Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 February 2

= February 2 =

How does the US Army go to Afghanistan?
let's say some average soldier or whatever gets orders to go to Afghanistan today? What is the process and the places that he goes before finally reaching whatever part of Afghanistan he's supposed to go to? Like, does he take a plane to europe and then fly into kabul or what? Also, how did the initial troops get into Afghanistan back in 2001? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.234.117 (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * For the initial movement of troops into Afghanistan, they went mainly through Pakistan and Uzbekistan. However, recall that the US only initially provided air support for the Northern Alliance, and let them defeat the Taliban on the ground. StuRat (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I can give you the Canadian perspective. I'll try to point out areas that I know are different from the American process.  I'll start from the point of view of a reservist because one of my best friends took this path.
 * In Canada, no reserve units have ever been deployed explicitly to Afghanistan. In order for a reservist to go to Afghanistan, he has to first volunteer for a reg. force unit that has a rotation coming up.  Once accepted, he spends 4-10 months (depending on experience and when the next rotation starts) in work-up training with the unit that he's volunteered into.  Work-up training familiarizes the soldier with the tactics and rules of engagement in the theater.  Most importantly, maybe, it builds trust and ensures that the soldier is mentally ready for the deployment.  After the work-up training, he usually gets one 1-2 week leave.


 * Logistics in Canada are much simpler than in the US. I think most of the US international infantry deployments go via C-5 Galaxy flights from a base in North Carolina and are airborne-refueled over Europe.  In Canada, the soldier takes a "CC-150 Polaris" (a converted Airbus A-310) and takes whatever route will be safe.  On his last deployment, my friend went Edmonton-Toronto-[something in Europe]-Abu Dhabi-Kandahar.  They arrive at the Kandahar Air Field, which acts as the HQ for much of the NATO force in Afghanistan.  I think that many of the American units arrive at Bagram Air Base.  Once in-theater, they hook up with their next unit, which may be operating out of the air base or a Forward Operating Base (FOB).


 * As for material (vehicles, munitions etc.), for both US and NATO forces, most of it arrives through Pakistan and is driven, via convoy, through the mountains. There have been some recent news stories claiming that the DoD has been trying to find another Central Asian country to act as a material entrepot, because of the delicate foreign policy relationship with Pakistan.  I can't find a news story to quote, but there have been a number of ambushes of US material in Pakistan, by grassroots (Taliban-esque) forces.  One attack on a lightly-defended US depot resulted in the burning and disabling of several dozen Humvees. NByz (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be materiel. There should be an ordnance against military terms that are close to normal English words. :-) StuRat (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe there's a military statue regarding it. Edison (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not just one statue, there should be an entire cannon of law. :-) StuRat (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * See Air Mobility Command (formerly Military Airlift Command) and Civil Reserve Air Fleet. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  18:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

name this song
can someone name this song http://www.hulu.com/superbowl/55737/super-bowl-xliii-ads-coke-heist#s-p3-sr-i0
 * Nice ad, isn't it? And the music (a theme from Peter and the Wolf) brought back a lot of childhood memories for the older viewers - which I suspect was the expected result! - Nunh-huh 08:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Specifically, it's Peter's theme from Peter and the Wolf. --Thomprod (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't that the part where Peter opens the gate and goes into the meadow after his Grandfather told him not to?

