Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 August 27

= August 27 =

jewelry from gulf oil disaster
Recently I saw on CNN a teenage girl and her father creating jewelry from tar balls collected on a beach near their home in Alabama. (The tar balls are from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.) The jewelry looks nice. (The girl intends to use the profits from the sales of her jewelry to pay for college.) Where can I order some pieces of the jewelry? If more information is available, please let me know. Thank you.24.90.204.234 (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Googleing "tar ball jewellery" gets me to http://www.oilcoastjewelry.com/ Rojomoke (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Heir presumptive of Thurn and Taxis
Albert, 12th Prince of Thurn and Taxis says his heir presumptive is "Prince Max Emanuel". Who is that? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It depends on German inheritance laws, but generally an heir presumptive means its his current heir, who could be replaced by a better heir if one came along. Heir presumptives are often daughters (where there is no son), but in this case, since its a male, it is likely a brother, a nephew, or a cousin.  My guess is that it would be his brother, since under normal circumstances of male-only or male-first primogeniture, if you have no children, then oldest brother (usually the next youngest from you, but it could also be an older brother) is next in line, followed by the children of your oldest brother, then the next brother, and then his kids, and so on.  -- Jayron  32  02:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking in more detail, he has no brothers and no nephews, so the heir in question is actually his uncle, my guess is the unnamed "younger brother" of his father, as described at Johannes, 11th Prince of Thurn and Taxis. -- Jayron  32  02:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * According to Karl August, 10th Prince of Thurn and Taxis, the younger brother of Johannes is named Albert. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind that, according to his grandfather's article, Karl August, 10th Prince of Thurn and Taxis, that brother died at 5 years old. Doing some more digging, it is NOT Prince Max Emanuel of Thurn and Taxis, his great-uncle, who is a now dead monk.  The closest I can find from Wikipedia articles would be a possible grandson of Prince Ludwig Philipp of Thurn and Taxis, who had one son who lived long enough to have kids, though there is no indication that he would have.  In that case, Max Emanuel would be Albert-12th-Prince's third cousin (nearest common relative to both is their common great-great grandfather).  Other than that, there's not even a potential heir closer than that, so Max Emanuel would need to be at best fourth cousin, or possible third cousin once removed (the nearest common ancestor would be Maximilian Anton Lamoral, Hereditary Prince of Thurn and Taxis), but he only had 2 sons, the 7th prince (who had no issue) and the 8th prince, who was the grandfather of Albert-12th-Prince's grandfather.  So now that pushes Max Emanuel back to at best 5th cousin.  The necessary great-great-great-great-grandfather would be Maximilian Karl, 6th Prince of Thurn and Taxis, who had MORE than enough kids to produce a line down to today.  Among Maximilian Karl's male children, there's two by his first wife who may have had kids, Egon and Theodor, and by his second wife I count at least 9 sons who may have had viable lines of their own. -- Jayron  32  03:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Prince Max Emmanuel of Thurn and Taxis is the 12th Prince of Thurn and Taxis's first cousin once removed (father's first cousin). He was born in 1935. He has two sons, Hubertus (b. 1973) and Philipp (b. 1975). Max Emmanuel will presumably die before the 12th Prince, so Hubertus will replace him as heir presumptive (unless the 12th Prince fathers a son soon).


 * Albert, 8th Prince of Thurn and Taxis
 * Karl August, 10th Prince of Thurn and Taxis
 * Johannes, 11th Prince of Thurn and Taxis
 * Albert, 12th Prince of Thurn and Taxis
 * Prince Raphael
 * Prince Max Emmanuael

The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Thanks for the research, guys.  Everard Proudfoot (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Credit card questions

