Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 August 10

= August 10 =

Non Bourbon
Is there any male line Capetians left that aren't part of the House of Bourbon? It seem the House of Courtenay was the last, but i want to know for sure. Who would be heir to the French Claim if all male line descendant of Hugh Capet were to died off? --Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just on mathematics alone, we can aproximate that there are likely, um several hundreds of millions of decendents of Hugh Capet. Hell, I am likely a descendent of Hugh Capet since I have french ancestry.  Whether I have a verifiable male-line decent is a different story, but there are still likely hundreds of thousands of male-line decendants of Hugh Capet with at least marginally reliable pedigrees to back it up.  The hypothetical death of all male-line decendants of Hugh Capet would require several hundred large thermonuclear devices detonated across large areas of the world where white people are likely to live.  At that point, figuring out who the best candidate for the still non-existant French throne is would be the definition of an "academic exercise" as everyone is busy figuring out how tasty cockroaches are and exactly what are my kids going to do with the extra limbs... -- Jayron  32  05:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Jayron. Whereas descendants generally of any given fertile historical figure will tend to be more or less numberless, legitimate male-line descendants are not nearly so common, and there are plenty of realistic scenarios in which they die out completely. The fact that this has already happened to several branches of the House of Capet should bear that out. As it happens, there is at least one non-Bourbon line still active - the Portguese royal family, who are descended from Henry, Count of Portugal, great-grandson in the male line of Robert II of France, Hugh Capet's eldest surviving son. However, the Portuguese line passes through a number of illegitimate descendants, some of whom were never legitimised. To the best of my moderate knowledge, there are no known legitimate non-Bourbon direct-male-line Capetians left. As there are no known male-line Carolingian or Merovingian heirs left (Holy Blood, Holy Grail notwithstanding!), the conclusion must either be that upon the death of the last heirs, then (1) the claim is wholly extinct, or (2) the Bonapartist claim should be accepted as the only remaining French monarachical pretence, or (3) the Salic Law might be disclaimed by the interested parties - but getting them to agree in whose favour it should be altered would seem impossible. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, some other places to look, anyways, may include:
 * Decendants of Henry I, Duke of Guise who fought in the War of the Three Henries over control of the throne after the eventual death of Henry III. He claimed legitimate decent from Carolingians as his claim; and had the war gone differently, he may have been the Henry IV we remember rather than This guy.
 * Members of the House of Burgundy which provides the Portuguese claim above.
 * Decendants of Robert I of Dreux; our articles follow his lines that produced the Dukes of Brittany, which DID die out by the 1400's, but he has any number of sons and grandsons that our articles do not follow which may have suriving lines today.
 * The treaty of Treaty of Montmartre named the entirely non-Capetian House of Lorraine as distant heirs to the French throne in exchnage for Louis XIV's suzerainity over the Duchy of Lorraine. This claim may be disputed by legitimists who claim that ONLY decendants of Hugh Capet (or more commonly Louis IX) may be legitimate heirs.  See House of Courtenay for more details.
 * Another portuguese line follows decendants of Stephen of Durazzo, himself a direct male line Capetian via his great-great grandfather Louis VIII of France. Our articles run though his great-great grandson Henrique da Veiga de Nápoles, but run out after than.  Henrique did have at least one son, but Wikipedia's coverage of this line does not follow after that.
 * Philip I, Prince of Taranto, of the same Durazzo branch noted above, had at least two sons whose families are not elaborated on in Wikipedia, but who lived long enough to possibly have children of their own.
