Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 November 15

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.

November 15

Opinion polls in Muslim-majority countries about the intervention of NATO in Libya

Is there such thing? I haven't found anything through Google. 184.163.160.61 (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

i think opinion polls is quite a rarity in most of Asia. it seems to be a new thing here. and most autocratic countries would prefer not having such thing as it might undermine their power. you could try googling each muslim-majority countries to see if there's any. otherwise you could rely on official stand of the muslim governments since they are more or less attuned to the wishes of their people. 182.62.57.72 (talk) 09:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is a poll from late April/early May this year saying most Arabs favoured an Arab-led intervention to overthrow Gaddafi but opposed NATO action. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Western art

I am trying to find a picture of a painting that I'll describe:

It is of a cowboy on horseback, riding through a blizzard, dressed in a sheepskin coat. His head is down. The painting may be titled something like Coming Home or Going Home, or something like that. Any ideas?

DCItalk 00:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Like this image? -- Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It's similar, but not the one. The rider definitely has a sheepskin coat on. Thanks for your comment! DCItalk 00:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

(EC)As a possible lead, one of the best known and most prolific artists specialising in such paintings and drawings is Frederick Remington. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.86 (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Like this,[1] for example, though I suspect this is not the one. But the OP should google-image [remington paintings the cowboy], for example, and see if anything looks familiar. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that should help. DCItalk 01:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Mayor in one U.S state and later, governor of another state

Can someone who has served as a mayor of a city in a state of the U.S be eligible to run and serve as governor of a different state if that person decides to move to that state and live there for a while? Would this be legal and Constitutional? Willminator (talk) 02:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course, why would you think it wouldn't be? The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution says that if you're born in the US (with certain rare exceptions) you're a citizen of the US and of the state in which you reside. If you change your residence, you become a citizen of the new state. Term limits can disqualify you from office based on having held that office for a certain number of terms, or for having held it too recently, and there was a (failed) proposal in California that would have had term limits that cross-applied between the Assembly and the Senate, but I have never heard of any that would apply cross-state. --Trovatore (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hope you dont mind, I corrected your link to the 14th. Heiro 02:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Modifying another editor's post on a discussion page is indeed objectionable, as I said on your talk page, which you blew off. A better course of action is to make your own posting following in which you propose a correction, or to post on the talk page of the editor you feel made a mistake, and ask him to change his own posting. Edison (talk) 06:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It's Trovatore's position to object. He's a big boy, he can speak for himself and doesn't need you to speak for him. If he didn't mind, I don't see why anyone else should... --Jayron32 06:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No editor here has the right to place his words in the posting of another. Edison (talk) 06:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

And what right to you have to decide that Trovatore (or I, or anyone else) is required to care? Again, you have not been aggrieved in any way; not a single word of yours has been changed, and if Trovatore feels offended, he can speak up. It's Trovatore's words, he, and not you Edison, gets to decide if he needs to protect them or not. It is rather presumptuous of you to decide that Trovatore cannot allow the correction. --Jayron32 06:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It depends. Some states have rules as to who can be governor that sometimes include the candidate living in the state as a permanent resident for X number of years. For a recent related example, Rahm Emanuel ran into some trouble when running for mayor of Chicago. Some said that he couldn't run because he'd been living away from Illinois for too long. Dismas|^(talk) 03:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just to "broaden" the OP's question a bit: There are many politicians who have served in elected positions in multiple states. Just a few random examples (none are specifically mayor-governor, but that's probably allowable, given the following examples):

• Sam Houston: Governor of Tennessee (1827-1829) and Senator from Texas (1846-1859, and Governor of Texas (1859-1861)
• Daniel Webster: Congressman from New Hampshire (1813-1817), Congressman from Massachusetts (1823-1827) Senator from Massachusetts (1827-1841, 1845-1850)
• William D. Williamson served in the Massacusetts State Senate and later was a Congressman from and governor of Maine.
• Not happened yet, but William Weld's name has been floated for several positions in New York, including senator, governor, attorney general, etc. He's a former governor of Massachusetts.

