Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 November 17

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 17

Census Data for Diyala Province

I have been searching high and low to find the population of the Diyala Provence in Iraq, and of Baqubah, which you have on your page here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diyala_Governorate. However, this is not a satisfactory citation for an academic paper, but it seems to be the only place that has it. I have checked the State Department, CIA fact sheets, DOD, nothing. I have even gone as far as emailing the Iraqi embassy, but their mailbox is full and I can't even email them. So I was wondering where you got your numbers from, or where I might be able to find some numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.218.224 (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The Iraq Central Organization for Statistics has a website (here). Digging a little, you'll find population by governorate (here). Zoonoses (talk) 06:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Two Separate Middle East Questions

• 1. What benefits would United Nations recognition of Palestine as a non-member state give Palestine other than becoming able to sue Israel in international courts? Also, would UN recognition of Palestine as a non-member state make Palestine a recognized state under international law?
• 2. How much is Iran's economy suffering right now relative to the economies of other countries right before their dictatorships collapsed?

Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 08:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

For a specific answer to #2, you'll need to specify — which countries and which dictatorships? Note that Iran is partially democratic; power isn't completely concentrated in the hands of the Supreme Leader of Iran and the Guardian Council, and the elections of the president and the parliament have some effect on national politics. It's not like Iraq, where pretty much everything was under Saddam's thumb. Nyttend (talk) 13:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Emphasis on the "partial" -- numerous opposition candidates have been arbitrarily disqualified, and after the last presidential election, numerically implausible results were brazenly announced as if Khamenei not only wanted to commit fraud, but wanted to rub people's noses in the fact that he was committing fraud. Not much quasi-democratic legitimacy is left to the current Iranian regime, except among those who are easily credulously swayed by superficial election-day hoopla... AnonMoos (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

As AnonMoos said, Iran's elections don't really mean much. If my knowledge is correct, it's the mullahs that make all the final decisions. Even if the President or Iranian Parliament does something, the mullahs can overrule it if they wanted to. Also, does anyone have an answer to my question 1? Futurist110 (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, it's only as democratic as the real rulers permit. If elections aren't going their way, they can just disqualify all candidates but their own, or provide fraudulent results to the public, or maybe both. It's not much different from nations with "elections" where there is only one candidate, who get's 99.8% of the vote, with 0.2% of the population disappearing soon after. The electorate can always protest, but then they'll get shot, too. StuRat (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually you're statement doesn't make sense if we accept what AnonMoos said. If the elections themselves don't 'mean much' because the mullahs make the final decisions and can overrule anything they want to, then there is no reason why there would be any need for fraud. Note that both AnonMoos's claim (electoral fraud) and your claim of the ability to overule any decision be true, it just means the elections do mean something (e.g. because continually overuling a candidate may risk annoying the populance more, because it's easier to run the country when you don't have someone always trying to do stuff you don't want but is instead actually helping you run the country etc etc). In any case, note you have to consider that the effects of the economy of vary from person to person. I came across an article with a perhaps controversial thesis a few weeks ago during the discussion of inflation in Iran (which I didn't link but I think later someone else did) which suggested things weren't actually that bad at all for the lower class. It was bad for the middle class, but the leadership didn't care, if anything it was beneficial for them. Nil Einne (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice that I never said that Iran's elections were rigged. Futurist110 (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

There could still be a point in rigging the elections, in that you could hope to make it look like the will of the people support the candidate you chose, rather than making it quite obvious they don't, if you just disqualify the winner. If you're hoping to prevent an Arab Spring style revolution, then this perception can make a critical difference. Of course, in reality, rigged elections are rarely done without making it obvious to all. StuRat (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

