples whom the ancient Jews didn't know about aren't mentioned, and of course modern linguistic and ethnic classifications were not strictly followed... AnonMoos (talk) 04:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}200.144.37.3 (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a query or comment on any particular specific point in reply to my comments, or are you just trying to be snarky? AnonMoos (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ways to represent ones art

i draw paintings and sketches how do i represent at an early age of 18...me just a starter,,i hav lot of talent and i can make reel things into real life ....they seem livig..at age of 18 no one can offer a new artist a place in his art gallery..please sugeest a better way —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aniketwakure (talk • contribs) 04:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The libraries in my town sometimes hold exhibitions of the work of local artists, and anybody can ask to have their work exhibited. So does one of the bookshops, although they seem slightly more discriminating about the quality of the work. You can also approach a proper art gallery; I've done this once and been turned away with friendly advice about what sort of pictures the gallery owner knew she could sell; if I wanted produce some like that, she would exhibit them. There's also a cafe which has paintings for sale outside all the time, because I think the artist has some kind of friendship with the cafe owner. Finally, there's a local society of artists I might turn to for advice, if I were keen enough. 81.131.13.122 (talk) 07:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polish-Soviet War : is the soldier on the left a woman ?

.

Hello. I am just giving a look to one of your fine star articles (though beeing an average educated 65 years old gentleman, I simply ignored until now the Red Army underwent such a wiping out, back in the 20, makes me understand '40 later events...) and stumble on that 1920 photo. Is the soldier on the left a ( # 40ish years old) woman ? I notice wide hips, inward knees, long hair (maybe tied up into a bun under the french helmet ?) , & propension to self-adornment with flowers (more than the other soldiers...). And if yes, is she known, and does she have an article on WP ? . Thanks a lot, & T. y. PS & I hope I'll be able to find my way back to your rubrique, my brain is really no more now what it used to be... Arapaima (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your left is our right, I assume (i.e. you mean left from the subjects point of view, the right side of the picture). Yes, that sure looks like a women to me. And you can use the "my contributions" link in the upper right corner to find all the pages you edited. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the soldier on the right (from the viewer's perspective), is most certainly a woman. I wonder if anyone knows her name as she would make a good subject for an article, providing there are published documents relating to her.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The online source of this image identifies her as Janina Walicka. So far, I couldn't find any more information about her. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found a few tidbits of information about her online, but not much. Her full name is given either as Janina Walicka-Łada or Janina Łada-Walicka. She was born ca. 1885 and died in 1935, probably having spent all or most of her life in Lwów (now Lviv). She seems to have been more of a writer then a fighter. During the Polish-Ukrainian War (1918–1919) in Lwów, she was part of the editorial staff of Pobudka ("Reveille"), a four-page daily newspaper with reports from the frontline and Polish propaganda. The editor-in-chief was Artur Schroeder, who is also on the photograph above (left of the banner) and has an entry in Polish Wikipedia (pl: Artur Schroeder). After the war, she made her living as a translator of French literature (she translated works by Francis Jammes, among others). She also published her own books, such as Wierna straż ("Faithful Guard", 1919) and Ułani! Ułani! Malowane dzieci ("Uhlans! Uhlans! The Painted Children", 1921), apparently war memoirs; you should be able to browse the latter book online here. Sources: [1], [2], [3], [4] (all in Polish). I hope that helps. Not sure if all that makes her notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, though. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the title page of Ułani! Ułani!..., the author is described as "Janina Łada Walicka, Corporal of the 2nd Squadron, 3rd Cavalry Division of the Lesser Poland Units of Volunteer Army" (Janina Łada Walicka, kapral II-go szwadronu III-go dywizjonu jazdy M.O.A.O.) — Kpalion^(talk) 20:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I saw it all right (with my new 4 d. reading glasses, next step'll be cataractotomy, I'm afraid...)!. BTW no man'd think of putting a flower on his RIGHT breast & on his LEFT hip , as a woman adorning her "robe du soir" , wouln't he? BTW, if your surgeon seems to mix up left & right, stay quiet, it's only a convention, a good old habit which has kept many a sane limb from being amputated , & which comes also from having scrutinized so many radios... Thanks a lot to all ! Arapaima (talk) 09:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK election results: "others"?