If we extend it to include people who were born in one state and became an elected official in another, the list is almost too large to comprehend; you could start with our current President (born in Hawaii, Senator from Illinois) or the prior one (born in Connecticut, Governor of Texas). Again, I cannot offhand name anyone who has the specific combination you list (mayor of city in one state, governor of another), but given the hundreds upon hundreds of governors that there have been, it's quite possible that has actually already happened; even if it hadn't, there is nothing preventing it from happening. --Jayron32 03:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that Houston held another Texas position besides senator and governor. Nyttend (talk) 03:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

John W. Geary was mayor of San Francisco (1850–1), appointed governor of Kansas Territory (1856–7), elected governor of Pennsylvania (1867–73). I knew of this because I used to live near Geary Boulevard. —Tamfang (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As noted earlier, the significant legal barriers for eligibility for a given public office are age and residency. RFK was from Massachusetts, and lived just long enough in New York state to run for (and win) the Senatorial contest there in 1964. (That led to Tom Lehrer saying he was proud to be from the only state that had three senators.) Article One of the United States Constitution puts only three restrictions on who can be senators: they must be at least 30 years old; they must be U.S. citizens for at least 9 years; and they must be a resident of their state. Exactly what constitutes "residency" is left up to the individual states to decide. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

RCMP OPP Toronto police Canada

Is Canada the only nation in the world to have three levels of law enforcement-RCMP for federal, OPP for provincial and Toronto municipal matters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.33.140 (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As opposed to the U.S. which has up to four, including the FBI (federal), State Police, County Sherrifs offices, and City/Town police? --Jayron32 04:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There would be quite a few countries with three levels of law enforcement. --Soman (talk) 07:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The RCMP is usually the provincial police too, except in Ontario, Quebec, and Newfoundland. And in some parts of Ontario, there are no local police, just OPP. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

These are not levels exactly in the U.S. The FBI (and ATF, DEA, Secret Service, etc.) has jurisdiction over some crimes, the local police over others (with oddities like the Federal Kidnapping Act and the federal "depriving of civil rights" trials to get around double jeopardy). County and town police usually do have not jurisdiction over the same land area (county/state enforce outside town limits, town police inside). State and county police organization varies widely by state, with state police being mainly highway patrol in some states but county police being merely jail guards in other states. County police do not usually conduct oversight investigations of town police, that is usually a state police function - and a FBI one, depending on the particular laws which may have been violated. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

In BC there is no provincial police and only a few municipalities have their own force. So in my province, there is really only one level. 207.81.30.213 (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

new definition of British prince and princess

Since the royal succession laws in the British Commonwealth will no longer give males precedence over females, does that mean that the requirements for becoming a prince or princess will also become gender-neutral? That is, will Princess Anne's children be eligible for titles of prince and princess, since Anne would move up the line of succession? Do Zara and Peter Phillips resent not having had royal titles? If these rules wouldn't apply to Anne (I've heard rumors that the new laws apply only to future monarchs) then how would the naming conventions change should, for example, Kate give birth to a daughter before a son?

Of course, my question presupposes that the Commonwealth leaders figured out how they would change all of the relevant royal protocols, but it is very much possible that they haven't yet put much thought into this... 128.135.171.82 (talk) 08:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The change in succession rules would not be retrospective. The Princess Royal and her issue are unaffected. A Prince remains a Prince and a Princess is still a Princess. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

See 2011 proposals to change the rules of royal succession in the Commonwealth realms. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Amusingly, from an amateur reading, Australia can change the rules of succession of the Queen of Australia via parliament; but, can't stop HM appointing a GG on advice without a referendum. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The Statute of Westminster 1931 requires that all Commonwealth countries must give permission to change the rules of succession for any Commonwealth country, but it don't specify a requirement for a referendum to approve such changes. So Australia's parliament can't change the rules unilaterally, but it doesn't require a referendum to approve any changes if the other Commonwealth nations agree. (Having the public vote on who should be King or Queen rather defeats the point of having a monarchy, doesn't it?)--Colapeninsula (talk) 09:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Fifelfoo was referring to the fact that our Constitution stipulates there shall be a governor-general, appointed by the monarch, and that the Constitution cannot be changed except by referendum. I agree that our parliament cannot unilaterally change the succession laws without breaching the Statute of Westminster, which would place it at risk of being expelled from the Commonwealth, in which case there'd be no Australian monarchy anyway. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

