Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 June 12
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < June 11 | << May | June | Jul >> | June 13 > |
| 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. |
June 12
[edit]French-Scottish Union
[edit]What were the French and Scottish planning to do had the marriage of Francis II of France and Mary, Queen of Scots produced children? Were the two kingdoms going to be inherited by the eldest child in personal union with each other or was it to be divided between two of their children? I highly doubt the Scotissh would like a French king ruling from the continent as their monarch. There must have been some negotiation or plans.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- According to Mary, Queen of Scots, shortly before her marriage to Francis she "signed a secret agreement bequeathing Scotland and her claim to England to the French crown if she died without issue" so it seems the intention was that Scotland would be ruled by the French king. That it was signed in secret suggests you are correct that the Scots didn't like the idea. --Tango (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- I wonder how they planned to settle the Great Question of how to pronounce the letter "R"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Mary took a big risk in signing this agreement seeing that her future mother-in-law was Catherine de' Medici!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- What was wrong with Catherine?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Read Mark Strage's biography on Catherine which reveals her ruthless nature and her one driving ambition throughout her life which was to rule France via her sons.. Having a daughter-in-law such as Mary who was a queen regnant as well as a member of the powerful Guise family (Catherine's chief adversaries within France) would have been a block to the personal power Catherine wished to wield. As to other defects in the de' Medici woman, well there is the wee matter of the Massacre of St Bartholomew in 1572, largely instigated by Catherine in the name of Charles. Not a pleasant lady to jave around the joint.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Didn't Mary also make fun of her mother-in-law for not being a royal since the Medicis' were only a banking family from Italy.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes she was among the group who referred to Catherine as a "banker's daughter" or "grocer's daughter". Catherine's rival Jeanne d'Albret also sneered at her paternal origins.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Didn't Mary also make fun of her mother-in-law for not being a royal since the Medicis' were only a banking family from Italy.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Read Mark Strage's biography on Catherine which reveals her ruthless nature and her one driving ambition throughout her life which was to rule France via her sons.. Having a daughter-in-law such as Mary who was a queen regnant as well as a member of the powerful Guise family (Catherine's chief adversaries within France) would have been a block to the personal power Catherine wished to wield. As to other defects in the de' Medici woman, well there is the wee matter of the Massacre of St Bartholomew in 1572, largely instigated by Catherine in the name of Charles. Not a pleasant lady to jave around the joint.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- What was wrong with Catherine?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Mary took a big risk in signing this agreement seeing that her future mother-in-law was Catherine de' Medici!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- I wonder how they planned to settle the Great Question of how to pronounce the letter "R"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
A sizable proportion of the English populace didn't much like the future Philip II of Spain as their King, when he married Mary Tudor. Mind you, a fair number of them probably didn't much like Mary either. --Dweller (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Wrong Queen Mary...I think it would have been the Scottish Protestant majority that would have done most of the disliking since Scotland would have been the underdog in the union of France and Scotland.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's not the wrong Mary, it's a different one. I've not made a mistake, I'm drawing a parallel with a different monarch who lived nearby, was roughly contemporary and went through with the kind of marriage you speculate about. --Dweller (talk) 06:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- You've linked to a disambig page, so it's not really clear exactly who the "Mary Tudor" you refer to is. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 12:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. The one who married Philip II of Spain: Mary I of England. --Dweller (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- You've linked to a disambig page, so it's not really clear exactly who the "Mary Tudor" you refer to is. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 12:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's not the wrong Mary, it's a different one. I've not made a mistake, I'm drawing a parallel with a different monarch who lived nearby, was roughly contemporary and went through with the kind of marriage you speculate about. --Dweller (talk) 06:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Also were there any plans on the part of the French to have Mary marry her brother-in-law Charles IX to Mary to keep Scotland and the potential claim to England? Yes, he was ten years old at the time and Mary was eighteen but stranger things have occurred in history.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Literally what was the deer park at Sarnath? (Buddhism)