At the bottom of their results table [5] the BBC is reporting that "others" have gained one seat (and some other other has lost one seat). Where can I find out which parties or independent MPs are being referred to? 81.131.13.122 (talk) 07:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

timesonline.co.uk is the first place I'd look, other than the BBC. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The gain is the independent Sylvia Hermon in North Down, and the loss is in Wyre Forest, where the independent Dr Richard Taylor lost to the Conservatives. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, very good, thank you. 213.122.1.69 (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Taylor is not entirely independent - he is part of the Independent Kidderminster Hospital and Health Concern party, which also has several local councillors. Warofdreams talk 16:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conducting business meetings on wikis

Which organizations have attempted to conduct formal meetings on a wiki, as the primary mode of communication during the meeting, not just for noticing or recording agendas or the summarized minutes? What were their experiences? URLs please, if possible. Thank you. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 07:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The United States intelligence community uses Intellipedia for "collaborative data sharing," and the Department of State uses Diplopedia for similar purposes. Hope that helps. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wives of Henry VIII

My History teacher always said that Henry VIII had eight wives. As a distraction in Class we used to ask him as we knew he had a stormy Marriage. He was quite clear, though, that Henry had eight. So, how many did he have? MacOfJesus (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I am curious to know is who gave your former teacher permission to teach history?! I would think he'd have been better off working at a day care centre reading the children fairy tales. Eight wives??!! The average elementary student knows he only had six (Isn't that enough for a monarch?). Jesus wept!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Bernard, the above remark wasn't an insult directed at you, but rather at your former teacher who was clearly not qualified to teach history!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching FAIL. By the way, do you know if your school has made any major budget cuts as of late? Because that could explain your history teacher's incompetence... 24.189.90.68 (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The history teacher in question was the most qualified and most of us went on to take history as a major subject. It does depend on; what is a wife, a marriage, a wedding, and capasity for marriage. If you were to ask me then; one, only. He, the teacher, would always end his dissertation with: "Somepeople find one enough!", and a sigh, straight from the heart. In subsquent marriages he always, I think, insisted that the door was locked-shut and hence a disqualifing criteria, according to civil-law. Hence, it is not such a simple question.MacOfJesus (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to ask me then; one, only. Well, a marriage ceases with death of one of the spouses, right? So, Henry had to have at least three wives for he married Jane Seymour after the death of Catherine of Aragon (thus, as a widower in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church), never consumated his marriage to Anne of Cleves (making that marriage non-existing) and finally married Catherine Parr after sending ~~Catherine Parr~~Catherine Howard to the block. Thus, even a Roman Catholic has to acknowledge Jane Seymour and the Protestantism-leaning Catherine Parr as Henry's wives. Surtsicna (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fifth wife was Catherine Howard, the last one he sent to the chopping block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I mentioned both the 5th and the 6th as Catherine Parr. Silly me! Surtsicna (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to get those Catherines mixed up. Maybe that was Henry's problem too. 3 Catherines and 2 Annes. How did Jane get in there? He must have liked her in Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry VIII and his 6 wives, or Henry VI and his 8 wives, whichever is the greater. If we're getting answers by non-standard definitions of words, then my answer to "How many wives did Henry VIII have?" is "Cucumber". Otherwise, he had six. FiggyBee (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hence, what is:

1. a Marriage.

2. a wife/husband.

3. necessary capasity for marriage.

4. how far does civil law effectively rule on this.

5. common-law man and wife.

??

MacOfJesus (talk) 10:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy questions <==> crazy responses. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask a silly question, then you are sure to get a silly answer. But the list above reaches into the legal world and and our assumptions that need questioning. So how safe is our marriages? MacOfJesus (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No safer than our marriage are. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the OP means by "safe". In any case, Henry VIII had six wives. He also had mistresses, but they didn't count as "wives". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't the television show, QI say something about him only having 2 wives, can't remember the details. Mo ainm~Talk 11:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wives of Henry VIII, linked above, covers this. Since marriages 1, 2, 4 and 5 were annulled, they are void and don't count towards QI's total. Nevertheless, there were six women what at some point were described as Henry VIII's wife. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain he only had one, as he engendered the others in such a way that they were doubtfully valid, knowingly, so he could not clame, therefore, subsquently, that he was common-law man and wife. Hence, only one. By safe, I mean binding, for better, for worse, in sickness, in health,...