Mary II of England
What was her full formal name? It couldn't have just been Mary Stuart. --Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 08:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that was it - I've looked at a large number of documents relating to her: she certainly doesn't use any other name. (She didn't have a signature at all.) It's pretty academic seeing as she was royalty and held title from birth anyway. I'd be interested if she did have any, though, but I doubt it. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're asking about a middle name, no, she didn't have one. In fact, it was very unusual for royalty to have more than one forename until the Hanoverians came over. Best, Peter Symonds ( talk ) 16:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And they've beeen making up for lost time ever since. --  JackofOz (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "I've never agreed with the Hanoverian succession." (Angus Hudson of Upstairs, Downstairs.  --- OtherDave (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hudson had a first name? Are you sure? DuncanHill (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a long time before we found it out, as in the case of Inspector Morse. (One supposes Hudson had a Jacobite tendency, though it may just be that he shuddered to think of the Duke of Cumberland.)  Xn4  ( talk ) 07:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It may have been even worse than the OP guesses. While she was of the dynastic House of Stuart, the English royalty does not usually have a "last name" in the commonly understood sense.  Having a surname is something seen as "common" (in the classically understood sense of the term) and royalty just didn't have one.  Some kings had "nicknames" like Edward Longshanks and Robert Curthose and John Lackland, but these were not considered surnames, and neither are the royal houses, like Windsor, Plantagenet, or Tudor, considered surnames.  English monarchs are just their names, and that is that.  Thus, Queen Mary II's full name was not "Mary Stuart" or "Mary Orange" or anything but "Mary".  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  04:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Jayron32 is technically correct, but in practice during the 16th century all the members of the Royal House of Stewart were referred to around Europe as if Stewart or Stuart were their surname. Indeed, the use of the name by the French, Spanish and Italians created the spelling "Stuart", which had not been used in the British Isles until it arose on the continent. This all reminds us that in all of the countries of the British Isles there is really no such thing as what is sometimes called a "legal name". Your name is simply what you call yourself and how you are known.
 * In her youth, by the way, Mary was known as "the lady Mary". The lawful daughters of kings (even when recognized as such, which Mary wasn't always) weren't in those days given the title of "princess". Xn4  ( talk ) 07:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hadith about Wolves
What is that Hadith in which talking of wolves is mentioned ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.118.128.253 (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are looking for the conversation between Jacob (Joseph's father) and the wolf, you can read the story here: []. --Omidinist (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there is more than one hadith with talking wolves, there is the wolf asking the shepherd "Who will guard the sheep on the day of the wild animals?" DuncanHill (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Co regents
I have heard about co-regents; monarchs who sat on the same throne in the same country and ruled together. Such as Mary II of England and her spouse. I suppose this was more common among married couples. How common was it for two men to rule togheter, and two women? When did this happen the last time (regardless of gender), and would it ever be allowed in a modern country? --85.226.41.66 (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Andorra has two co-princes. DuncanHill (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Co-regents may only happen with the expulsion of the monarch/lack of children/illegitamacy to the throne: not only are these considerably rarer, but I imagine the monarchy would be worth the effort, and it may be scraped or a simpler solution found. There are always going to be cases though, as it could conceivably happen and would be 'allowed' (if not 'used'); in any case there are a lot of conditions. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 15:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that Jarry1250 is referring to quite another thing, a hostile competition between rwo (pretended or partly actual) rulers, where both claim themself to be the only legitimate ruler.
 * I believe that the original question concerned peaceful co-ruling, where the parties recognised each others. I do not think that this was uncommon, historically.  In the Roman empire of antiquity, co-emperors seems to have been more the rule than the exception.  This praxis may have been influenced by the tradition from the even older, republican Rome, where the state always was lead by two consuls.--JoergenB (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There were always two Kings of Sparta, two different dynasties each produced a king. There are a few medieval cases where the son of a king was named co-king; Henry the Young King with his father in twelfth-century England, and Philip II of France during his father's illness. It also happened a number of times in crusader Jerusalem, in one case a whole family were all legally monarchs (King Fulk, Queen Melisende, and their son Baldwin III, then after Fulk's death, Melisende and Baldwin, mother and son, were co-monarchs), and in another case Baldwin IV and his nephew Baldwin V were co-kings. And that's only the twelfth century! It happened frequently in various combinations in the Middle Ages. I can't think of any examples of two women ruling together but I'm sure it must have happened. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I ment peaceful co-ruling. When did this happen the last time in Europe? Would it be allowed today? --85.226.41.66 (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As Duncan said, Andorra has two princes (both holders of non-hereditary offices in other countries) as heads of state. Also, San Marino is ruled by two 'captains'. --ColinFine (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, I was refering to peaceful co-existence: the rule of William and Mary cam about because of the expulsion (or running away) of the monarch, for example, and I'd imagine if we had the same situation again, where we had to 'disown' the monarch's son, it would be used as an excuse to get rid of the monarchy, or come to a completely different solution. Anyway, the answers here give a fair representation of the answer. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't quite agree with your "because of the expulsion (or running away) of the monarch". James II did flee, but he was still king. He was displaced (unlawfully) by a Convention Parliament in 1689, and this was later "confirmed" by the Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689. During the last hundred years or so, monarchs have usually been unthroned by abolishing the monarchy. All kinds of ways are found to legitimize this, or at least to make it look legitimate. Xn4  ( talk ) 06:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Roman Empire frequently had more than one ruler, but even when they weren't actively competing for dominance (i.e. there was a legitimate dual inheritance of the throne, such as Honorius and Arcadius) the rule was hardly peaceful. Steewi (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Roman Tetrarchy involved four simultaneous rulers, though it worked more or less according to plan only for a relatively brief time. In some monarchies, there was a custom to publicly designate a chosen heir, so as to fix the succession in advance and avoid turbulence after the current monarch died; in the meantime, the designated heir acted as a kind of secondary ruler (or in a few cases where the reigning monarch retired from active governing, as the main effective ruler).  Reconstructions of the chronology of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel often posit such "coregencies" (i.e. overlapping between the reign of a king and the reign of his chosen heir). AnonMoos (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the Roman diarchy ("two-ruling") lasted considerably longer, and was rather more successful - but not at all always. There were a lot of power struggle and (seemingly) outright assasination going on in old Rome.
 * Steewi, please recall that in antiquity the Roman empire did not posess a formally hereditary monarch. The empire was formally a republic, and each emperor formally appointed by the senate.  IMHO, this was actually an important reason for the co-rulership; if a father wanted to secure succession for his son, pressing the senate to name the son co-emperor (and, more important, getting the blessing of the soldiers) was more secure than hoping for the best after his death.
 * The article diarchy also provides some slightly more recent examples of co-regents, in e.g. Sweden. JoergenB (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to mention, of course, the two Roman triumvirates (the first being between Ceasar, Pompey and Crassus, the second between Lepidus, Mark Antony and Octavian). Belisarius (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Or, even, the decemvirate. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Giric and Eochaid, were co-kings of Picts 878-889, possibly. Gwinva (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is of course the co-monarchy of Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon which laid the groundwork for unification of Spain under a single monarchy. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  04:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Somewhat related is the concept of a junior co-regent, which dates to ancient Egypt, when, for the sake of stability, a pharaoh might choose a successor, who essentially became pharoah, jr. This could be handy when there were no set rules about a line of succession. —Kevin Myers 05:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