[edit]The location of the Buddha's first sermon (discounting the failed conversation with the lone ascetic) is given as Deer Park, Sarnath, Uttar Pradesh. Knowing basically nothing about India, I have often wondered what "deer park" meant during that period. Was it like the British medieval deer park, aka a bounded area for cultivating game? Or was it more of just a bit of greenery? It seems funny to me to imagine a bunch of itinerants hanging out lecturing each other in some nobleman's game reserve... Which leads me to assume that actual deer park was a little different in the Buddhist context? The Masked Booby (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- There's a bit about it in the article Sarnath RudolfRed (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry to base this on a comic book, but I'm travelling, and anyway I think Amar Chitra Katha are considered decently researched. One of them is about a clever and noble deer who is captured and made to live in the king's deer park. From the description in the story, it does indeed seem to be a walled enclosure where animals are brought/kept in order for the king to hunt. The deer in the story knew his life was doomed. 207.236.146.182 (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- I understand that deer park is a translation from Pali of migadāya, which is a compound of miga, which means "deer", and dāya, which may be translated as "wood; jungle, forest; a grove"[1] or "a gift, donation; share, fee".[2] This may have given the term a dual meaning, one being literally that of a wood (park) in which there were deer, the other denoting that the deer them selves were gifts, or that the deer had been given the gift of life.(?) I don't actually know Pali, though, so this is just guesswork. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Descent of Queen Elizabeth from Mohammed
[edit]This column makes the claim that Queen Elizabeth is descended from Mohammed, but it doesn't provide the genealogy. Can anybody provide the actual lines of descent? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's covered in Ancestry charts of the current British Royal Family, under "Questionable connections". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 03:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- It wouldn't surprise me either way: On an episode of QI, they stated that everyone in Western Europe, most likely, was descended from Charlemagne. The idea was that for each generation, the number of forefathers doubles: me (1), parents (2), grandparents (4), great-grandparents (8), great-great (16), great-great-great (32), etc. When you go back many hundreds of years, the number of forefathers will become enormous, and, as such, most Western Europeans were likely to have Charlemagne as one of their forefathers when going that far back. By the same measure, it wouldn't be odd if people were related to Muhammed. The question, however, is being able to prove that such a connexion exists. As I see it, there are two issues which need to be addressed: First of all, where would the Mohammedan lineage cross over with the Christian British Royal lineage? It's not completely unfeasible that it happened. People have been more mobile than we often imagine. Secondly, how could this be proven? I think this really is what would be problematic. Any such link, as that found in the article on the Royal family's ancestry, could probably be questioned. Even if the lineage as recorded in historical documents checks out, those who would wish to question such a claim, could always challenge the presumption of legitimacy. V85 (talk) 04:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that the mathematics fall apart in the face of Pedigree collapse. That is, though in 20 generations on should have 2^20 or 1,048,576 ancestors, in practicality many, if not most, of those places in the family tree will be filled by the same persons. The same mathematics can be used to prove that in a year, a single pregnant housefly can have enough offspring to cover the earth in flies a foot deep. It ignores the fact that there are social factors beyond pure mathematics. In particular, people in the past had far less geographic mobility (people tended to stay in the same basic area for longer periods of time) and far less social mobility (there was less mixing of the classes). Thus, while it seems mathematically likely that everyone of European descent can claim Charlemagne as an ancestor, such a "fact" seems less likely given the level of pedigree collapse present over that long of a time period. --Jayron32 05:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- The only descent that could happen for the British royalty are from royal mistresses with Muslim backgrounds that possibly descend from Muhammed and somehow their illegitimate children married into nobility and then royalty along the years. The fraction of people descended from Muhammed in the Muslim world is probably not super high either. Genghis Khan who is considered to have a record number of descendants probably have less than ten percent of the world. Most of Muhammed would have married in the Muslim world and only upper class descendants would have the possibility to travel and marry elsewhere, but then the religious difference between European royalty and Middle Eastern royalty would have prevent any marriage between them.