What numerically impossible results? I presume you're not referring to the higher then 100% turnout which as our article Iranian presidential election, 2009 mentions, wasn't numerically impossible given the way they count and report turnout in Iran and isn't even evidentally uncommon in Iran, and didn't even always favour the candidate apparenly supported by Khamenei. (There are some reports suggesting some of the results are improbable, but that's a fairly different thing particularly since it depends greatly on the assumptions involved.) Nil Einne (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I said and meant "implausible", not "impossible". AnonMoos (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The reason that I'm asking about the Iranian economy is because I'm wondering what the odds are of their regime collapsing or becoming near collapse before they are able to build nukes (if they want to build nukes). Futurist110 (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Which dictatorships do you think collapsed because of economic factors? North Korea's economy has been much worse than Iran's is, or is likely to be, and the political system did not collapse. AnonMoos (talk) 05:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that economic factors were at least partially responsible for the collapse of the Egyptian, Yemeni, Libyan, and Tunisian dictatorships in the Arab Spring in 2011-2012 as well as for the collapse of the USSR and its Eastern European satellite state dictatorships in 1989-1991. If you want to go far back, you can also probably add the French monarchy collapsing in the French Revolution to this list. Futurist110 (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

With respect to the economic causes of the French revolution, it seems to be fairly well established that absolute economic deprivation does not cause revolutions if the people being deprived have no real conception that things could be different than they are. Rather, it's when the situation of ordinary people has recently improved at least a little bit, and people have the expectation of yet further improvements, but it then seems that things are worsening again, and that the upper classes are trying to roll back the modest improvements which have previously occurred -- that's the real moment of revolutionary danger. AnonMoos (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, is anyone at all able to answer my question 1? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Diplomatic recognition is a political act of individual states with legal consequences. So no state is bound by another's recognition of a third state. This is true even if the UN accepted Palestine as a full member state. It is true that this does not entirely make sense, as the UN Charter is a peace treaty, and the signing of a peace treaty traditionally implied recognition. But although some respected theorists of international law talk as if there were such an obligation to recognize, states still maintain their position that it is an individual choice, even in the modern era of the UN Charter.John Z (talk) 08:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Wouldn't it be rather hard to reject a state with UN recognition, though? However, borders would still need to be determined in negotiations afterwards in cases of non-member states. Also, luckily due to U.S. opposition there is no chance of Palestine becoming a full UN member state before a final peace treaty with Israel. Did the U.S. ever outright and clearly reject a U.N. decision on state recognition or state borders or something like that? Futurist110 (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Revolutionary War Descendants Question

Are there any living grandchildren of U.S. Revolutionary War veterans right now? A U.S. Revolutionary War veteran could have theoretically be 20 when the Revolutionary War ended (thus being born in 1763) and have had a son at age 80, in 1843. This son could have also had a child at age 80, in 1923. This grandchild would have been 88 or 89 right now if he or she would have still been alive today. My question is, even though such cases are theoretically possible, are there any such cases in actuality with a grandchild of a U.S. Revolutionary War veteran still living today? Futurist110 (talk) 08:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't answer your question directly, but this page has a couple of examples that prove that such a case is theoretically possible. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I am aware that this is theoretically possible, but I wonder if an actual case like this exists. Futurist110 (talk) 10:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Not a direct answer, but according to [1] John Tyler had two grandsons alive as of February... AnonMoos (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I've heard about them. Tyler was born in 1790, which is quite impressive, but I'm looking for someone born 25-30 years before that who fought in the U.S. Revolutionary War (1775-1783) with grandchildren still living. Futurist110 (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Highly doubt it. Your scenario is even rare for modern times. Even if a man in the 1800s could live to such an advance age why would they have a child at that advance of an age? It would be a great scandal. And even if there is a grandchild of a Revolutionary War veteran running around what difference does that make in regard to who they are. Its not like a baby of an 80 year old man, who was the baby of another 80 year man, would have heard stories of the Revolutionary War from their grandfather. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