My impression on the Australia Act is that our Constitution is supreme, thereby making the High Court of Australia supreme outside of reserve powers. The fact that Australia will choose to honour the Statute of Westminster because we will, doesn't mean that we can't unilaterally change the laws of succession for the House of Windsor…especially as we claim universal jurisdiction (extraterritoriality). Of course, I can't see any situation where parliament and the HCA would decide to do so; but, I do love multiple supreme Crowns or Commonwealths (as Australia is) working in concert. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Without the pretension of giving legal advice, I've just checked our article, and the Australia Act (which has been tested), basically gives the Commonwealth the power to alter or amend any act in place over Australia within the bounds of the constitution. My primitive understanding is that the Statute of Westminster is such an act open to amendment, repeal, etc., and that the Australia Act gives us the power to change it up. (Of course no Australian government that would do so would maintain the monarchy; and, no Australian government that would maintain the monarchy, or the Commonwealth of Nations as a coterie of capitalist states would bother to amend the Statute of Westminster given it would be making a very 1066/Mao Zedong argument about the sources of legal power.) Fifelfoo (talk) 10:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Australia could choose to repeal the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942, but it has no power to unilaterally change the Statute itself, because the Statute is not a creature of Australia. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Which is why I noted Australia's parliament's assumption of universal jurisdiction (extraterritoriality). We've only used it in relation to sex crimes against children committed overseas to my memory, but combine universal jurisdiction with commonwealth supremacy, and you give Parliament the power to amend anything not constitutionally proscribed. Like the contents of the act of settlement, or the act of westminster, or which house is the legally constituted crown in the United Kingdom, etc. Parliaments are bizarre in their assumption of universal power. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