 * Just some lines to follow. I have no idea where these will turn out.  The House of Bourbon may have been the best claimants during the War of the Three Henries, but may not have been the only claimants.  -- Jayron  32  18:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:O%27DowdArms.jpg
Can somebody tell me what the latin words at the bottom of the coat of arms means in english. (e-mail redacted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.93.253 (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As it says in the O'Dowd article, the motto is Virtus Ipsa Suis Firmissima Nititur Armis (Bravery is Best Sustained by Arms). &mdash; QuantumEleven 10:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ...Cowardice is Best Sustained by Legs.--Shantavira|feed me 18:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I like, I like. Fribbler (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Very inspired. :) And might the Latin be Ignavia Ipsa Suis Firmissima Nititur Crusis? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "cruribus", if you're using "crus". Adam Bishop (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What word would work better? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Crus" is fine; actually I'm not sure if there is another classical word for the leg. "Gamba" eventually came to mean leg, hence the word in the Romance languages, but "crus" is better. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just wondering if crus has an English cognate. It's not obvious to me, whereas "arm" certainly is, even if it's being used to suggest a pun. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh! Well, you could say "legibus", but then it means "cowardice is best sustained by laws"... Adam Bishop (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The adjective "crural" appears in various anatomical terms (as well as the name of a sexual practice). AnonMoos (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.93.253 (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Racism Israel
I ahve two questions: a) Is this that Ashkenazi Jews discriminate Sephardic Jews? b) Does Ahmedinejad have any evidence that Israel is a racist nation, like how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.245 (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know about a), but Ahmadinejad's (halal) beef is with the concept of a Jewish state and policies such as the Law of return. It's a large topic and I suppose the parent article would be Zionism. Fribbler (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're referring to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 of 1975, then that was far more successful in creating 16 years of aggravation and turmoil than in usefully exposing or condemning any specific injustices (it generated "more heat than light", as they say) -- and even some of those who substantially agree with Resolution 3379's contents would admit that in that particular forum and format it was not productive in accomplishing any long-term constructive goals (for one thing, the passing of Resolution 3379 significantly damaged the relations between the UN and the United States, which still have not recovered to their pre-1975 level after 35 years).
 * Frankly, Israelis could ask why the world seems so much more preoccupied with alleged Israeli racism than with, for example, Malaysian racism -- considering that Malaysia has an explicitly racist constutition, and Malaysian governments have pursued openly racist public policies for more than 40 years... AnonMoos (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Malaysians would probably defend those constitutional elements as Affirmative action rather than racism; but I admit I know little of the debate. Fribbler (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Discriminatory policies based on an eternally immutable ethnic identity or genealogical bloodline look a lot like racism to me, and the basic principle of the Malaysian government system seems to be that non-ethnic-Malays are to be kept from exerting political influence proportional to their share of the population. Furthermore, comparing measures which are intended to further entrench the power of the already-dominant ruling group with "affirmative action" according to the usual definition (i.e. measures to assist groups traditionally suffering social oppression and exclusion) is more obfuscatory than clarifying.  And the question remains unanswered as to why violent exception is taken to the one form of nationalism which happens to involve Jews, while many other forms of nationalism which are far more exclusionary in ideology or practice are mostly unchallenged.  In the Arabic language, the word for Arabic nationalism literally means "tribalism" (qawmiyyah &#1602;&#1608;&#1605;&#1610;&#1577; from the word qawm &#1602;&#1608;&#1605;, meaning "tribe" or "ethnic nation"), yet for some reason the accusation "Arabic nationalism is racism" is not commonly tossed around... AnonMoos (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Are other countries as pathologically obsessed with Israel as the US is? I thought this mostly had to do with Christian eschatology requiring Israel to exist. But I'm pretty cynical :) Adam Bishop (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The United Nations Commission on Human Rights was abolished in significant part because of an irremediable pathological fixation on Israel; so far, its successor, the United Nations Human Rights Council is not much better... AnonMoos (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with your thesis is that it isn't just about political power, but in fact primarily about socioeconomic status. Many of the policies are purported to be intended to increase the position Malays have in the socioeconomic order, which has and remains far lower then their share of the population. Many of the policies are also