But if you are really interested you can search the genealogy of these four veteran that lived up to that time: Daniel F. Bakeman, John Gray (American Revolutionary War), Samuel Downing (1764–1867) (no article for him), and Lemuel Cook and see if any of their grandchildren are living.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Some men in the 1700s and 1800s did live to age 80 or more. Maybe they'd have wanted to have a child at that age to pass their genes on more or something like that, or maybe they just wanted to experience fatherhood again. Why would it be a great scandal if an 80 year old man married a 25, 35, or 45 year old woman and then had a son with her? If there is such a grandchild around, it would be extremely impressive due to the huge generational difference between them. They would have received 1/4 of their genes from a person who fought in a war which ended 230 years ago, which would have been extremely impressive, even though they obviously would not have known their grandfather personally. And actually, some men do have kids when they are in their 80s and 90s, so it's not entirely implausible. Also, I just need to find Revolutionary War veterans that lived to the mid or late 1840s, not necessarily to the late 1860s. In the 1860s these last surviving veterans would have been close to 100 or over 100, which would have made their odds of having a child at that age much smaller than if they were, say, age 80. Futurist110 (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no difference between being a grandchild of a veteran and a great-grandchild of a veteran. Ancestral fame doesn't dilute over time.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You can go search in a veterans archives or look through newspaper from the 1840s to the 1860s searching for articles about the death of a veterans and see if they left any young widows with babies and study each of the person listed and see who their grandchildren were.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference on how much of your DNA/genes you inherited from the person. Great-grandchildren would inherit only half of the DNA/genes from a particular U.S. Revolutionary War veteran as grandchildren would. Is there a good free way to search for newspapers from the 1840s to 1860s? Futurist110 (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Is the UN anti-Israel?

Closed (again)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Only the U.S., Canada, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia and Palau have supported the airstrikes. Kennuser (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Unfortunately, a question like this will be nothing more than a fierce debate, since we can't provide a 100% ironclad answer. Closing this to preserve peace. Nyttend (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Okay, accepted. Kennuser (talk) 13:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Sorry that this has to be the case, but virtually everyone has a strong opinion on the subject (including me), and you're not likely to get anything but opinion. Please come back and ask a question that can be answered objectively; for example, UN General Assembly voting patterns on the Israel/Palestine question. Nyttend (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Anyway, we have an article somewhat devoted to the subject: Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations... -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC) This question could be considered a matter of opinion but from what I've heard UN resolutions do disproportionally criticize Israel relative to other countries with human rights abuses. You can look at the number of resolutions condemning Israel vs. other countries and see what I mean. Futurist110 (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC) On the other side Israel disproportionally ignores UN resolutions as compared to other countries, with zero reactions from the UN Security Council. The UNSC implicitly gives Israel carte blanche to attack other countries with impunity (no action taken against Israel for the recent attack on Sudan, for example). Thus I'd say that the UN as an institution is hardly "anti-Israel" (whatever that means). --Soman (talk) 07:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC) Well if you get UN resolutions disproprtionally criticizing you relative to other countries with human rights abuses, it would make sense for this country to disproportionally ignore the UN resolutions that condemn it. Futurist110 (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

When does the term for Stephen Harper end?

I was chatting with a Canadian friend and he thinks that Harper's government is a far right government who blindly follows the American foreign policy. When does his term end? Kennuser (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

We don't have term limits in Canada, so theoretically, never. But the next election has to take place within five years of the last one, so 2016 at the latest. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

In Canada, is "term" typically used to mean "time until he leaves office", or did you misunderstand something, or did I? As an American, I'd take your information and from it say "Harper's term ends no later than 2016", because he's been elected an MP for a period of time that cannot last past 2016. Our federal representatives have terms of two years, although like the Commons in Canada, they may serve however many they want as long as they keep winning elections. Nyttend (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

In a Parliamentary system, MP's don't really have set "terms" of office the way members of the US Congress do. Their "term" lasts until the next election (which must take place within five years of the last election, but can be called sooner than that). Therefor, Harper's current "term" of office as an MP is: until the next election, which must be held no later than 2016.

As for his "term" as Prime Minister... again there is no set "term" of office. According to our article Prime Minister of Canada: "The Governor General must select as Prime Minister the person most likely to command the confidence of the elected House of Commons; this individual is typically the leader of the political party that holds the largest number of seats in that chamber". What this means is: Harper's "term" as Prime Minister lasts until he no longer has "the confidence of the House of Commons"... no more, no less. Harper will serve as PM until someone else can command a majority in the House of Commons (which can occur because a) another party wins an election AND/OR b) another Conservative gains leadership of the Conservative Party. This could happen tomorrow, or years from now. So... the PM's "Term" is closer in concept to that of the US's Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader than it is to the "term" of the US President. Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the Prime Minister need not even be an elected official, either, though the do generally stand for election as soon as possible. Mingmingla (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