But that leads to the nonsensical position whereby you have one country agreeing to a later version of the Statute and the remaining countries agreeing to the original version, yet all of them agreeing that there is universal agreement to a single version. We can agree that black is white but that doesn't make it so. It is inherent in the Statute of Westminster that not a comma of it can be changed without the unanimous agreement of all the Commonwealth realms. If Australia or any country purports to change it without such unanimous agreement, their action is null and void, universal jurisdiction (extraterritoriality) notwithstanding. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Which isn't precisely why Australia _can't_; part of supremacy is the capacity to declare black is white and attempt to martially impose your will on any power that differs—this is part of the pleasure of being part of a state that claims an unrestricted power to impose its will, but doesn't really do so that often. Examples of Commonwealth members going outside the community since 1945 do abound. That Australia is loyal to HRH, the Commonwealth and non-obligatory elements of the make-up of Australian power explain why we don't engage in such action. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The expert on this area is User:Proteus. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It was much reported at the time it won't be retrospective but our current article is less clear then that IMO. All it says is it's only going to apply to descendents to the Prince of Wales. I think this means even those born after the law change but who are further down in the line of succession will still follow male preference primogeniture, even if it's not likely to affect them. But perhaps more interestingly, if both the current Prince of Wales and the Duke of York and all their descendents die but the Queen survives as does the The Earl of Wessex and his descendents, wouldn't the Earl of Wessex become the Prince of Wales? Does this mean Louise Windsor would now take precedence over James? On the other hand, if it only ever applies to the current Prince of Wales i.e. Charles, this seems likely to mean if his descendents all die and given it's unlikely he'll have any more 'issue', the law effectively becomes void and we'll have to start over again. Nil Einne (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Wessex would become the new heir apparent, but wouldn't necessarily be created Prince of Wales. Eldest (surviving) sons of the monarch are the only ones eligible to be PofW, but it's at the monarch's discretion when and even if it happens. Given that Camilla is not called the Princess of Wales in deference to the memory of Diana, it's likely that Wessex would also not become PofW, in deference to the memory of his brother. But all that aside, the new rules would apply to the descendants of the person of Charles, so in the event that he and all of his descendants and the Duke of York and all of his descendants die before the Queen does, I'd posit they'd just tweak the law to make it apply to the descendants of the Earl of Wessex, which would bump up Lady Louise Windsor over her brother. I'm sure they've thought of this possibility, but doubtless they consider it so unlikely that it doesn't need a specific plan. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Princess Anne and Mark Phillips could have chosen to have their children be Prince Peter and Princess Zara Earl/Viscount this or the Countess of that, but they preferred them not to have such titles. This was consistent with Mark Phillips refusing a title when he married Anne. Their decision had nothing to do with Anne's personal position in the line of succession or why she was ranked lower than her younger brothers. Despite their lack of titles, Peter and Zara Phillips are every bit as royal as Princes William and Harry, Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice, and Prince Edward's two children. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Jack, I bow to your superior knowledge of such matters, but does that also apply to the parallel case of Princess Margaret, who was also the daughter of a monarch? On her marriage she took the extra title of Countess of Snowdon (as wife of the newly-created Earl of Snowdon), and her children took titles (or is it styles?) related to the Earldom. Could they also have been Prince David/Princess Sarah? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I defer to an actual expert here. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes they could, as grandchildren of King George VI. To corroborate this, I quote the example of Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, who has the title "Prince" by virtue of being the grandson of a monarch (King George V). --TammyMoet (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Our article on David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley states: "Though his mother was a princess, in the United Kingdom royal titles and styles are passed only from the father." No source for that, though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, our article on the Earl of St Andrews says "As a great-grandson of King George V, St Andrews would have been styled "His Highness Prince George of Kent" had George V not limited the title of prince/princess to children and male-line grandchildren of the sovereign. " Again, no source for that. So if that is correct, then I'm a little out of date! However, it also begs the question of whether a new Act of Succession would contradict George V's limitation. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Which explains why Peter Phillips says: His parents were said to have refused offers from The Queen that would have led to his being born in the peerage. That is, despite what I said above, he was never going to be a prince because his father was not a prince, but he could have been born an earl, viscount etc, except his parents refused. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have just had the extraordinary thought that the OP might think that if the Duchess of Cambridge were first to have a daughter, maybe she would not be a Princess. Answer: she would. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Answer to the OP: no change to the succession law will itself have any effect upon an individual's right to style himself or herself as a prince or princess of the United Kingdom. The succession is governed by an actual law (currently the Act of Settlement 1701), while the princely title is restricted to certain people by the will of the Sovereign (currently the Letters Patent of 1917). Surtsicna (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That being said, I have to add that it will only make sense for the Sovereign to issue new letters patent granting the title and style of a British prince to the Sovereign's daughters' children (while making an exception for the Phillips, if they wish so). What kind of a move towards equality would it be to still have male-line grandchildren as princes and female-line grandchildren untitled, especially if children of an older daughter ranked higher in the line of succession than children of a younger son? Surtsicna (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The irony of that is that the elimination of sex discrimination, a worthy development which brings the royalty closer to the notions of equality and fairness the general community has come to expect, at the same time would have the effect of increasing the number of titled people, which could possibly be seen to counteract the immediate and obvious benefit of the rule change. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That could easily be avoided by restricting the princely title to the children of the Sovereign and children of the heir apparent; only children of the Sovereign's eldest child would be princes or princesses of the United Kingdom. Currently, children of one of the Sovereign's son do not use titles they are entitled to and children of the daughter are not entitled to them at all. The Duke of York's daughters could go Princess Patricia of Connaught after they marry and simply stop using the princely title - they are criticised for not doing anything "royal" anyway. Then again, Beatrice and Eugenie could be allowed to retain their titles, with Henry's children being the first male-line grandchildren of a monarch not to enjoy royal titles. Surtsicna (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If William and Kate were to have first a girl, then a boy, would the boy still later become Prince of Wales even though he would not be the heir? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