MacOfJesus (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And which one would that be? By the way, I wish I had had your history teacher when I was in school. What fun I'd have had!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first, of course, that was made properly. Civil law then said only one, then and now. Anyone who disagreed usually lost their heads, or came to a sudden end, but that does not change law. MacOfJesus (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, whoever disagreed with Henry VIII usually lost his or her head such as Sir Thomas More who took the stance that Catherine was his rightful wife; as did the Roman Catholic Church which was why he severed ties with Rome.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but Catherine of Aragon died in 1536, so if Henry was not divorced, he would at least be a widower by the time of his marriage to Anne of Cleves in 1540. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe your teacher was thinking of I'm Henery the Eighth, I Am, where the narrator is the eighth husband of the widow next door. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's possible he had just watched Herman's Hermits on YouTube- LOL. Bernard, you mentioned Henry's marriage to Catherine of Aragon having been made properly. Well, if you read the articles on Henry VIII, Catherine of Aragon, and Anne Boleyn, you will see that Henry had strong doubts as to the validity of his marriage to her, seeing as the Bible in the Book of Leviticus proscribed marriages between a man and his brother's widow (which Catherine was). That was what started the ball of the English Reformation rolling. The doubts had begun before he became enmeshed in the throes of violent desire for Lady Anne, so the latter cannot take the entire rap for his wish to seek an annulment from Queen Catherine.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I was in 8th grade, lo these many centuries ago, my teacher insisted that the capital of Brazil is Rio de Janeiro. I had to take my atlas to school to prove to her that, no, the capital of Brazil is Brasilia. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rio was the capital until 1960 though, so that might be somewhat understandable if you were in 8th grade in like 1963 vs 1990. Googlemeister (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember when Rio ceased to be capital and Brazilia became so ! MacOfJesus (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't, but I certainly remember when the capital of Germany was not Berlin. :) FiggyBee (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, that when the Marriage to Catherine of Aragon was envisaged all the necessary dispensations civil and otherwise would have been granted beforehand. Henry, bringing up these doubts postiae would be a non sequitur, as at the time he wished the marriage, and gone into beforehand. MacOfJesus (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry pretty much did what he wanted to. Trying to re-count his 6 wives based on current law is not really valid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And this starts to become a slippery slope, because if his first wife was not legitimate, neither was their daughter who was nonetheless the queen for awhile, so apparently at the time it was considered legitimate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civil law's regulations are binding on marriage and their regulations effect the validity thereof. This is the case then and now. MacOfJesus (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So England had at least two illegitimate rulers, Mary I and Elizabeth I? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe it's just one or the other. If his first marriage was improper, then Mary 1 was eligitimate and Anne Boleyn was truly his first wife, and Elizabeth I was legitimate. If his first marriage was proper and the divorce was improper, then Mary I was legitimate and Elizabeth I was illegitimate. However, if go by what the sources say, all 6 wives counted, and all 3 kids he produced via those 6 marriages were legitimate. Apparently Edward VI, son via Jane Seymour, was legitimate no matter how you slice it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth I was illegitimate any way you look at it. She was considered illegitimate by the Roman Catholic Church from the moment she was born and she was considered illegitimate by the Church of England from the moment her parents' marriage was annulled. Elizabeth succeeded per Third Succession Act - without the Act, theoretically, she would not have right to the crown being illegitimate. Elizabeth herself was aware of her "double" illegitimacy; while the first thing her sister Mary I did upon accession was declaring that she was legitimate and that the marriage of her parents had been valid, Elizabeth I never did such a thing. Of course, the issue of Elizabeth's illegitimacy was carefully ignored (though never denied) during her reign. Surtsicna (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... if there was a law declaring her to be the queen, then by law she was legitimate, ja? And if his first marriage was invalid according to religious law (as someone else mentioned earlier), then Anne Boleyn was his first wife, and then Liz I would be legitimate anyway, right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see... both Mary and Liz were "technically" illegitimate, but the 3rd succession act said they could serve anyway, if Eddie didn't produce any kids (which he didn't), and furthermore it was off-with-their-heads if anyone challenged the 3rd succession act. So be careful what you say, or you might end up in the Tower waiting for a cheap and chippy chopper. >:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's right! They were declared to be eligble to succeed but were still considered illegitimate; that's why the Act stipulated that any child (even a daughter) born by Catherine Parr would rank ahead of both Mary and Elizabeth in the line of succession. Had Henry had a daughter by his last wife, she would have succeeded Edward instead of Mary (being daughter of his wife and not of his sister-in-law/mistress). Henry's first marriage was declared invalid by the Church of England, but never by the Roman Catholic Church. Henry's second marriage was thus never valid from the POV of the RC Church. Then the CoE declared the second marriage null and void on the grounds of Anne's previous marriage contract with the Earl of Northumerland and/or on the grounds that Henry cohabited with Anne's sister Mary (just like his 1st marriage was annulled on the grounds that Catherine cohabited with Henry's brother). Surtsicna (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, and the point of all this is not who Henry was fooling around with, but who were the rightful heirs to the throne. If kings were elected instead of being hereditary, this wouldn't be a problem. I wonder if this legitimacy issue has anything to do with why Liz was childless. Because if she had had children, it would have seriously complicated matters, yes? Back to the original question, how many wives did Henry VIII have, the conventional answer is 6, although there are debates about several of them. I wonder if that teacher was counting the 2 known mistresses in the total? Because, truth to tell, the way Henry managed his personal life, the line between wife and mistress was a tad blurry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for coming back to the question. Yes, the teacher was including those two. To our objection, the teacher said that Henry was the Law. Comon law man and wife was mentioned. We questioned the validity of this. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We would call his opinion "original research". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated question: Did Henry VIII really wear a codpiece to show he was "sexually powerful", or was my history class reading too much into the fact when my history teacher said he wore a codpiece? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't that a pretty common item of attire in those days?