First woman Ballet master
Who was the first female Ballet master in the world? Does anyone know?--85.226.41.66 (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The earliest here on wiki is Sophie Daguin (1827). But perhaps there is an earlier example?--85.226.41.66 (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution
Should any considerable act of aggression between two other parties happen (I think the most plausible would be a N. Korean attack or invasion on S. Korea), what are the chances that this article of the constitution would be over-ruled, assuming a unanimous vote in parliament? I know the word 'forever' is used, but is it really certain? Secondly, are there any other countries which are lawfully prohibited from declaring war (Italy is mentioned in the above article, but I don't think their constitution covers the actual declaration of war)? Thanks, - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You may find neutral country interesting (for some reason, it doesn't mention Japan...). I don't have a specific answer to your question, though - I don't know if the neutral countries listed just have policies of neutrality or actual laws. --Tango (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * They do have a military (the Japanese Self-Defense Forces, and they even have (or had) a contingent in Iraq (Japanese Iraq Reconstruction and Support Group). Maybe another Korean War is plausible but it is also likely that the US would like Japan to have a large army as a balance against China; because of Article 9 they just don't call it an army. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Although some of what Article 9 can be got round by calling them an extention of the police, the actual declaration of war is something rather specific, and that's why I'm interested. I've no doubt that most countries need a very good reason go to war (in the formal sense) anyway, and they may follow neutrality where possible. For example Switzerland's states that (Article 58): The army serves to prevent war and contributes to maintain peace; it defends the country and its population. It supports the civil authorities to repel serious threats to internal security or to cope with other exceptional circumstances. The law may provide for further tasks. but it certainly doesn't rule out the possibility of war in the same way to Japan. Sweden (another 'neutral country') says (Chapter 10, article 9): No declaration of war may be made without the consent of the Parliament, except in the event of an armed attack against Sweden.which means they can declare war. Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In answer to my second question, the Irish constitution (Article 29) states:
 * 3. 1° War shall not be declared
 * although it does make self-defence provisions. So there's one. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Austria's (Article 40) clearly allows the declaration of war. Finland's doesn't really mention it, save that 'matters of war and peace shall be decided by the President, with the consent of Parliament'. The Constitution of Turkmenistan says that the government can decide the declaration war or peace condition, so clearly they can declare war. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Declarations of war are far less common these days than in the 19th or early 20th century; for instance the USA hasn't declared war on anyone since 1942 (Declaration of war by the United States). In the event of a UN-authorised peacekeeping action in Korea it's likely that they could send troops without declaring war (Declaration of war has a little info). --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 10:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