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- In some areas, claimed descendants of Muhammad are known as Sayyids, who traditionally wore green turbans, claimed certain traditional privileges, etc. Some dynasties (such as the Fatimids) strongly based their legitimacy on a claimed descent from Muhammad. However, most Sayyids were not royal, and there are many descendants of e.g. Edward III of England who have not belonged to royalty or nobility for many generations, so I strongly doubt any theory that royal people can only have royal descendants. But royals were those most likely to make non-local marriages -- the maternal line ancestor of Philippa of Hainault was Elizabeth the Cuman... The putative descent of the British royal family from Muhammad is discussed in ISBN 0241108403 by Iain Moncreiffe, but he was far from enthusiastic about it. AnonMoos (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- "The only descent that could happen for the British royalty are from royal mistresses with Muslim backgrounds" - I find this a highly unlikely claim. You don't have to go back all that far to find ancestors of the current Queen who were not born aristocrats or even gentry, though the wealth they accrued in their lifetime may have led to ennoblement. There are some splendidly plebian names from the ferment of the Industrial Revolution: Abel Smith and his wife Mary Bird, not to mention Robert Hodgson and Mary Tucker. Who is to say where their ancestors came from, half a millennium before? The other dodgy claim, that 20 generations back means 2^20 distinct individual ancestors, has already been punctured, but I would direct the interested to cousin marriage for an explanation and description of this very common custom. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- The point about the number of ancestors in the past, isn't that one would have exactly 2^20 ancestors 20 generations ago, but that when one goes back that far, one will have had many, many ancestors: Even if we cut the number in half, it's still more than half a million individual people. Therefore, the likelihood of being related to a given historical figure who lived 1300 years ago might be higher than we think, especially when going so far back as to the 7th century. V85 (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- No, half a million is still a gross over-estimate, as anyone who has researched detailed family trees will know. As one researches further back, the links between families get more common, so the total number of ancestors is only a tiny fraction of the silly mathematical prediction. Dbfirs 07:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- The point about the number of ancestors in the past, isn't that one would have exactly 2^20 ancestors 20 generations ago, but that when one goes back that far, one will have had many, many ancestors: Even if we cut the number in half, it's still more than half a million individual people. Therefore, the likelihood of being related to a given historical figure who lived 1300 years ago might be higher than we think, especially when going so far back as to the 7th century. V85 (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- "The only descent that could happen for the British royalty are from royal mistresses with Muslim backgrounds" - I find this a highly unlikely claim. You don't have to go back all that far to find ancestors of the current Queen who were not born aristocrats or even gentry, though the wealth they accrued in their lifetime may have led to ennoblement. There are some splendidly plebian names from the ferment of the Industrial Revolution: Abel Smith and his wife Mary Bird, not to mention Robert Hodgson and Mary Tucker. Who is to say where their ancestors came from, half a millennium before? The other dodgy claim, that 20 generations back means 2^20 distinct individual ancestors, has already been punctured, but I would direct the interested to cousin marriage for an explanation and description of this very common custom. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- In some areas, claimed descendants of Muhammad are known as Sayyids, who traditionally wore green turbans, claimed certain traditional privileges, etc. Some dynasties (such as the Fatimids) strongly based their legitimacy on a claimed descent from Muhammad. However, most Sayyids were not royal, and there are many descendants of e.g. Edward III of England who have not belonged to royalty or nobility for many generations, so I strongly doubt any theory that royal people can only have royal descendants. But royals were those most likely to make non-local marriages -- the maternal line ancestor of Philippa of Hainault was Elizabeth the Cuman... The putative descent of the British royal family from Muhammad is discussed in ISBN 0241108403 by Iain Moncreiffe, but he was far from enthusiastic about it. AnonMoos (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- The only descent that could happen for the British royalty are from royal mistresses with Muslim backgrounds that possibly descend from Muhammed and somehow their illegitimate children married into nobility and then royalty along the years. The fraction of people descended from Muhammed in the Muslim world is probably not super high either. Genghis Khan who is considered to have a record number of descendants probably have less than ten percent of the world. Most of Muhammed would have married in the Muslim world and only upper class descendants would have the possibility to travel and marry elsewhere, but then the religious difference between European royalty and Middle Eastern royalty would have prevent any marriage between them.