supposed to be temporary until an equal status is reached although there's sometimes some debate about that. Whether that was the true intention of the policies this obviously isn't the place to debate, but if you look at it soley from an political POV you're missing the point. This doesn't mean the policies are fair. One of the biggest criticisms is they ignore individual and non Malay needs. In particular, the Indian minority have always been and remain in an even worse position then the Malays and their needs have often been given little attention. Also the policies provide the same benefit to a rich person of Malay descent as to a poor person of Malay descent and a poor person of Chinese descent 'suffers' the same as a rich person of Chinese descent. And in terms of outcome, a big criticism of the policies is that they have created a tiny rich Malay minority, encouraged the best of the non-Malays to leave Malaysia and seek their fortunates elsewhere and done little for the Malay majority they are intended to be helping. But again all this is irrelevant when we are considering the policies in an abstact sense. Indeed in terms of politics, while many non Malays and indeed many Malays may not be happy about the political structure, it's overtly simplistic to say it's because it inheritly benefit Malays. Yes the reason Singapore was kicked out and the 13th May riots are mostly related to politics and it's problematic for any Chinese majority party or even many Chinese politics to actually do or say anything remotely connected to race without being accused of being a Chinese chauvanist but for many that isn't their biggest gripe. Likewise while the political power structure is inherently and heavily biased in favour of the Malays that too isn't the biggest gripe and the reasons are quite complicated. They relate a lot to the way the current system is heavily biased in favour of the existing incumbent (not of course unique to Malaysia) and the racialist nature of the governing party or parties. "It's the economy, stupid" definitely applies here, what most non Malay Malaysians care about most of all is how the policies negatively affect them particularly economically not so much in their lack of political power. It's perhaps worth remembering that the minorities in Malaysia are indeed a minority (which has been decreasing because of things like a lower birth rate and higher emigration) so even if the political scene was more fair, the Malays could still do whatever they wanted if they had the support (okay they don't have quite the level to amend the constitution.) Just to emphasise, it is true of course that many consider the system gives little say for the non Malay parties and it's also true that the chance of a non Malay PM or even a governing party with the support of a majority of Malays is unlikely, and this is not something many are happy with nor am I saying it's fair and all this does relate back to the problems with the way things currently work and the unhappinies about it. I'm simply saying that the political party is only one part, and not the one people tend to care about the most IMHO. Another point, affirmative action for majorities is of course not unique to Malaysia, it's been tried in a number of African countries including South Africa (although it's not limited to blacks there). A key difference is that unlike in those countries, the minorities in Malaysia by and large and the former colonials but it those illustrate that there isn't even anything unique abou
 * You mentioned nationalism but the key difference with the situation in Israel is that many people perceive or claim to perceive (key words!) that Zionism is about taking away land for people who owned it, and giving it to other people so they can form a country of their own. A form of modern day colonialism. These views may be highly inaccurate, and it may also be true many people whole hold them are using them as an excuse to justify their anti-semitic beliefs (although I think this is unlikely, I think many people do genuinely believe that that is the case, which doesn't of course mean they don't also harbour anti-semitic beliefs), but the fact remains comparing Zionism to many other forms of nationalism is IMHO flawed since they are perceived as different for reasons beyond race. Coming back to Malaysia for example, whole it's generally considered easier to get citizenship if you're Muslim or can be accepted as a Malay (it's mostly not in law however), it remains rather difficut and most Malaysians are generally opposed to mass immigration. The Malays percentage of the population is increasing as I've mentioned, but not because of a mass immigration of Malays. I'm not aware of any great examples but if Chinese Malaysians decided that they need a homeland and invaded Johor, kicked out most Malays and claimed the land as theirs and as their inherent right because they needed and have a right to a homeland as with everyone else and were suffering in Malaysia, I don't think many people would think that acceptable. Again I must emphasise, I'm NOT saying this is an accurate summary of what happened in Israel', simply that it is what many perceive as having happened in Israel and it is part of the reason it stands out like a sore thumb to them. There are a bunch of other issues as well, particularly relating to remaining citizenship laws, land ownership etc that many perceive as unfair and are fairly different from the situation in Malaysia (some Arab states may have similar laws as may some other countries) and also the current Israel-Palestinian conflict and the perceived unfairness there although these don't tend to be the big issues and are too complex to analyse here. I would emphasise here again that I'm not saying zionism is inherently worse or bad, simply that it is perceived as different in a number of ways, which is part of the reason why it is commonly seen as different.