Yep, codpieces were a standard item of fashion in England in the early 16th century. See 1500-1550 in fashion#Overview 2. FiggyBee (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said: We had a good history teacher! MacOfJesus (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you come to The Tower of London you can see Henry's attire, first hand. MacOfJesus (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland used Mary and Elizabeth's alleged illegitimacy as an excuse to usurp the Crown for his daughter-in-law Lady Jane Grey. Henry had deliberately excluded his elder sister Margaret's Scottish descendants from the succession in his will.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad there weren't tabloids then - they would have had endless material. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Talk:Elizabeth I of England#Elizabeth and Mary - stepsisters or half-sisters?!. A user claims that Mary and Elizabeth were not sisters and puts that original research into articles! Henry's family life was complicated but at least we know who were his daughters. Surtsicna (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented there. What some people don't realise is that authors of fiction put notions like that into their novels just as tabloid-style sensationalism in order to sell more copies. Nowadays, readers want spice not truth, alas.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't loose your head! I do agree what people want is novelty; "always itching for something new", not truth! MacOfJesus (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, loosing one's head is a bad idea, because it could wobble around so much that it eventually breaks off, then you'll most likely lose it because you've got other things on your mind, such as the fact that your mind has been separated from your body. Not to mention that you're dead now. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks to every one who contributed to this important issue of how many wives did Henry VIII have. However, I am left none the wiser! I think it hinges on whether Henry was "the Law" or not. Was there a viable Law outside him? I still think there was, hence I think only one wife! MacOfJesus (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to you though. Wives of Henry VIII, Marriage Act 1753#The situation directly preceding the Act and English Reformation may help your understanding of the legal matters. The apparent summary is that marriages were governed by church law and Henry had four of his six marriages annulled (declared legally void) by officials of the church (see Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury who did the annulling), though the first marriage was retroactively validated under Mary I of England. On an aside, even if you disagree with the validity of the annulments, Henry's first wife was dead before he married his fourth. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can raise objections to all of these points. Church Law had changed, Henry saw to that. (Henry was now the head of the Church in the land). Henry encumpassed the death of those who stood in his way, including his wives. Even his local Church, Saint Alfrige's, who put him out; all were untimely killed. Even then, if you comit a crime to gain from it you are legally barred. 1753 is 100 years too late! It is up to all thinking beings to think, it is up to history to recount the deeds/events of the past. MacOfJesus (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're still missing the point

Your opinion on whether it was morally right or wrong does not matter.
Whether (and when) Henry's marriages were considered legally valid was a matter of law. The legal declarations that were made are in the articles linked above. If you're arguing that the King did not have the power to change the law, I think you need to read a more comprehensive history of English law to find answers on what powers the king had. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did I not say that this hinges on the matter of Law not on my opinion? Did I not say that my history teacher said then: that Henry was the Law. Did you not read/follow the page above? I am studying this from an academic point of view, not from a knee-jerk reaction. Hence, I am ending this dissertation. MacOfJesus (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, my comment was somewhat rude. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. MacOfJesus (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elected