 * 1) How much will getting another credit card hurt my credit score? Or will it hurt it? Currently I have one installment loan and a credit card, the latter for which I only use about 6-7% of my credit limit (I always pay in full at the end of the month). I've found another card for which I really like the benefits, but I don't want to hurt my credit score significantly. I live in the United States.
 * 2) I've heard very good things about Discover Card - I understand they have good rewards because of high merchant fees. Does anybody have experience with this, or know a card with better deals? Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Getting another card should help your score. I read once that the ideal number of cards is 3. Adding another card means you have more available credit, if you don't tap that credit then it helps your score. Ariel. (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ariel's last sentence is untrue beyond a certain point. Credit score is our article on this, which has sub-articles for some countries.  This Federal Reserve link states, "A mix of installment loans and credit cards may improve your score.  However, too many finance company accounts or credit cards might hurt your score."  Sorry I don't have a better reference at hand; it would be nice to get the actual formulas used by the rating agencies, so you could just see what happens when you add a credit card.  As for the Discover card, it has a tiered cash back reward system.  It was the first credit card with a cash back program that I am aware of, but now these systems are popular; American Express now does this, too, with some of its cards; and so do a number of Visa and Mastercard cards.  Now common is a system where you earn one-fourth of one percent of your purchases for the first US$3,000 you spend per year, or whatever, then the rebate climbs to one-half of one percent, etc. up to some rate ceiling like 1%.  There are sometimes extra rebates for particular kinds of purchases (dining out, or groceries).  There is often a hard limit of a US$500 rebate per year.  Cardratings.com (warning, it looks like it's fundamentally a sales site, so take this with a grain of salt) lets you search for cash back cards.  (Note that these are presumably cards that paid cardratings.com to show them.)  I used the Discover card for a decade or so and had no problems I can remember.  You now have to call them and ask them to send your cash rebate checks, I believe.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Right but I don't use very much of the credit I have right now anyway. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * A bank teller once told me that applying for multiple credit cards within a short period of time will hurt your credit rating. I tried to google for a source but most of those are blocked by wikipedia's spam filter, not sure what to make of this. Royor (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is correct. And Comet Tuttle: it's correct that having many cards is bad, but adding a card (when you have less than 3) helps, it does not hurt. By adding a card you increase the total credit available to you, which makes you look better - assuming you don't actually use that credit. Ariel. (talk) 02:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Are there any Africans with only African ancestors?
Whenever I hear the terms "foreigners" or "foreign blood", I always think about the fact that we are all Africans originally, so we all have foreign blood. However, I wonder if there are any African people or individuals who only have African blood, whose heritage has never left Africa, and so completely lack "foreign blood" (or rather, intercontinental blood)? That would require that they have never been in contact with the peoples who have left Africa and returned later. So is it possible that there are any African homo sapien who's every ancestor has been African? 83.250.53.18 (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The article Most recent common ancestor has some discussion of this, and a link to this paper: which suggest no. That is, as far as I can see, mostly based on a theoretical model, though. Jørgen (talk) 10:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A few months ago there was a story in the news about a discovery made by some scientists who found that a few percent of the DNA of modern humans actually comes from Neanderthals. This Neanderthal DNA however was not found in the people they tested who were from Sub-Saharan Africa, which suggests that at least since the Neanderthals went extinct they had no "intercontinental" ancestors (if they had they would have had at least some Neanderthal DNA) - and I doubt there was a lot of intercontinental travel before that. P.S.: Wouldn't this question be better placed at the science desk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean they didn't have Neanderthal ancestors, just not Neanderthal DNA. You don't have the DNA of all your ancestors, just some of them.
 * Does anyone has a ref to these news articles about neanderthal DNA? I'd like to read them, somehow I missed them in the news when they first appeared.--Lgriot (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's one article. And yeah, you're right, with just two Sub-Saharan test subjects the conclusion that there were no intercontinental ancestors is not justified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of it is also referenced in the articles on Neanderthal admixture hypothesis and Neanderthal genome project (and other places linking from these articles). ---Sluzzelin talk  16:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

rice paper block print
I have a rice paper black wood block print of a Mongolian Warrior on a horse. I am trying to identify it. Can you direct me in the proper direction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.132.211 (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be very difficult without a scan of the print. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Where in the world for the best standard of living for the least money?
Say I was from the UK or US, aged 50 and single, and had the equivalent of one million dollars which had to last me another 50 years (being an optimist) until death, without any other earnt income during that time. Where should I settle in the world to give me the best standard of living (and most fun, pleasure, enjoyment etc) for my money?