 * And a final emphasis, many people do argue the Malaysian situation, as well as e.g. the situation in China with Tibet and the Uighurs, or in most Arabic nations is racist, indeed such an assertation is likely to be far less controversial in many cases. Indeed I would say most racialist national laws are oten considered racist, e.g. the Japanese ones, the white Australia policy and any proposals for similar laws. The only time when someone is likely to challege such a thing is when it's argued there's a legitimate reason for them (e.g. affirmative action) or at least a perceived legitimate reason.
 * P.S. I'm part Chinese Malaysian. Nil Einne (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Whatever -- if an ethnic Chinese or Tamil can never become a Bhumiputra -- even if their ancestors have lived in the territory of current Malaysia for ten generations -- and there's significant political discrimination against non-Bhumiputras, then that sounds a whole lot like racism to me. The etymology of the word "bhumiputra" strongly reminds me of old Blood and soil nationalism, by the way...  Furthermore, preferences which are designed to further entrench in power the already dominant ruling group are not what is usually referred to by the term "affirmative action", and I strongly question whether preferences of this type can be usefully or legitimately referred to as "affirmative action" at all.
 * However, set aside Malaysia for the moment, and let's go on to another example (there are plenty of them out there!), namely Germany. According to German laws, ethnic Germans from eastern Europe (whose ancestors may not have lived within Germany for centuries) are entitled to receive quick German citizenship, while Turks who may be third-generation inhabitants of Germany cannot receive German citizenship without going through a long and somewhat labyrinthine process.  Therefore, let me paraphrase my question from above: "Why is violent exception taken to the one form of nationalism which happens to involve Jews, and yet for some reason the accusation `German nationalism is racism' is not commonly tossed around?" -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the first part of the question see Jewish ethnic divisions and perhaps Beta Israel. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

2.Re a racist Israel - it's become a common topic more recently - specifically in terms of discrimination rather than what you would call "racism". I point you to Israel and the apartheid analogy for more details, though I cannot say if it is a truly neutral discussion. 83.100.250.79 (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that there has been some minor discrimination by Ashkenazim against Sephardim in Israel and that it may even persist today to a small degree, but as in most enlightened societies it's legislated against and diminishing, especially in the younger generations, who care less and are less able to perceive differences, as they're second/third/fourth generation immigrants. I would say it's far less perceivable and far less dangerous than the anti-[lots of things] racism I see in Britain, which itself is less widespread and less pernicious than it was in the 70s. As for Ahmadinejad - the man's a Holocaust denier and (appropriately as a partner epithet) a threatener of genocide, so anything he has to say on the subject of racial understanding is utterly undermined. --Dweller (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit disturbed by AnonMoos' automatic response to any query on Israeli society is to try to point attention to say the Arab or Muslim world instead. The bhumiputra concept in Malaysia is highly problematic in its own right, but it says very little about the questions posted. (it does however serve as an example, alongside with Zionism, why statehood should be based on secular and democratic principles of citizenship, rather than the notion that a state belongs to any particular ethnic or religious group. Five decades of independence of Malaysia, and race issues are still a bone of contention) As per the query a), yes there has been claims that there has been discrimation between different Jewish communities have in Israel. There was the Israeli Black Panthers in the 1970s, in protest of this. Generally, there are some socio-economic differences between different Jewish communities. See for example Mizrahi_Jews. However, this issue is not as politically complicated as during the 1970s, and the general image inside Israeli society is that these divides have been gradually over-brigded. The Ethiopian Jews still face more open racism, though. As per b), when Ahmadinejad and others call Israel a racist state, it refers to the racist abuses against the Palestinian population, not divides within Jewish society in Israel. Zionism is founded on a racist & colonial logic, namely that the land of the Palestinians (a third world people) could be seized and that its inhabitants could be expelled. There is no such linkage between Zionist discourse and whatever social cleavages exist inside Israeli Jewish society, on the contrary Zionist discourse seeks to downplay differences between Jewish communities and promotes a single Jewish-Zionist national identity. --Soman (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm far from the only one who finds it rather monotonously tediously tiresome that the basic existence and legitimacy of Israel is continually (and often rather obnoxiously and intentionally offensively) questioned in a way that generally would not be given the slightest credibility in the case of almost any other nation-state in the world. And I'm distinctly not impressed by complaints against alleged Israeli human rights violations made by governments, organizations, and individuals who conspicuously fail to advocate for human rights in just about any other context than complaining about the Jews.  