I went to vote yesterday and met my local Labour coucilor, who convinced me to change my vote, I would like to know if he was reelected, how do I find out the results for my area? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 08:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly I can't find any information but from what I remember they don't even start counting the local council elections votes until they have finished counting the general election ones. If I'm right you will not be able to find out until tomorrow. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can: BBC.co.uk election ,then put in your area in the appropriate box and wait. Expect to wait as the whole of the UK are doing the same! Did you vote, and for whom? MacOfJesus (talk) 09:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That provides the local results detailing which MP was elected in the general election, but there were also a number of local council elections taking place yesterday (in Plymouth, for example). It's not clear which the OP is asking about, but the word "councilor" provides a strong clue. 81.131.21.170 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, but: [6] the BBC do have the local council results, in handy A-Z form. Perhaps that was what MoJ meant. 81.131.21.170 (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the BBC's site doesn't tell you who was elected; there's no names, just parties and number of seats. FiggyBee (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your local council's website will probably have the results (eg Salford, Notlob...) FiggyBee (talk) 10:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the full results, then ring your local Constituints Office. MacOfJesus (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The site is now: BBC.co.uk election results , then when the varius options come up under Google, choose 2010 results. OK? MacOfJesus (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous reviews in The New York Times

Who could possibly write this review:

Swinburne's "Studies in Songs". The New York Times, December 19, 1880, page 4. - ??

If pinpointing the author is ruled out, maybe it is possible to narrow the pool of "the usual suspects"? What kind of people used to review poetry in NYC of 1880? I hope not the poets themselves... TIA, East of Borschov (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the reviews in that issue — or the articles, for that matter — have by-lines. I think triangulating the authors would be a non-trivial task. 19th-century periodicals are generally pretty different than modern ones in many respects, their way of handling authorship being one of them. My impression is that editors were more important than authors, on the whole. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Social proximity — jargon terms for types of propinquity? (Sociology/Social Philosophy)

According to dictionary.com (and roughly consistent with the Wikipedia page):

propinquity

–noun

1. nearness in place; proximity.

2. nearness of relation; kinship.

3. affinity of nature; similarity.

4. nearness in time.

I'd always thought it only meant the first definition and was associated with proximity. Apparently not. So what, if anything, is the jargon term one would use to specifically refer to the third definition above?

Example: people that live in proximal apartments or work in the same office have proximity as the basis for a relationship (what I thought was propinquity); but what about people that share interests, such as in wine tasting, or discussing social philosophy?

Bonus points: the latter seems to be the basis for many specialized on-line social networks (flixster, goodreads), whereas facebook is perhaps an adjunct to pre-existing relationships. Is there an academic journal or other forum that specializes in these things?

Thanks. -- MrRedwood (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Your comments and questions reminded me of the article Six degrees of separation. It might not actually deal with your specific questions, but it seems to be close enough that it probably would be of interest. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)][reply]

You may wish to see Erdős number and Erdös Number Project. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for both of those; I took a look and they were both interesting examples of proximal relationships of some kind (btw, on Erdös, have you seen this?). But I'm interested in the academic abstraction — its hard to do research when one doesn't know the tightly focused jargon terms the academics use. -- MrRedwood (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I had not seen that. You might find websites to help you with jargon if you use http://www.google.com/Top/Society/. I can also suggest http://vark.com/ and http://www.google.com/Top/Reference/Ask_an_Expert/. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Simon Telfer Scott DSM and HMS Havelock Norway 1940

OTRS received the following email today. The sender wanted me to relay this question to you (spelling has been corrected):

Hi.
I am just wondering if you can help me as i have tried everything that i can but without success, i have sat here at my computer for hours but have not been able to get the information that i want.
My uncle as outlined above was in the British Navy for 23 years and in the last world war he was on HMS Havelock in Norway when he was awarded the DSM Medal which he got at Buckingham Palace on the 13th March 1940.
The problem is this none of the family that are left no why he got the medal as he never discussed the war with anyone which is very sad.
Can you help me or point me in the right direction. i have been in touch with the Naval secretary who says that the citation and papers on the matter were kept at Kew but have now been destroyed,why i ask myself have they done that without at least taking a microcopy of them.
I do hope you can help me as i have spent hours at this computer trying for an answer,someone out there must have the answer but where. IS there a site that i can log onto as if so can you please help.
Thank you,
Dallas woods Mr

In a separate email, he stated this:

Hi again.
I have just sent you an e-mail re the above but have not given you the following information.
His navel number was p/jx 130249 and he was a leading seaman when he got the medal.
He was born on the 3rd Dec 1910 and died on the 15th March 1991.
Thank you.
Dallas woods

Can any military history experts on the RefDesk help? Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your uncle's DSM was part of a large batch of awards made "for services in Norway". The captain of the Havelock received the DSO in the same group of awards. The London Gazette entry is here (your uncle's name appears on the next page). The exact action which won Robert Scott his DSM may be lost to history, unless you can find someone who was there, but there's a brief summary of H88's contribution to the Norwegian Campaign here - following up the book references on that page might prove fruitful. FiggyBee (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way, note the date on the Gazette conflicts with your information. The 13th of March would have been too early for Norway. FiggyBee (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this page help you? [7] --TammyMoet (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Boleyn

I have read all articles I can find and consulted the library attached to St Paul's Cathedral. I can find no record of a PUBLIC wedding for Anne Boleyn to Henry V111. I understand they were married privately in the winter of 1532/1533. Later, when Henry's marriage to Katherine of Aragon was declared void, the marriage was accepted and Anne was crowned Queen Consort about month later. Was there a public marriage and, if so, where did it take place? Elspeth M Cavendish (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they didn't want a public marriage... she had her head tucked underneath her arm Shii (tock) 20:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't her alleged supernumerary breast have got in the way? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I'm sure you've already read our Anne Boleyn article, which mentions two "secret" wedding ceremonies. The article doesn't specifically say there was no public ceremony. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no public ceremony. They were married twice in secret, and her first official public appearance was her procession (by litter) through London from the Tower to Westminster Abbey where she was crowned queen the following day on 1 June 1533. The marriage had been proclaimed several days earlier on 28 May after Archbishop Cranmer declared Henry's marriage to Catherine had been "null and void". And Jack, she did not have an extra breast, a goiter on her neck or a sixth finger; these were rumours spread by hostile Imperialists and Catholics to portray her as a witch.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, Jeanne. That's why I said "alleged". But the version I've heard is that these claims were used by Henry as "evidence" to support the charges that led to her beheading. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anne was charged with High Treason, not witchcraft, of which the penalty was death by burning. Henry actually used God's denial of living male offspring as proof that she had bewitched him, but she was never formally accused of having practised witchcraft. Remember in the 16th century, it was believed that the female determined the child's sex, hence the appeal of Jane Seymour who had a plethora of brothers. Henry also had lamented that Anne had used sorcery to kill his sons while they were in her womb. (Nice one Henry, obviously overlooking the fact that the birth of a son would have saved Anne!)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Jeanne Boleyn may be slightly ambiguous on one point. To amplify, in England witchcraft in the sense of mere maleficium (sorcery intended to harm another, the more common charge over several centuries) was generally not in itself a capital offense. Increasingly during the early modern period, however, witchcraft per se was characterised and prosecuted as heresy, which was a capital offense, but in England heretics were normally hanged (though in Scotland they were indeed burned), while burning was reserved for those (commoners) guilty of treason.

Treason, however, could be either 'High' - directed against the monarch, etc, or 'Petty' - directed against one's spouse (usually husband). Thus if a female witch was found guilty of attempted or actual murder of her husband by sorcery she could be sentenced to burn either for heresy or for petty treason.

Anne, therefore, could potentially have been accused and sentenced to be hanged for Sorcery, or burned for Heresy or High Treason or Petty Treason, but in the event was given the 'noble' execution of beheading.

An excellent, detailed and scholarly reference dealing with such matters (though barely mentioning Anne Boleyn herself) in 16th- and 17th-century England is Religion and the Decline of Magic by Keith Thomas. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is Anne Boleyn was executed for High Treason as well as adultery and incest. Not once were charges of witchcraft or heresy levelled against her. It should be noted that adultery committed by a queen consort was treason in England which normally carried the sentence of burning. Henry, out of clemency commuted the sentence to beheading by sword.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

any sex symbols who worked as a pair?