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that the mathematics fall apart in the face of Pedigree collapse. That is, though in 20 generations on should have 2^20 or 1,048,576 ancestors, in practicality many, if not most, of those places in the family tree will be filled by the same persons. The same mathematics can be used to prove that in a year, a single pregnant housefly can have enough offspring to cover the earth in flies a foot deep. It ignores the fact that there are social factors beyond pure mathematics. In particular, people in the past had far less geographic mobility (people tended to stay in the same basic area for longer periods of time) and far less social mobility (there was less mixing of the classes). Thus, while it seems mathematically likely that everyone of European descent can claim Charlemagne as an ancestor, such a "fact" seems less likely given the level of pedigree collapse present over that long of a time period. --Jayron32 05:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- It wouldn't surprise me either way: On an episode of QI, they stated that everyone in Western Europe, most likely, was descended from Charlemagne. The idea was that for each generation, the number of forefathers doubles: me (1), parents (2), grandparents (4), great-grandparents (8), great-great (16), great-great-great (32), etc. When you go back many hundreds of years, the number of forefathers will become enormous, and, as such, most Western Europeans were likely to have Charlemagne as one of their forefathers when going that far back. By the same measure, it wouldn't be odd if people were related to Muhammed. The question, however, is being able to prove that such a connexion exists. As I see it, there are two issues which need to be addressed: First of all, where would the Mohammedan lineage cross over with the Christian British Royal lineage? It's not completely unfeasible that it happened. People have been more mobile than we often imagine. Secondly, how could this be proven? I think this really is what would be problematic. Any such link, as that found in the article on the Royal family's ancestry, could probably be questioned. Even if the lineage as recorded in historical documents checks out, those who would wish to question such a claim, could always challenge the presumption of legitimacy. V85 (talk) 04:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- HM's descent from a prominent Muslim, possibly Mohammed or Saladin (via, I think, a Spanish connection), is mentioned in the book Blood Royal by Don Pottinger and Sir Iain Moncrieffe of that Ilk (the latter being the sometime Lord Lyon King of Arms and thus a professional genealogist amongst other things). Unfortunately I'm currently at work so cannot consult my copy, but perhaps someone else viewing this thread can confirm the details. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Muhammad raped a lot of women prisoners, so it is possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.38.213.226 (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Really ? Can you produce a reliable source for that claim ? Something more specific than "everyone did it in those days" or "I read it on the internet somewhere". Gandalf61 (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Possibly Rayhana, though the some of the details are a little clouded. In any case, the general permission is in Qur'an verses 23:6, 33:50, 70:30, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- I see no mention of rape in our article on Rayhana, nor anything about "a lot of women prisoners". The Qur'an verses you mention say things like "...those who guard their modesty save from their wives or the (slaves) that their right hands possess ...", which again does not mention rape, and according to this page, is actually referring to marriage between owners and slaves. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- No, it does not have to refer to marriage, but can refer to taking a woman captive of war as a slave concubine without her consent. According to the traditional mainstream interpretations of Islamic law, every male Muslim is entitled to a maximum of four wives, plus an unlimited number of owned slave concubines (while by verse 33:50, Muhammad himself was entitled to an unlimited number of wives, plus an unlimited number of slave concubines). The verb malaka which appears prominently in all those verses has the same consonantal root as the word mamluk "slave"...
- We don't know that Muhammad physically assaulted Rayhana, but it seems reasonably clear that she wanted little to do with him, but had to endure a relationship with him because she was a captive of war. The indications of a consensual relationship between Muhammad and Rayhana are somewhat less than those of a consensual relationship between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, since Sally Hemings seems to have voluntarily chosen to return to Virginia from France, while if Rayhana ever came to be in a position to decide anything (which is not entirely clear), it seems she chose to get out. AnonMoos (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Romans who owned slaves were also allowed to have sex with them (= rape them) at will. It was an integral part of the social institution of slavery. Was there any society practising slavery that did not allow this? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Did Romans elevate it into a religious principle sanctioned by divine revelation? It's rather interesting to compare the injunctions of the Qur'an with the Old Testament -- the woman captured in war under Islamic law becomes a pure commercial chattel slave (subject only to the general restriction of umm walad, that she be freed after her owner's death if she has borne a child to her owner), while according to Deuteronomy 21:13, a woman captured in war becomes a wife (not a slave), and so cannot be sold, but only released to return to her own people. It seems that humanitarianism in religion took kind of a step backwards between 600 B.C. and 600 A.D... AnonMoos (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Romans who owned slaves were also allowed to have sex with them (= rape them) at will. It was an integral part of the social institution of slavery. Was there any society practising slavery that did not allow this? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- I see no mention of rape in our article on Rayhana, nor anything about "a lot of women prisoners". The Qur'an verses you mention say things like "...those who guard their modesty save from their wives or the (slaves) that their right hands possess ...", which again does not mention rape, and according to this page, is actually referring to marriage between owners and slaves. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Possibly Rayhana, though the some of the details are a little clouded. In any case, the general permission is in Qur'an verses 23:6, 33:50, 70:30, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Really ? Can you produce a reliable source for that claim ? Something more specific than "everyone did it in those days" or "I read it on the internet somewhere". Gandalf61 (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Muhammad raped a lot of women prisoners, so it is possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.38.213.226 (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- That may be true, but it falls into the "everyone did it in those days" category. I was looking for a reliable source to back up the very specific claim that "Muhammad raped a lot of women prisoners", and so far I see nothing but a single vague and disputed story and some shaky textual analysis. After all, this is meant to be the Reference Desk, not the Stuff I Made Up Desk. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Whatever -- we don't know that Muhammad physically sexually assaulted any woman, and I never made any claim to the contrary. However, Muhammad was not opposed to fundamentally coercive sexual relationships with women captured in war, and in fact ringingly endorsed them in multiple passages in the Qur'an, and himself entered into a relationship with at least one woman captured in war which was somewhat coercive (or involuntary on the woman's part), at least at the beginning... AnonMoos (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. I forgot about verse 4:24, which goes beyond the other passages to imply that previously-existing marriages of women captured in war are nullified so that they can be conveniently sexually accessible to their conquerors. Silly me! AnonMoos (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Whatever -- we don't know that Muhammad physically sexually assaulted any woman, and I never made any claim to the contrary. However, Muhammad was not opposed to fundamentally coercive sexual relationships with women captured in war, and in fact ringingly endorsed them in multiple passages in the Qur'an, and himself entered into a relationship with at least one woman captured in war which was somewhat coercive (or involuntary on the woman's part), at least at the beginning... AnonMoos (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- That may be true, but it falls into the "everyone did it in those days" category. I was looking for a reliable source to back up the very specific claim that "Muhammad raped a lot of women prisoners", and so far I see nothing but a single vague and disputed story and some shaky textual analysis. After all, this is meant to be the Reference Desk, not the Stuff I Made Up Desk. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with you. Some things are lost to history, like how many wives and concubines Solomon really had, and whether any of those relationships were consensual. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Is there any evidence that any of them were captives of war or chattel slaves? If not, then they fall into a rather different category. In any case, the Bible kind of condemns Solomon for uxorious excesses whose results were unfortunate from the point of view of monotheistic rigorists (1 Kings, chapter 11), while the Qur'an contains multiple endorsements by Muhammad of the practice of taking women war captives as slave concubines... AnonMoos (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with you. Some things are lost to history, like how many wives and concubines Solomon really had, and whether any of those relationships were consensual. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Moncreiffe was never Lyon King of Arms; his highest office (other than "24th Ilk" as he put it) was Albany Herald. (Pottinger was Islay Herald. —Tamfang (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Mea culpa. I was probably confusing him with Sir Thomas Innes of Learney – the old memory is not what it once was. Don Pottinger was still Unicorn Pursuivant when I met him: we thought the promotion to Islay Herald Extraordinary ("in Ordinary"? – I'm sure I was told it was the former at the time) was most appropriate, given his liking for the distillatory products of that locale. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Moncreiffe was never Lyon King of Arms; his highest office (other than "24th Ilk" as he put it) was Albany Herald. (Pottinger was Islay Herald. —Tamfang (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Manfred Stern : a link to a US newspaper , please.
[edit]Hello learned people ! I'm translating into french the articles about Manfred Stern . The WP en article is said to "lack inline citations" . This is sad, particularly for the Herbert L. Matthews article "Canadian Leader Praises Spaniards" in The New York Times, December 12, 1936, which seems capital to me, as i think it rang Stern's first toll. But the NYT's archives are a maze to me. Could you give me a link to that article ? Thanks a lot beforehand for your help (any other tip about Stern'd be welcome, & photos too) Arapaima (talk) 07:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- If the article you mention is not available free to view online (which I suspect might be the case, although I haven't looked), you can put in a request for it on this page. --Viennese Waltz 07:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot VW Arapaima (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Was Guam once part of the Philippines?