One qualification is that, a British citizen would get "free" healthcare, pension and other benefits if they stayed in the UK, and I think in the EU also. The downside to the UK is the high cost of "real estate" or "property" as they say. Thanks 92.15.21.39 (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We had a similar question maybe a year ago. I don't remember enough to be able to find it (maybe somebody else does), but I do remember that one of the suggestions was to buy a boat and just float through the rest of your life, harboring wherever might seem appropriate and leaving when bored. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not a good idea though if you don't know what you are doing, especially since you can not buy a particularly large craft for $1M and you don't want to sail the thing into a reef or a hurricane. One major qualification here is do you require a location that speaks English, or can we assume that you would learn a new language for a new location?  Googlemeister (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as an aside, for under $100,000 you'll get a good 34" boat, which is a comfortable size for one person and can handle most waters. - Bilby (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume you meant a 34' boat for that price.   D b f i r s  13:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For an oceangoing vessel, 34' is practically a raft. Googlemeister (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll need the most impoverished local economy, since you'll be living as a parasite and will require cheap servants, and at the same time you'll need cultural and political stability. Not an easy match nowadays.--Wetman (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I object to "parasite"; surely this person will produce a net injection of money into the local economy. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's try and return this discussion to the original question, shall we? The OP proposes a life of leisure in retirement. You are interested in places with the best standard of living and the most fun available. What you don't elaborate on is, what exactly do you expect? Best standard of living might be easy enough, but what do you mean by "most fun, pleasure, enjoyment etc"? We don't have an inkling of what you consider fun etc. You could be interested in cock-fights. You could be interested in opera. You could be interested in easily accessible prostitution. You could consider walks in the country and picking mushrooms fun. We can't really help you without knowing what it is you're looking for. In any case, while Wetman is being harsh in his wording, he does have a point - ultimately you'll probably be looking for an economy that is weak enough for your money to be worth more than you are used to and at the same time stable enough to not involve you in any bothersome coups-de-etat. TomorrowTime (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I do remember this question coming up before and if I'm not mistaken, Southeast Asia and South America were suggested as possible candidates. I can't remember which countries exactly but there was also something about being able to easily gain citizenship as well.  Dismas |(talk) 06:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, what I would like even more than fun, pleasure and enjoyment would be freedom from fear. Freedom from the fear of crime and either medical care not being available or not being able to afford it. What I would most enjoy would be space and nature - the ability to live in a spacious home with my own land around it, preferably out of sight of neighbours and with lots of trees and greenery to look at, and with many potential walks and cycle rides nearby. Plus a comfortable climate. 92.15.13.128 (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * At the risk of sounding like I'm promoting my country (heck, it's what I know about), about ten or maybe 12 years ago, a Brit real estate agent discovered Prekmurje, the Easternmost part of Slovenia. It's the economically least developed part of the country (due to misguided economic history in Communist times - the enlightened rulers of the people figured they'd just build a factory or two in this predominantly agricultural part of the country and instantly transform the farmers into factory workers, but ended up with kaputt factories and a generation of farmers' children who didn't really know how to farm anymore) and there are heaps of little cottage style farmsteads with surrounding land that are abandoned and left to decay. The said Brit bought one of these, moved in and started scouting for further houses he could buy and then sell on the British market. For a while he was pretty successful and I think the top number got to something like 30 or 40 people buying the houses (in a relatively large area, mind you, so it's not like all of the sudden it was Ibiza there, with more Brits than locals). It was a perfect deal, the Brits got cheap rural houses in beautiful scenery, the Slovenes sold their ancestral homesteads that would otherwise be left to slowly rot away untended to. I did read an article on this about two or three years ago, in which the original Brit was lamenting that things weren't going so well anymore and that some of the people moved back to Britain, but I'm unsure of the reasons for this. In any case, it might be an interesting venue to look further into - Prekmurje pretty much fills all of the requirements you list above - it's wine country and there's great scenery, it's not too expensive (not really dirt cheap either, though...) health care wouldn't be a problem for an EU citizen, language shouldn't be too much of a problem - young people universally understand English, and there's the ex-pat community to show you around and get you started, Britain's relatively close by due to flights from Graz and Maribor so hopping back home for the weekend or having friends over for a visit is completely feasible etc. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