are there any sex icons who did their profession as a pair, a la Gilbert and Sullivan? Thank you. 84.153.199.22 (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on your definition, for both parts of the question. I know there's a list, but I'm not convinced it's either complete or properly cited. Also, do you mean once, or multiple times? Tracy and Hepburn come to mind, although they were more like regular movie stars, as opposed to "sex symbols". Likewise with the pair who did the Thin Man series. Cary Grant and Mae West, who are both on the list, did a movie together, but only one or at most two. For that matter, so did the younger Tom Cruise and the older Paul Newman, in the sequel to the Newman-Gleason film about the pool sharks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman, and also Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz, have done a few movies together, if that counts. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers? Burton and Taylor? Kittybrewster ☎ 21:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better to ask at the Entertainment Desk? — Kpalion^(talk) 21:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marcello Mastroianni and Sophia Loren, Montgomery Clift and Elizabeth Taylor (twice), Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, Terence Stamp and Julie Christie.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert and Sullivan were sex icons??!!! Anyway my first thought was Mulder and Scully. Or (for a certain mostly female fan subculture), Kirk/Spock, pronounced "Kirk slash Spock". 69.228.170.24 (talk) 07:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those sideburns and moustaches? Phwoar. FiggyBee (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert and Sullivan would be sex symbols on the same order as the Smith Brothers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Various siblings: the Cheeky Girls, the Minogues, and so on. 78.146.176.116 (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the U.S. Government stopped printing paper money tomorrow, what would happen?

40 years ago this would have led to rapid deflation, right? As the supply of paper money in circulation dwindled? But now, with everyone having electronic banking in their wallets and purses, would the cessation of money printing in America really have any non-trivial effects? 61.189.63.151 (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I was at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, they said most of the money they print is to replace worn-out bills returned to them by the federal reserve banks. If you stop doing that, you'll eventually run out of bills, and then you'll have to carry a boatload of dollar coins in your man-purse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would have happened 40 years ago, and would happen today if people and institutions didn't quickly adapt to all-electronic money (which is still far from something that everyone has), is the currency would become effectively unusable (you're "phasing out" bills with nothing replacing them) and the economy would completely collapse. The elimination of cash might have unpredictable effects on the black market and other criminal activities. FiggyBee (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The questioner did specify just the removal of paper currency, and not the "elimination of cash". Presumably dollar coins (and other coinage) would still be available, and would become standard for small transactions, as Bugs suggests. Checks would make a big comeback, I guess. People paid under the table would face some special challenges. Overall, the economy would suffer because of the increased difficulty of conducting routine business. —Kevin Myers 08:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Americans have shown a curious resistance to using any coin larger than 25c. Unless the mints started producing masses of coins, the small number of large coins in circulation would be unable to take up much slack left by an absence of bills. I don't think coins would be usable for anything other than what they're used for now (extremely small transactions, a cup of coffee or a newspaper). FiggyBee (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One reason (as I alluded to earlier) is that men generally don't carry purses, and dollar coins tend to be heavy. Another problem used to be that very few vending machines would take them, and when you would get a Susie or a Sacagawea in change at a store, you would ~~dump~~ spend it at some other store as soon as possible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My partner (who is American) was amazed at how chunky and heavy Australian coins are. But on the other hand, as I pointed out to her, a two dollar coin is an awful lot lighter and easier to handle than eight quarters! FiggyBee (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most modern vending machines take dollar bills. They probably take dollar coins, too, but most folks are not in the habit of using them. The fact is, unless the government stops making them, the dollar bill will continue to be preferred. When they went with the Susie, they continued to print dollar bills. As with feeble attempts to bring in the metric system, if you keep the old system around, very few have incentive to change. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you meant they stopped creating new money (ignoring the whole replacing damaged money) the quantity theory of money would suggest that you are correct. The whole electronic money supply thing is not really that important because to create electronic money banks do need some amount of "real" money, see fractional reserve banking --124.186.89.122 (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't confuse currency with money. The vast majority of U.S. dollars are in electronic form without a banknote anywhere. The amount of paper currency in circulation has little to do with the money supply. That money in your checking or savings account is purely in electronic form. If the Federal Reserve stopped printing dollars on paper, it would be a terrible inconvenience at first but people would adjust and find alternatives. It's unlikely it would cause the whole economy to collapse. For cash transactions, many alternatives are available to Federal Reserve Notes. People would conduct more business with credit/debit cards and bank checks. Private banks could issue their own currencies that would be redeemable in dollars. This used to be common in the U.S. People might choose to use a foreign currency for cash transactions. The Canadian dollar or the euro would be likely candidates. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if McDonald's gift certificates became the new currency. I'd say overall the effects would be non-trivial but the U.S. economy would adjust very quickly. —D. Monack ^talk 08:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]