And until I believe 1939, acceptance of office vacated one's parliamentary seat, meaning that the PM would not be a member of the Commons until he was re-elected in his riding, which was generally routine. They waited to call Parliament until this was done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Under the Westminster system, the Prime Minister is the leader of the party that has the most Members of Parliament. Thus, given that, at the next general election

1. Haper is elected as a MP (he will almost certainly be in a safe seat, so this is a given.
2. His party (the Conservative party) win the most MPs,
3. and he isn't disposed as leader at a party conference (convention in US-speak) before then,

then he will be the PM at the second-next general election. Having said that, in the UK at least, parties only last for about 4 general elections before the electorate get sicked with them, and replace them with the other party.

Actually the PM is not necessarily the leader of the party with the most MPs. A PM needs to be able to command a majority in confidence vote (this doesn't mean they need greater then 50% of MPs to vote in favour of them as parties could agree to abstain). If two parties with very similar views have 40% and 15% of MPs respectively and another with very dissimilar views has 45%, it's entirely resonable that the PM will come from the party with 40% of MPs (with the support of the party with 15% of MPs whether in a coalition or with just some sort of confidence and supply agreement) rather then the party of 45%. While this seems rare in Canada for whatever reason and in a number of Westminster countries there does seem to be a pressure towards the party with a plurality of MPs having the PMship, there is generally nothing which demands it either by law or by convention.

Also note that in reference to Blueboar's point, since from what I can tell Canada has no legislation stopping party switching Stephen Harper could lose the PMship before the election even if he remains leader of his party if enough MPs from his party switch to some other party and oppose him in a vote of confidence (or support a motion of no confidence) and so does every other party. While it's likely in such a situation an early election will be called (and perhaps Stephen Harper will ask for parliament to be dissolved so people can vote given the switching), this isn't guaranteed as it's possible a coalition of the other parties include the MPs who switched could win a vote of confidence and the governor general may not dissolve parliament even if asked. While this is a lot of ifs and seems very unlikely given the size of the majority, such possibilities shouldn't be ignored if you want to properly understand parliamentary democracies. (This is a far more important consideration in a country with only two parties and where the majority is wafer thin. Of course when a party doesn't even have a majority in parliament but is relying on other parties to keep them in, they can lose confidence without anyone switching parties. )

Nil Einne (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Israel and Pacific island nations

Why do some tiny island nations blindly support Israel at the UN? Read Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands, which along with the U.S. and Canada have voted in favor of Israel. Where does this alliance come from? Kennuser (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that all three of these republics were functionally US colonies for decades after the Second World War, and even now they've entered into Compacts of Free Association with the US. The connection is far simpler than it would be if other Pacific republics, like Kiribati or Tuvalu, were to vote the same way. Presumably they don't have any special connection with Canada. Nyttend (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Kiribati, Tuvalu and Canada are all members of the Commonwealth of Nations, however that rarely equates with political accord! Alansplodge (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