From Prince of Wales: The title Prince of Wales is given only to the heir apparent—that is, somebody who cannot be displaced in the succession to the throne by any future birth. In countries that practice male primogeniture, this is usually the eldest son of the reigning monarch, or, if he is deceased, his eldest son, and so on, or if the monarch's eldest son has died without issue, the monarch's second eldest son, etc. A daughter of the sovereign who is currently next in line to the throne is not the "heir apparent" because she would be displaced in the succession by any future legitimate son of the sovereign. Similarly, any other relative would be displaced by any future legitimate child: they are instead heirs presumptive and cannot therefore take the title of Prince (or Princess) of Wales in their own right. Hence there was no heir apparent during the reign of George VI, who had no sons: Princess Elizabeth was heiress presumptive, and was hence not eligible to be titled Princess of Wales. After it became obvious that George VI was unlikely to father more children, the option of bestowing the title of Princess of Wales was considered (but ultimately rejected, due in large part to a lack of enthusiasm for the idea from the heiress presumptive herself). It is not impossible for the heir apparent to be female—for example, if a reigning monarch's eldest son (the heir apparent) had daughters but no sons, then, if the heir apparent was to die before the monarch, his (the heir apparent's) daughter would become the heir apparent. There does not appear to be any impediment to a female heir apparent being made Princess of Wales in her own right, but such a situation has never occurred in practice. The title has usually been held by the Prince's wife, in her capacity as spouse of the heir apparent and therefore future queen consort. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe future heiresses apparent will be created Princesses of Wales, as the title is not restricted to males - though Princess Anne of Denmark and Norway, the only heiress apparent to the throne, never held it (but then again, it should be noted that her half-brother, James Francis Edward, was not attainted and thus stripped of his titles until 2 March 1702, only six days before Anne ascended the throne). What interests me more is what will happen to the Duchy of Cornwall; it is not restricted to the heir apparent but to the eldest son (which is why it is not held by sons of Dukes of Cornwall who predeceased their fathers). Is it possible that the eldest son will still hold the duchy while his elder sister is Princess of Wales? I doubt it, because in that case the eldest son of that Princess of Wales could not hold the duchy until his uncle's death. Furthermore, what about the title of Princess Royal? Will the heiress apparent be both Princess of Wales and Princess Royal? Will her younger sister be Princess Royal? Will they come up with "Prince Royal"? The change brings up many more questions. Surtsicna (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

There was nothing automatic about the Queen deciding to call her daughter Princess Anne, Princess Royal and her mother Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

True, but the duchy of Cornwall is an honour automatically gained by the Sovereign's eldest son under Henry V's charter. Surtsicna (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Spectators hired to cheer for a foreign competing team in a sporting event

I've come across some instances when a group of people (normally young kids) were paid to attend a sporting event to cheer for a foreign competing team. I think it also happened during the Beijing olympics. My questions are who pays for this? And what is the purpose? Is that how a host should behave in order to be a good host? 182.62.57.72 (talk) 08:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

According to this BBC article, in the Beijing Olympics, volunteers were bussed in to fill the empty seats and cheer both sides. Mainly, it's just good sportsmanship. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Or good public relations to pay back the locals for having to put up with all the disruptions caused by holding the events. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

During the 1998 Commonwealth Games, some students (including me) from my secondary school (which wasn't that far National Sports Complex, Malaysia were given free tickets to attend events in the main stadium on a few days. (School holidays were changed to coincide with the games.) We went with some teachers in the morning and left some time in the afternoon, although the tickets were for the whole day so you could come back later on your own if you wished to. Some of us were even given tickets to the closing ceremony. We didn't receive any payment (although we may have been told there was a chance we would get to go to the closing ceremony, I can't remember on that part) and I don't think we were told to cheer for anyone in particular. As has been said there are several reasons why organisers would want to do this including filling up empty seats. I don't know the particulars of who paid for what, I'm pretty sure the government or organisers provided the tickets but I don't know whether the buses? were from the school budget or provided directly by the government/organisers, and whether those teachers who accompanied us received any extra payment (my guess would be no). Nil Einne (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've heard of tennis tournaments when it has been done. The organisers give free tickets to school groups to attend some of the less prestigious early matches, and the students are asked to cheer on some of the players who do not their own crowd of supporters, to make them feel more welcome. No payment is exchanged, and the purpose is to introduce kids to the sport so that some eventually become paying customers when they grow up. I've seen reports about such groups of students creating flags or posters to support some lesser-known player as a class project before attending the match. --Xuxl (talk) 09:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

ww2 convoy sailings

How many allied convoys were never attacked in comparison to the total convoy sailings.194.217.57.222 (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but UBoat.net seems to have tons of information about convoy routes and the convoys that were attacked, so perhaps we could work backwards from there. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)