For example, the Arab League just looooves Omar al-Bashir and his coterie of fellow genocidal maniacs in Khartoum, and it seems to be one of the top foreign-policy priorities of the Arab League to prevent al-Bashir from ever being brought to justice, and to allow him to continue his bloodthirsty policies of slaughter unhindered and unchecked.  Since that's the case, why should I take any hypocritical whinings and moanings by the Arab League about Israel seriously???  It's very noticeable that more Muslims die in a year in Darfur than Arabs have died over the whole last 60 years in the Arab-Israeli conflict, yet the Muslims of the world are for the most part rather silent on Darfur, while many of them feel free to fling any abuse and invective against Israel.  If the reason that many Muslims don't seem to care about their fellow-Muslims in Darfur is because the Muslims in Darfur are Black, not Arab, then that's far more of a racist attitude than is commonly found among influential individuals in Israel... AnonMoos (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think some AGF could be useful here. The anon IP 76.64.52.245 has posed a set of questions; the formulations are not very clear, but I don't read questioning of 'basic existence and legitimacy of Israel' in the query, nor do I feel that the anon IP is necessarily sympathetic to Ahmadinejad. Nor has anyone in this debate mentioned the Arab League or quoted any of their positions. Unless you suspect that the anon IP, I or any other person here is a spokesperson of the AL, i'd say that mixing them into the discussion is merely a rhetorical smoke-screen. As per questioning the basic existence of states and your previous comment on Malaysian bhumiputra question, do remember that the creation and very existence of the state of Malaysia was hotly contended and a war was fought on the issue. --Soman (talk) 08:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't raise the Arab League in response to the original poster (I only raised that in response to you). However, I did implicitly raise the issue of hypocritical and curiously selective indignation (which inevitably looms somewhat large in discussions of this general topic), but without intending to accuse the original poster of hypocrisy.  Also, it's a fact of real life that people don't wander around European capitals in 2009 holding up signs calling for the abolition of Malaysia, but they do wander around European capitals in 2009 holding up signs calling for the abolition of Israel.  Frankly, if politically-minded Muslims could spare for the issue of Darfur one tenth of the indignation they used in the case of the Muhammad cartoons, or one one-hundredth of the indignation they use against Israel, then the world would be a better place... AnonMoos (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We get back to the same debate repeatedly. However, the same line of argument could be turned around in numerous ways. Personally I feel that the argument is constructed simply for the sake of avoiding talking about Israel and the core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, by try to shift the focus in any other direction. Yes, more people die in the war in DR Congo than in Gaza, but does that mean raising your voice against war crimes in Gaza is wrong? (nor is the State of Israel free of guilt for the DRC carnage...) As per selective indignation, compare say the body count of rocket-fire on Sderot (13 according to the wiki article) and causalities due to Israeli military actions in Gaza in the same time frame. Is the public debate in Israeli society anything but selective? I would suggest that the discussion at WP:RDH be about the queries posted. If you want to discuss the Arab response to Darfur conflict, you may post such a query yourself. --Soman (talk) 07:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The influence of birth and sexual order in large families
I am looking for brief articles on birth order in large close families. Specifacally second  daughter sandwiched in  older sister and first son. I am one of seven children and it was sugested I find out the interactions of large families  The order is  girl, girl 11 months later,boy 15 months later, girl 16 months later. boy 18 months later. boy 17 months later, boy 15 months later —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.192.21 (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What is the question? I mean what questions are the articles supposed to address? Bus stop (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They mean the statistics of birth order (in large families) eg if the first two are girls is there an increased likely hood of a given boy/girl order. I think. Someone will come along soon...83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (Maybe