(Fdit conflict) "The Marshall Islands is a presidential republic in free association with the United States, with the US providing defense, funding grants, and access to social services." So I suspect that it's less a case of them supporting Israel, than supporting their benefactor, the United States. Ditto for the other islands that you mention; see Compact of Free Association. The history is that they were colonised by the German Empire, given to Japan after WWI as the South Pacific Mandate and finally to the USA as Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands in 1945. Alansplodge (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The question of why any nation would blindly (or staunchly) support Israel is certainly curious. Such blind support must have factual reasons. I would suggest an avenue for further inquiry: The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs has an English-language website that's searchable by topic, as well as specific information on its missions in Oceania. It might be revealing to explore Israel's history of advising and training less developed countries in such fields of agriculture, aquaculture, industry, commerce, civil engineering, tourism, etc. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm more interested in Kennuser's assertion that this support from these island nations was "blind". Who says it was blind? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like this is some of that stuff you said I wasn't looking for hard enough. Why this wasn't hatted by the first person who read it beats me. But hey, it's probably some secret Jewish plot. μηδείς (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not about those tiny states supporting Israel, but about they supporting the US blindly, since the US is responsible for their defense against foreign aggression. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The question, "Why do some tiny island nations blindly support Israel at the UN?", may be an example of a Loaded question. Bus stop (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't directly answer the question, but since many of the Pacific nations have such tiny and fragile economies, and often have little interest in diplomatic affairs outside their region, it can be relatively easy for larger countries to influence their foreign policy. This is particularly attractive when a government wants to demonstrate international support for an otherwise unpopular policy, so these countries often take unusual stances on foreign affairs. For example, the vast majority of the countries that formally recognise Taiwan are very small Pacific, Caribbean, and African nations - Taiwan and the PRC have often offered aid in return for switching recognition. The six countries that formally recognise the independence of either Abkhazia or South Ossetia are Russia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Nauru, Vanuatu, and Tuvalu, and Russia and the USA were both accused of trying to influence small Pacific nations on this issue. In the International Whaling Commission, small nations from the Pacific and the Caribbean, which have very little interest in whaling but still get to vote, have been accused of selling their votes to governments with strong views on whaling, like Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. Some of these countries have repeatedly reversed their position on whaling. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

British monarch exercising ceremonial power in other realms

I understand that the Australian Parliament had to amend the Constitution shortly before Elizabeth II visited the country some decades ago, because she wanted personally to grant Royal Assent and exercise other ceremonial powers that were constitutionally given only to the Governor-General. Are there any Commonwealth realms in which such a status yet prevails, i.e. the monarch may not personally do anything except appointing governors-general, even on the advice of the government? I'm getting the impression from Governor General of Canada that the Queen of Canada may grant Royal Assent etc. when in Canada, but unless I'm overlooking something, the article doesn't outright say that, unlike Governor-General of New Zealand does, "If the monarch is present in New Zealand, however, he or she may exercise such powers personally". What's more, other articles (e.g. Governor-General of Belize) don't seem to address the issue at all. Nyttend (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your understanding is correct. The Australian Parliament may only propose amendments, the people must approve them. There have been very few amendments, see here and this does not seem to be one of them. The Queen opened the Canadian Parliament in 1957, and as far as I know no special legislation was required to have her do that.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

She was present to grant royal assent to the Constitution Act, 1982? I'm not sure about he technicalities of what she was doing, but there is a famous picture of her and Pierre Trudeau sitting there signing the document, at least. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Your understanding is definitely wrong, Nyttend. Section 58 of the Constitution of Australia says clearly that a bill can be reserved for the Queen's personal assent (see the final clause of the first sentence). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Royal assent mentions that King George VI personally assented to nine bills in Canada in 1939, but says that the procedure was changed there in 2002, so perhaps it wouldn't happen any more? The New Zealand Parliament website says that the monarch personally grants assent when she is in the country, but I can't find any specific examples of this happening. Oddly enough, the monarch hasn't personally granted assent to a law in the UK since 1854 (nowadays, it is done on her behalf by the Speakers of the Houses of Parliament), and assent has not been withheld since 1708, when the country was less than a year old - even then, Queen Anne did so on the advice of her ministers. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's the Lords Commissioners who carry out this function on behalf of the Queen. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The royal assent article says that the Lords Commissioners grant assent once per year, at the end of the parliamentary session, but the usual method is the one introduced by the Royal Assent Act 1967, in which the two Speakers simply announce that assent has been granted (they are empowered to do this by letters patent signed by the monarch). Apparently, the ceremony for granting assent by commission was causing problems, as MPs would refuse to attend it (it takes place in the House of Lords) and continue debating. This document goes into more detail than anyone could possibly want. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