[edit]Both the Philippines and Guam were part of the Spanish East Indies, whose capital was originally Cebu, and later Manila. After the Spanish-American War, the Spanish East Indies along with Cuba and Puerto Rico were seceded to the United States. Today the Philippines is an independent country, while Guam is a territory of the US. Because both were part of the Spanish East Indies, does this technically mean that Guam was part of the Philippines? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Your conclusion seems flawed. Just because they were both part of a higher entity, doesn't mean one was a part of the other. Sint Eustatius wasn't part of Sint Maarten just because they were both part of the Netherlands Antilles. Then again, I don't know how the Spanish East Indies were administered/organized internally. Obviously the Philippines were bigger and more important than Guam and/or the Northern Mariana Islands, but that doesn't necessarily imply that Guam was a "part" of the Philippines. EDIT: Apparently the Captaincy General and the Governor-General resided in the Philippines... So the other territories were probably administered from the Philippines, thus making them in a sense "part" of the Philippines... This would apply to Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, and FS Micronesia, from what I understand. 109.97.187.30 (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well technically the Philippines is what remained of the Spanish East Indies, since Guam, the Carolinas and the Marianas Islands were administered separately by the Americans. That why the question is "was", it's a yes/no question. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- According to our article on the Mariana Islands, "The Marianas remained a Spanish colony under the general government of the Philippines until 1898, when, as a result of the Spanish-American War, Spain ceded Guam to the United States." Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- So they were under the Gov-Gen of the Philippines, so they were basically part of the Philippines. Then yes. I was just trying to point out that it's not "because both were part of the Spanish East Indies".109.97.187.30 (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- According to our article on the Mariana Islands, "The Marianas remained a Spanish colony under the general government of the Philippines until 1898, when, as a result of the Spanish-American War, Spain ceded Guam to the United States." Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well technically the Philippines is what remained of the Spanish East Indies, since Guam, the Carolinas and the Marianas Islands were administered separately by the Americans. That why the question is "was", it's a yes/no question. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- This seems to be a question of semantics: The conclusion will depend on how you define 'the Philippines'. And of course, however you define the Philippines in this case, might be influenced by what conclusion you are trying to reach.
- If you define it as a series of political entities, the successor of which is the political entity we know as the Philippines, an argument could be made that Guam was part of the Philippines, if they at some point were part of the same political entity that we call 'the Philippines'. This has happened in other cases too: Burma was part of India, Mongolia was part of China, Iceland was part of Norway.
- However, this seems somewhat odd. As you say, the political entity wasn't 'the Philippines', but the Spanish East Indies. Although what we know as Spain, France and England were part of the Roman Empire, it seems 'wrong' to say that 'England was once part of Italy', although Rome is the capital of today's Italy.
- Another way to define the Philippins, and this is what I first thought you meant, is to define the Philippines as a georgraphical entity, i.e. the Philippine archipelago. Since the two entities are far apart, and Guam is part of Micronesia, while the Philippines are their own archipelago, it seems much less likely that Guam could be defined as part of the Philippines. V85 (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- I was referring to the former, as in the Philippines as a political entity. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- That is like asking if Mexico or Puerto Rico was ever part of the Philippines. The answer is no, but both were part of the Spanish Empire. If the point of this question is to ask if the Philippines has any sovereignty or claim to Guam as a part of their territories and the likelihood Guam would become a part of the Philippines because of past historical circumstances, then no again because the two cultures are entirely different and the two groups probably had little to no contact prior to Spanish colonization besides the ancestral Malayo-Polynesian link.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- I was referring to the former, as in the Philippines as a political entity. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Floor Designation in Hungary
[edit]In the UK, we refer to the floor where you walk into a building through the door, as the 'ground floor'. The floor above it is the 'first floor', while the one above that is the 'second floor'. Now, I am in Hungary, and am getting conflicting reports. One colleague of mine (in my translation business) uses the American parlance, and says that the British 'ground floor' is the 'first floor', which is also used in many other countries throughout Europe. Another colleague of mine, in the primary school I am working part-time at, uses the British way, and says this is also the Hungarian way. So, I have two conflicting explanations here. Is there a difference in usage between schools and apartments in Hungary? Or are they both the same, and there are actually two different expressions in use, depending on the person/dialect? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Storey#European scheme mentions Hungary as being one of the "ground floor" countries. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- So my colleague in the school was right, then. Maybe my other colleague just chose to use American English (I don't speak Hungarian). Ok, cheers. That settles it. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- This kinda rings a bell for me from experiences in Sweden. The memory's kinda hazy, so I could be wrong, but I think that in apartment blocks and offices they use G, 1, 2, 3... (the British way) but in hotels it's 1, 2, 3, 4... (the American way). The way I explain this to myself is that it's thought that Americans could easily be confused by the different system, so anywhere they might be expected to use a lift caters for the American system; whereas Brits and other 'ground-floorers', on getting in to a 'first-floorer' lift, will go 'huh, look, the ground floor's labelled 1' and then just get on with it. Like I say, probably wrong, but there you go. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- So my colleague in the school was right, then. Maybe my other colleague just chose to use American English (I don't speak Hungarian). Ok, cheers. That settles it. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