OP, what are the chances that this article of the constitution would be over-ruled, assuming a unanimous vote in parliament? --- off the top of my head, I'd have to say 100%. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

origin of the meme "yo dawg, heard u like ____ so I put some ___ in your ___ so you can ___ while you ____"
what's the origin of the meme "yo dawg, heard u like ____ so I put some ___ in your ___ so you can ___ while you ____"?

thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.157 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Judging from this, it comes from Pimp my Ride, via Something Awful or probably 4chan. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, even better, search for "SUP DAWG" on Encyclopedia Dramatica, which naturally I cannot link to here. (If you ever need to know the origin of anything ridiculously annoying, ED is the place to go.) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * if you ever wonder what it's like not being able to talk openly in a fascist dictatorship, just remember that time you couldn't link to ED at the Wikipedia Reference Desk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.157 (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Or piss in an elevator. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's so unintentionally funny. AnyPerson (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Candidates of The 2005 Lebanese Elections
Where can I find a website wher it shows the Maronites, Sunni, Shi'a, Druze, Alawite, Greek Catholic and Orthodox, Armenians and other Christians, like for example, who were the party Maronites candidates of Beirut 1, Bekaa+Hermel, Zahlah, and JBeil? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.4 (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

non-existent people?
who were the most famous non-existent people - for example i heard of "syndicates" (literature) meaning a nom de plume that not one, but several people used (such as for the Hardy Boys series). So, this would have led people to believe that a single, existing person wrote the thing, whereas no such person existed. Maybe monarchs or other famous people were invented to some purpose as well.

basically my question is: of all the people who have never existed, who is the most famous?

I mean not as a fictitious person, but a real one people thought existed.

82.120.227.157 (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's lots of examples of syndicates and such in Category:Collective pseudonyms. I won't judge which is the most famous. Algebraist 20:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Out of that list, the whole two I recognized were Nicolas Bourbaki (who is pretty well known in science circles) and Isadore Nabi (which is a lot less well-known). I'd suggest Bourbaki is probably the best known.. whenever I hear of other examples of collective anonymous authorship, it is usually referenced as the canonical example. --140.247.240.200 (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Other examples in Category:Nonexistent people. Algebraist 20:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There are also people whose reality is up for the debate. Jesus Christ is probably the most notable—there's a serious question about whether there was a single figure who did things as described in the gospels, or whether the character there is a mixture of a number of contemporary religious figures. --140.247.240.200 (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The consensus generally is there was a Jesus (Christ), so he did exist - even if everything else is attributed (or didn't happen, it isn't a theological question), therefore he is not covered by the question, which asks for non-existent people. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a considerable set of research that has been done on whether the person existed as well. Granted, the field of religious historians don't lean that way, though there are obvious systemic biases involved there (almost all historians of the New Testament are Christians, at least in the US, as far as I have seen). Anyway, the relevant article is Historicity of Jesus and Jesus myth hypothesis. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd guess that the inventions of corporations are probably the best-known—such as, in the United States, Betty Crocker and Aunt Jemima. Deor (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Lieutenant Kijé was a fictional character even within a fictional story, but was accepted (in the story) as a real person by the Tsar of Russia.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is thought by many that Homer was not a single person in fact, but the collective work of generations of Greek poets and rhapsodes that slowly became the Homeric epics known today (the Iliad and Odyssey). Those are pretty famous, so Homer has my vote. СПУТНИК CCC  P 22:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Some would suggest Shakespeare. Gwinva (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No-one believes Shakespeare didn't exist, to my knowledge. Some people believe he didn't write the works attributed to him, but that's all. Algebraist 03:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Bourbaki would certainly be the most important mathematician who never lived, but anyone in the U.S. would recognize "John Q. Public" and "Joe Schmoe"; any English speaker of the WWII generation would know Lord Haw-Haw and Tokyo Rose (the latter is not in that category at the moment, but probably should be); Ellery Queen is known to anyone with even a passing interest in detective fiction; and Johnny Rebel (more commonly Johnny Reb, I believe) would be known to anyone with an interest in the American Civil War. - 05:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In US history, a famous non-person is Molly Pitcher. Our article is currently a mess, but sort of gives you the right idea: she was a legend assembled out of historical fragments. —Kevin Myers 05:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Robin Hood? 06:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I nominate some fictional detectives: Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot, and Philip Marlowe, for a start. Xn4  ( talk ) 06:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Are there actually people who think Poirot or Marlowe were real? —Kevin Myers 15:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * King Arthur Wrad (talk) 06:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict - remarkable coincidence!) Homer is arguably a possibility, except that he may have existed. And that reminds me of other figures who may or may not be historical, with origins "lost in the mists of antiquity", such as King Arthur and Noah. Xn4  ( talk ) 06:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Along the lines of Joe Schmoe, Tommy Atkins was the fictional soldier of WW1 whose name appeared on official papers to give an example of how things should be filled in. "The man on the Clapham Omnibus" used to be used to refer to the common man in the UK. I'd also suggest that, in the UK at least, soap opera characters are at least as famous as their real life actors, if not more. People of a certain age remember Ena Sharples, but may not recall Violet Carson, who played her in Coronation Street.--TammyMoet (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The question is about famous people who many folks thought actually existed, but who did not in fact exist. Fans of soap operas are attached to their favorite characters, to be sure, but few fans (I hope) think the characters on soaps are real. —Kevin Myers 15:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