So. Royal Assent has become not even a rubber stamp. I seems a bit silly to continue calling it that, when (a) the monarch now has zero involvement in the process and has become totally irrelevant, (b) the Speakers "saying" that Assent has been granted is an outright lie, and (c) there is no possibility the Speakers would ever decline to utter this lie, because it would mean the swift end of their jobs. It's really now "The Queen would have assented to this bill if we'd asked her, but we don't think it's worth anyone's time to actually bother, so let's just cut to the chase and pretend we've asked her and pretend she's agreed". In the Commonwealth realms, all bills still actually go the governor-general for vice-regal assent in the queen's name. Some are very occasionally reserved for the queen's personal assent. Does this ever happen in the UK? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that ever happens in the UK. In principle, the other two methods for granting assent (the commissioners, and personally by the monarch) can still be used, and presumably the procedure would be changed again if there was a good reason to do so. As I understand it, there is no real consensus on what would happen if assent were withheld today. The main precedent is the series of constitutional crises over the 1909 People's Budget (which the House of Lords rejected against longstanding convention), the Parliament Act 1911 (which allowed the Commons to overrule the Lords, and only passed after Herbert Asquith persuaded George V to threaten to create hundreds of new Liberal Peers), and the Government of Ireland Act 1914 (which George V considered trying to veto, but decided not to after discussing it with his advisors). A freedom of information request asking for any documents discussing what the government would do in this situation was refused (because it would cost more than £600 to fulfil...). Recently, several organisations petitioned the Queen to reject the Health and Social Care Bill, but I think that was more of a publicity stunt. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

If assent were withheld today, it would not be the monarch doing so, as they're completely out of the loop (which, as I said, makes a mockery of the term "Royal Assent"). It would be one or both of the presiding officers of the Houses of Parliament withholding assent, for whatever personal or political reasons they may have. And since they are elected by their fellow parliamentarians who caused the bills to be passed in the first place, they would not survive. I think a Speaker who found him/herself unable in conscience to grant assent to a bill would simply resign the speakership, making room for an MP who was willing to grant it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I am misunderstanding the document that 81.98.43.107 provided, but it seems that the Queen must indeed sign a document containing the list of bills being assented to. The speakers merely announce the assent when notified that the Queen has done so. But she never reads or sees the bills, she only sees the short titles. And the clerks commonly modify the list after she signed it, if necessary. On a side note, I really like that if the Queen were to refuse assent, the commissioners would say "The Queen will consider". That's sort of funny.--216.239.45.130 (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Robert Louis Stevenson and Isobel Strong

Did Robert Louis Stevenson and his stepdaughter Isobel Strong help develop the Royal Standard of King Kalakaua?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Was Jesus Jewish and Christian?

Philoknow (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

According to tradition Jesus was Jewish. The term Christian was actually introduced after the conversion of the Apostle Paul (Acts 11:26). Before this time followers of Jesus were called "followers of the Way" (Acts 24:14). 99.156.168.30 (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Jesus was Jewish and not Christian. Some of his followers later considered himself Christian, but the evidence from the Christian scriptures suggests that Jesus considered himself a Jewish spiritual teacher. Marco polo (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bible itself unambiguously states that the term "Christian" was first used to describe Saul of Tarsus (Paul) and Barnabas and their entourage at Antioch. See Acts 11:25-26: "Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." Thus, the term "Christian" was first applied some time after Jesus's death. Also, as Christian means "follower of (Jesus) Christ", it would be a bit odd to say that Jesus followed himself. But regardless of the logical problems that would cause, from the Bible, the term was invented after Christ had died. --Jayron32 01:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

If we can call Marx' views "Marxian", why couldn't we call Christ's views "Christian"? And if so, what is then the distinction between a person whose views are Christian and one who is Christian? Gabbe (talk) 08:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

We could, and we can call Christ's views "Christian". By definition, the adjective "Christian", means of Christ, so a Christian view must be in agreement with Christ's views. Technically, someone is a Christian when they actively seek out and apply the way of Christ. According to this definition, one can have Christian views, but without unreserved commitment to pursuit of the way, one cannot rightfully claim the title Christian. For example, solely going to church does not make one a Christian, as much as a single plank does not make a boat. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

More relevently from the bible: "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder." , James 2:19. Belief in the abstract also doesn't make one a Christian, at least according to Christian scripture. --Jayron32 23:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Did Marx call himself a "Marxian"? I wouldn't think so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not argueing with you, however, that wasn't the question. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, followers of Marx are usually called "Marxists", not "Marxians". Marx himself wouldn't likely have called himself a "Marxist", either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I think everyone here is in agreement that Jesus did not label himself a "Christian", nor did anyone else in his lifetime, since that term was evidently coined after his death. The question is whether Jesus was a Christian. Gabbe (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Sketch of J. Piikoi's Life

Sketch of J. Piikoi's Life, written by himself.