european prime ministers
[edit]have any committed suicide? Kittybrewster ☎ 15:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Pierre Bérégovoy is one that springs to mind. (The only one that I can think of, to be honest) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 16:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- From a quick scan of the Politicians who committed suicide category; Pál Teleki, Alexandros Koryzis and Ole Richter would also count. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 16:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- I heard Nadine Dorries say that a European Prime Minister had committed suicide following defamatory comments on a website. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- She's not the most trustworthy of sources, you know. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- I see she was contributing to the defamation debate in the House of Commons today, and I can see the comment she made on Hansard here. She doesn't give more details and I have to admit that I can't think of which case - particularly a "famous example" (to use her words) - she might be referring to; perhaps, you might have to ask her. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's interesting that she inserts that little 'I believe'. This little admission of imperfect memory, could of course mean that the search should be widened, and perhaps include all European politicians who have been Cabinet Members? Another thing to consider is, of course, what sources she has used, and how accurately they actually reported the story of what happened. V85 (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Jürgen Möllemann, perhaps? He had been vice chancellor of Germany (though not at the time he died). Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but is there any reason to think that comments on the Internet had anything to do with his death, rather than an imminent criminal investigation? Another high-profile case would be that of the former Polish Deputy PM Andrzej Lepper, but again, there is nothing that would tally with Dorries' description. As V85 pointed out, she admitted that she might not be remembering the case with complete accuracy: maybe it wasn't a European politician at all? FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I think that the 'European' part is likely to be reliable, however, we do not know how extensive the definition of 'Europe' is - does it include the Caucasus? And, of course, does it have to be a politician or PM who took his own life while in office?
- Perusing the previously mentioned category of politicians who took their own life, I came across Tore Tønne, who would seem to fit the bill: He killed himself after newspapers (I assume this includes publication online, as it was back in '02) published stories about his economic misconduct. This could, of course, seem to fit the bill of the 'public persona' he had constructed being torn apart by what was published in the media and online. V85 (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps this is the case she was referring to, but there is again rather a conceptual leap from a newspaper investigation to her description of "committed suicide, because the person he had built his life up to be had been suddenly taken away from him by what people had written on the internet". Sometimes I really do wish we could citation-needed tag statements in the real world.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but is there any reason to think that comments on the Internet had anything to do with his death, rather than an imminent criminal investigation? Another high-profile case would be that of the former Polish Deputy PM Andrzej Lepper, but again, there is nothing that would tally with Dorries' description. As V85 pointed out, she admitted that she might not be remembering the case with complete accuracy: maybe it wasn't a European politician at all? FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Jürgen Möllemann, perhaps? He had been vice chancellor of Germany (though not at the time he died). Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's interesting that she inserts that little 'I believe'. This little admission of imperfect memory, could of course mean that the search should be widened, and perhaps include all European politicians who have been Cabinet Members? Another thing to consider is, of course, what sources she has used, and how accurately they actually reported the story of what happened. V85 (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- I heard Nadine Dorries say that a European Prime Minister had committed suicide following defamatory comments on a website. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hitler wasn't a Prime Minister as such, but he was certainly the head of government. Goebbels, Himmler and Goering were up there too. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 22:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Dorries' quote in more detail: "There is a famous example of, I believe, a European Prime Minister who suffered and committed suicide, because the person he had built his life up to be had been suddenly taken away from him by what people had written on the internet." Kinda thinking it's not Hitler. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- I was responding directly to Kittybrewster's original question, as my indenting indicates. If the point of her question was to find out who the politician was who was referred to by Dorries, I think she would have opened with that; but her question was much broader than just one politician. She asked about "any". Hitler's name hadn't been mentioned, so I mentioned it. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 01:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. Missed the number of indentations and thought you were replying to the Kittybrewster's second comment, although I have to say that I would be surprised if he wasn't wondering about who the House of Commons statement (Dorries's statement) was referring to; it really is a most extraordinary claim.