My nominees would be Adam and Eve, who I think can be clearly shown not to have existed in a literal sense. Of course, there are many religious and legendary figures whose historical existence is uncertain, such as Abraham, Moses, Odysseus, and Robin Hood, but their historicity cannot be disproven. John M Baker (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree about Adam and Eve as they appear in the Bible. But someone must have been the very first human being to be clearly distinguished from neanderthals, apes etc, so we may as well call him/her "Adam/Eve". Maybe there was a transition period where beings had some human characteristics and some neandertheal characteristics, but when we got to the point where a person indisputably had only human characteristics, that would have been the first.  But we'll never know who that person was, or even when it happened. --  JackofOz (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Er, I'm not really sure that's how it works. Speciation of that sort is rather slow and tedious. The grades between Homo sapiens and whatever came before it would have been quite small, to the point that singling any given person or two people as "the first humans" requires postulating a set of genes that count as "human" and somehow differentiating them from the minute changes of whomever their parents were. When talking about species in this context it's not easy to single out "firsts"—it's easier to single out when you have a big enough breeding population for those shared traits to make a difference... think of it this way—imagine you're some sort of beginning of some new subspecies of human—not implausible if much of the world got wiped out tomorrow or something like that. How much "first" credit can you take, given that you're just a product of your mother and father? Not a whole lot, even if you have a rare gene or two. But run out whatever your genes are for a few 10,000 years in our post-apocalyptic fantasy, and suddenly those people start to look more like each other than they did like the 1,000 generations before your parents. The end points may be clear, but there isn't necessarily any sort of firm line in between them. Nowadays we determine evolution of humans by probabilistic frequencies of genes in populations—an approach which can tell you a HUGE amount about groups but almost nothing about individuals. At some point you end up with something sort of like Mitochondrial Eve, but that person was not part of any sort of first couple... --98.217.14.211 (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As the prior poster said, this is not how speciation really works. The development of a new species is gradual, with an absence of discontinuities.  There is a middle population that is able to interbreed with both species.  In addition, there will be individual variation (i.e., some modern humans would consider a particular individual human and a possible mate, and others would not).  You could look instead to Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam (not actually the position taken by JackofOz), but they apparently lived 80,000 years apart.  In any case, modern science clearly tells us that the Adam and Eve described in the Bible did not exist in a literal sense, and I think it's going to be hard to beat them in terms of definitively nonexistent individuals.  John M Baker (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ellery Queen was two people and to further the confusion,wrote books in which the leading character was called Ellery Queen,hotclaws 13:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The Jeordie's
In the Tyneside area of England ,which is the Newcastle area, the miners were referred to as 'Jeordies'. What is the background to this term? Is it still in use? 41.243.222.47 (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a diminutive of 'George'. Our article geordie (note spelling) has more information. Algebraist 20:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's certainly still in use, though its broadened out to refer to anyone from Newcastle & the surrounding area rather than just miners, being precious few of those left there. AllanHainey (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also refers to Newcastle dialect (also with a G, not a J). - Jmabel | Talk 05:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)