About twenty days before his death, the late Hon. J. Piikoi dictated the following sketch of his life, which we translate from the Hae Hawaii.
"I was born in the month of Ikuwa (January) 1804, at Waimea, Kauai. I continued to live there until Liholiho came to Kauai, on the 22nd of July 1822. There was a great feasting on the arrival of Liholiho and the chiefs in his company, on board the vessel called the "Okikowali." The feasting took place in a house known as "Puilihale." After eating, the King called to Kaumualii, - "Oh, Kaumualii, there is plenty of poi and fish at Kauai - one thing only is lacking—tobacco" The chief answered - "The tobacco also is ready." He then called me, saying Piikoi, "go and do as I bid you." I consented, and a pipe having been lighted, was given to me, together with a tobacco box and a pipe-lighter, and I was directed to take them to Liholiho. The chief called out, - "Oh, the Heavens, here is the tobacco, and a servant with it." Then it was that I became a pipe-lighter; that was the first commencement of my going with Liholiho to live. My relations and friends made a great lamentation, but some said, "We have no business to wail, for he is given entirely to the King." I then went round the island of Kauai with the King and afterwards came to Oahu with him. At Waianae, I ran away in order to go with Kaumualii at Waialea. He ordered me to go back, saying that I must look to the King for my subsistence hereafter, nor desert him on any account. I accordingly returned, and continued to live with Liholiho until he went to England, and never wanted for anything to eat, drink or wear.
After the King went to England I lived with Kahalaia, and on his appointment as governor of Kauai, I accompanied him thither. After the rebellion of Humehume in 1824, we returned to Oahu, and on the death of Kahalaia, in 1826, the late King sent for me, saying "You belonged to Liholiho; why do you not come to live with me?" I said "I have come." The late King was considerate in regard to his servants. Sever years later, the King gave me the charge of lands on Oahu. This duty I executed both to the satisfaction of the King and somewhat to my own profit. Subsequently, when Haalilio went to England, I received his duties to perform. About this time I was made a Member of the House of Nobles, and soon after, a Member of the King's Privy Council. I also received from the King a very important duty- that of superintending the division of lands between the King and the chiefs at Haliimaile. When I undertook this duty, some of the chiefs said that they did not wish for me to divide the lands for them. I made reply to them that if they would not take my division, they must lose all their lands, from Hawaii to Kauai. These were strong words, but I spoke confidently, well knowing that I had ample authority from the King. I continued to live pleasantly and happily under the late King until he left us on the 15 December, 1854.
Under His present Majesty, Kamehameha IV, who God has graciously placed over us, I have enjoyed all my former rights of nobility, and my family and myself have enjoyed the fullest protection. May God preserve the King, and grant him a long and prosperous reign.
I have written the foregoing in my great weakness, for the purpose of showing my countrymen how I rose to my present rank and position, under the protection of the King, from the humble station of a pipe-lighter.
Love to all, J. Piikoi"
Honolulu, April 7, 1850.

Can someone help me make out the missing words and verify what I have here base on the extremely poor original found here and here? An extremely good eye would be helpful.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't make out everything, but have emended the text in red where I think I can. - Nunh-huh 22:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a better, clearer version of the article here which includes a PDF download link. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

That's much better! - Nunh-huh 22:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Queen Kapiolani at Golden Jubilee

Was Queen Kapiolani of Hawaii the only person titled Queen in attendance beside Queen Victoria during the Golden Jubilee? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