you should move this question to the science desk too)83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The sex of each child (excluding twins) is independent of all the others. Averaged over a large number of families you might be able to see some kind of weak correlation, but certainly nothing strong enough to be relevant to an individual family. --Tango (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that a certainty or just an assumption - reference?83.100.250.79 (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the subject has to do with likelihood of gender in a type of sequence. I think the question is concerned with family dynamics. Personalities can perhaps be correlated to place in order of siblings in tightly knit families. Gender may be a factor. It can perhaps be argued that place in sequence can bring out or reduce a variety of qualities in each sibling's personality. I don't know much about this. Bus stop (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's some evidence for a greater number of subsequent miscarriages in a small number of cases if the first child is male  . One of the theories is that the mother develops an immune response to male specific antigens in the placenta which make further pregnancies problematic. This would suggest to me the miscarriages would only be of male offspring but this doesn't seem to have been discussed in any of the things I've read or could find although I didnt reach each article in depth. It's possible there's something I'm not understanding correctly. Nil Einne (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See the article birth order. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. Wiki does have an article on everything! I'm still waiting for a clarification as to whether that is the exact nature of the question being asked. Birth order seems like a pretty good article. Bus stop (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not yet. We don't have an article on the social phenomenon of Wikipedians saying that "Wikipedia has an article on everything". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait a sec. We do have a project page on it: WP:WHAAOE A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we have an article yet on non-Wikipedians' oft-repeated comment that Wikipedia can't be trusted (for accuracy) because "anyone can edit it"? Bus stop (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No but encyclopedia brittanica does, now shhhh, or no soup . ok 83.100.250.79 (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Non-Wikipedians?!? Heck, one of the first things I do when reading a Wikipedia article for the first time is to click on the discussion tab to find out what people are edit-warring about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Criticism of Wikipedia. --Tango (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth : there is some growing evidence that the hormones from a male foetus can cause anti-bodies in some women, which will cause repeated miscarriages, mostly of future male embyros. The effect appears to be stronger where the boy was the first pregnancy. These women would not be the mothers of large families, so this would not affect large-family birth orders. It would tend to make smaller families boy-girl-girl, IF the small size is from repeated miscarriage. - KoolerStill (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The gender of a foetus is scewed to female as more females are concieved than males. But due to more female foetus spontaneous abortions (because of birth defects) more male babies are born than females. The reason that more females are conceived is the sperm containing an X chromosone from the father behave differently to sperm containing a Y chromosone from the father. The sperm containing an X chromosones are faster than ones containing Y chromosones so there is a greater chance that the ovum will be fertilised by sperm containing an X chromosone which can only produce a female foetus. So, the gender of a baby is skewed to male. Sleigh (talk) 09:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

exact location in North Carolina
I remember watching Today being broadcast from the SS Norway. Was it in port in North Carolina? If yes, where exactly?69.203.157.50 (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This video says that the day's filming was done in Wilmington but it also says that they went down they entire Southeast coast, so there may have been other stops in North Carolina as well. (I didn't watch the entire video, just the start).  Alexius  Horatius  20:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Maureen Mwanawasa
About how old around will Patrick Mwanwasa's wife Maureen Mwanawasa be? She have 6 kids and marry in 1988, and allof them is <21. So mrs Mwanwasa would definitely be 10 years younger, probably 16-20 years junior of Levy Patrick.--69.229.108.245 (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep asking for guesses as to the ages of various African politician's wives, based on their children's ages and date of marriage? Anyway, your facts are wrong: They had four children together; Chipokota, Matolo, Lubona and Ntembe. Patrick Mwanwasa also had two other children Miriam and Patrick, from his first marriage.  Astronaut (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)