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well, yes Kitty did later ask about that specific person. Doesn't alter the fact that their primary question was the broad one I answered. But are you telling me that someone who uses the name Kitty is a male? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 21:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yup, looking at my response it seems a bit snider than what was actually going through my head at the time, so sorry about that. But re Q2, yup, as far as I remember, KB is a he. I remember trying to place the name many moons ago as it was vaguely familiar and it was of course a reference to Kittybrewster. (After 6 years here, I'm still waiting for someone to make a Bill and Ben reference) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well, there you go. Sorry, Mr Brewster. Apparently I don't get out enough. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 23:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yup, looking at my response it seems a bit snider than what was actually going through my head at the time, so sorry about that. But re Q2, yup, as far as I remember, KB is a he. I remember trying to place the name many moons ago as it was vaguely familiar and it was of course a reference to Kittybrewster. (After 6 years here, I'm still waiting for someone to make a Bill and Ben reference) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well, yes Kitty did later ask about that specific person. Doesn't alter the fact that their primary question was the broad one I answered. But are you telling me that someone who uses the name Kitty is a male? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 21:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. Missed the number of indentations and thought you were replying to the Kittybrewster's second comment, although I have to say that I would be surprised if he wasn't wondering about who the House of Commons statement (Dorries's statement) was referring to; it really is a most extraordinary claim.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- I was responding directly to Kittybrewster's original question, as my indenting indicates. If the point of her question was to find out who the politician was who was referred to by Dorries, I think she would have opened with that; but her question was much broader than just one politician. She asked about "any". Hitler's name hadn't been mentioned, so I mentioned it. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 01:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Dorries' quote in more detail: "There is a famous example of, I believe, a European Prime Minister who suffered and committed suicide, because the person he had built his life up to be had been suddenly taken away from him by what people had written on the internet." Kinda thinking it's not Hitler. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hitler was Chancellor of Germany, which was and is the German equivalent of British Prime Minister under their parliamentary system, though he subsequently aggrandised his title. Is the question about people who were once prime minister and committed suicide, or those who committed suicide in office, because Hitler was definitely the former? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- In France we have in our red suburbs a lot of "rue Roger Salengro" , but nobody remembers that Salengro (1890-1936) was a Ministre de l'Intérieur (Police Minister) which was driven to suicide by a heinous rightwing press campaign...As for Beregovoy, there are of course a lot of gossips about his being killed, not suicided... T.y. Arapaima (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
German and French Luxembourg
[edit]Which districts of Luxembourg mostly speak French and which districts mostly speak German? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.25 (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- As per Languages of Luxembourg most if not all people of Luxembourg will either be bi- or trilingual natively (Letzeburgisch, French, German and English seem to be most prevalent through primary and secondary education.). Per our Article in the de:WP public discourse in Luxembourg is characterized by severe Diglossia. (Please note that Letzeburgisch is not German.) Therefore the answer to your question will be heavily dependent upon context. Do you mean in colloquial conversation? In school? In print? All of these will lean differently if our articles are to be believed. --Abracus (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- While I agree with the above, it should be noted that better-educated and immigrants people are more likely to be fluent in French, while the native population will speak Letzeburgisch from infancy. Luxembourg City has a large immigrant population (both wealthy people working in banking and poorer immigrants lower down the social scale), so I would suspect French to be more spoken there than in rural areas where Letzeburgisch will be more usual. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- The reason the person asked that question because I notice that the article Cantons of Switzerland has the list of Cantons and in the last column, it says which language is spoken in each canton like French is only spoken in Geneva; German is spoken in Zurich and Italian is only spoken in Ticino. How come we don't do that for Districts or cantons or communes of Luxembourg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.152.41 (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Afghan provinces Tajiks, Hazaras and Pashtos
[edit]Which Afghan provinces are Pashto-speaking Pashtuns majority? Which Afghan provinces are Hazara-majority and Which provinces are Farsi-speaking Tajiks majority? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.25 (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- See our Article Languages of Pakistan. Especially the map will prove enlightening. --Abracus (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Surely you mean Languages of Afghanistan. V85 (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- For Mr. 65.92: If you have any further questions about languages, you can find information on languages spoken in any country by using the Wikipedia articles titled "Languages of ...." whatever country you want. Just as you were refered to "Religion of..." articles earlier. --Jayron32 19:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
History Books on Tahiti
[edit]I am not positive if this is the right place to ask this...But does anyone know of any analytical and comprehensive history books on the history of Tahiti and the Society Islands comparable to The Hawaiian Kingdom by Ralph Simpson Kuykendall? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)