1066 - victory or defeat?
For contemporary english people, should the battle of 1066 be considered a victory or a defeat? 92.15.21.39 (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose technically it would be a loss (since the invading Normans won). ny156uk (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Contemporary English people should consider it a victory for the Normans and a defeat for the Anglo-Saxons. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Very few people have an opinion on the matter (our language, for example, uses both). One thing that is certain is that the other battle of 1066, at Stamford Bridge, is considered a victory for the British people. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 20:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ...even though Stamford Bridge was actually a victory for the English, not the British - the British and English were still fighting each other in Wales. So far as modern attitudes towards 1066 are considered, it is essentially considered by most to be a formative but ancient part of history - the Normans and their descendants intermarried with the English, and the modern "English people" descend from both groups, as well as from the many immigrants in later centuries from Scotland, Wales, Ireland, other parts of Europe and the rest of the world.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point, only put forth much more eloquently. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * English attitudes to the Norman Conquest changed over the centuries. 12th c. writer William of Malmesbury looked back upon the Battle of Hastings as "a fatal day, the sad destruction of our dear country." Richard FitzNeal talked about "the conquered Enlgish and the hated race of Normans". But by the latter half of the 12th c. distinctions between Normans and English were becoming blurred. And in the 19th c. some polemical historians such as Thomas Carlyle were celebrating the Norman Conquest for shaping English unity and identity.--Pondle (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1066 is generally remembered as the last time an invading army was sucessful in invading/conquering the UK - all other attempts since have failed, not a bad record. Exxolon (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That claim could do with some scrutiny. The United Kingdom was a much later invention, from the year 1707.  In 1800, the Kingdom of Ireland was incorporated into the UK.  But the island of Ireland was itself conquered by English forces and absorbed into the English realm, after 1066.  Not to mention the squabbles between England and Scotland, that ultimately led to 1707.  So, while continental forces have failed to conquer the British Isles since 1066, there has certainly been some internal conquering going on.  We should of course mention the Channel Islands, which were occupied by German forces in WW2.  They're not formally a part of the UK, but are still British possessions.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   03:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We English like to say that it was the Normans who began the conquest of Ireland, Wales and Scotland in the same way that they conquered us.
 * A recent BBC series has highlighted that historians are now coming back to the view that the Norman Conquest was bad for England, as they did a very effective job of removing almost every Englishman or woman from any position of influence and erasing as many traces of English (ie Anglo-Saxon) colture as they could. For instance, within 100 years of the Conquest, all of the great English churches (Westminster, St Alban's, Waltham, etc, etc), some af them brand new, had been demolished and replaced with Norman ones. The view that England was an uncivilised backwater that needed to be modernised is now being challenged. Alansplodge (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If you were the wrong side of The Doomsday Book then it was defeat.   MacOfJesus (talk) 11:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Jogging Kilburn, London
I'm going to be in a hotel in Kilburn in London next week (at Kilburn High Road, specifically). I really like to jog every morning (for between 40 and 80 minutes). I'd prefer to run in a park, but I'm quite happy on a quiet streets, as long as the pavement isn't scary narrow and the traffic isn't too heavy. I appreciate that Kilburn isn't very close to a decent sized park. Is Queens Park a decent place to run? Or would I have a nicer time running through back roads to Regent's Park? 87.112.196.193 (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should ask this question on the Miscellaneous desk.--达伟 (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Paddington Rec (Paddington Recreation Ground) is not far from Kilburn High Road and is reasonably large. There's a running track there as well. You can get into it either on Carlton Vale or Randolph Road. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I was about to suggest Paddington Recreation Ground, just off Maida Vale, the name of the road that continues into Kilburn High Road, very close to you. Being a Marathon runner, may I suggest, never to refer to it as "jogging", which is a jaring motion, the very thing you want to avoid.  You should not hear your feet touch the "floor" when running.  You will get a better result all round.    MacOfJesus (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Fictional medals for a WW2 military themed website...
Hi everyone. I admin a WW2 gaming site and want to add medals for user achievements. I've been looking at the photos of American military medals on Wikipedia (nice collection, btw!) and am wondering if there is any rhyme or reason to how they select the colors on the ribbons, or how many colors the ribbons have? I'm probably going to design my own medals to avoid offending anyone, but I also don't want to inadvertently come up with something obviously ridiculous/inappropriate. Any help/suggestions? 61.189.63.133 (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm - this ] suggests colours derived from the countries/areas fought for/against/in for USA medals. Exxolon (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A good fictional medal for allied players could be called "Axis denied".--178.167.189.165 (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Gag!

New Netherlands
If the Dutch hadn't given the New Netherlands to the British in exchange for Suriname, could they have feasibly used the funding from their extensive trading in the Indies (and, to a lesser extent, their fur trade in North America) to colonize a much larger area of North America, persisting in competition with the British colonies to the south? --70.134.48.188 (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe. schyler (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a more historical question: what arguments would have been made by the Dutch at home in 1674 in favor of Suriname as the more valuable colony?--Wetman (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * At that time, South America was of much more value to Europeans than North America. The silver, gold, and non-British/Spanish land were there, and the Guyanese Shield hadn't really been populated.  They probably figured that if they went inland, they would find something like the Spanish did when they got to modern-day Peru.  In addition, Suriname was a perfect place to set up a port, because they were located right in the middle of multiple colonies; the Spanish were in Venezuela and several Caribbean islands, and the Brits had Guyana and their islands to the west, while the French had French Guiana and several Caribbean islands, and the Portuguese had Brazil to the east.  It would have been the perfect stopping point for trade between those colonies, and Paramaribo is still a trade center.  Suriname today is an odd place; 70% below the poverty line, but not a huge amount of violence (outside the occasional spat with Guyanese troops).  What can you say, other than it's nice not to have Hugo Chavez on your border?  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 06:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)