No. Fifty "Kings and Princes" attended, including "the King of Denmark" (Christian IX) and his son "Willy of Greece" (as Victoria called George I of the Hellenes), who sat on either side of Victoria at the state banquet ; it would be surprising if none of the Kings brought a wife with him. The New York Times coverage concentrates on the men, but does specifically mention the Queen of the Belgians as present in the royal procession. (It also writes "In the gallery overlooking the dais [in Westminster Abbey] Queen Kapiolani and Princess Lilieokalani, in rich golden robes, were seated in the sacrarium, just under the stream of crimson rays falling through the windows. Among the royal persons who awaited the Queen's arrival were the blind King of Saxony, who was led to a seat in the choir near the dais, beside whom sat the Queen of the Belgians and Crown Prince Rudolph of Austria.") - Nunh-huh 00:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC) P.S. In 1887, the Queen of the Belgians would have been the wife of the genocidal Leopold II, born Marie Henriette of Austria (1836-1902). - Nunh-huh 00:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh really. I was reading something that talked about an incident during the Jubilee involving an event (something like a dress rehearsal or something, I can remember for sure) in which Princess Liliuokalani and Queen Kapiolani were late to and every royal ladies in the room were standing because they were waiting for the only Queen in the room to be seated.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, that could well be true. Kapiolani could still be the only queen in a specific room at a specific time, without being the only queen to attend the jubilee events. - Nunh-huh 03:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It is etiquette to wait for the most senior person to arrive and sit down before taking one's seat for dinner, and on British soil that would be Queen Victoria, regardless of whoever else was styled "Queen". --TammyMoet (talk) 10:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

However, a Queen regnant (like Queen Kapiolani) would take precedence over a Queen consort (like the Queen of Denmark). Sorry, my mistake, Kapiolani was a consort too. Alansplodge (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

And even if she were a queen regnant, I'm not sure she would outrank all queens consort. I suppose a queen consort would share her husband's rank as much as his title. Surtsicna (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Rank and precedence are slightly different matters. A queen consort would hold the same rank as her husband, but she would cede precedence to a queen regnant. Precedence is a common way to sort people of the same nominal rank. --NellieBly (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Eli Yishai ever speak Arabic?

According to Eli Yishai Knesset page, it says that he speaks Arabic. When was the last time or when did he ever spoke Arabic in front of the media? I am just curious. I never seen Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews speak Arabic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

This isn't an answer to your question, but what would be the incentive for him to speak Arabic in public when he can simply speak Hebrew? Arabs aren't going to vote regardless of whether or not he spoke Arabic. Also, he can simply speak Arabic at home, like I do with Russian. Futurist110 (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It's possible he spoke Arabic here [2], but it isn't clearly specified. You could try contacting them or see if you can get a transcript of the entire briefing. On Futurist110's point, I presume he could be interested in reaching out to Arabic speakers even if they aren't likely to vote for him and speaking Arabic is one way which is likely to help. I'm not sure what level of 'spoke in Arabic in front of the media' you're referring to, but it isn't uncommon for politicians and similar who have some command of a language to speak at least a few words when meeting speakers of that language, for example it's easy to find videos of Barack Obama speaking in Indonesian. (Although IIRC it was mentioned on the RD before that George H.W. Bush was told to avoid speaking in French because of possible negative ramifications from some Americans.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm also curious as to why he wouldn't speak Arabic. There are many bilingual (and more) people in the world, it certainly isn't beyond the realm of possibility that someone living in a country would learn a language spoken by many of that country's neighbors. There's certainly no law against it, and I would imagine it would come in useful in a place where there are many other people who speak Arabic. --Jayron32 20:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You clearly don't know many Mizrahi Jews. I only know a handful of Mizrahi Jews and about half of them speak Arabic to some degree of proficiency. In Yishai's case, he was born in Israel to parents who immigrated from Tunisia, an Arabic-speaking country. Children of migrants often grow up speaking their parents' language, as it's used in the home by the parents and usually, when there's a migrant community (like there was/is in Israel) from a similar background, many visitors to the home. It's a very odd thing to wish to dispute. --Dweller (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes this is somewhat what I expected but didn't want to say since I wasn't sure. If he speaks it at home at least on occasion, then there would likely be people with a similar background he may speak it to even assuming he isn't going to speak to Arabs or other Arabic speakers with a different background from him in Arabic (which as I already mentioned, doesn't actually seem that likely). Depending on various factors, he may not do it that often, but for him to never do it in public is only likely if there's a reason he would want to avoid it which as you and Jayron32 have said doesn't seem likely. Nil Einne (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)