Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 December 2

= December 2 =

Santa Clauses
How many men play Santa Claus publicly each year in the United States of America? —Wavelength (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can find the number of enclosed shopping malls in America, that might well give you a minimum figure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have found Category:Shopping malls in the United States.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you have the ones that appear in parades, the ones that might appear as greeters or as Salvation Army kettle bell ringers (although that's less common than it used to be) and who knows what all. Have you tried googling this subject to see what turns up, if anything? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have done Google searches for how many santa claus, how many santa clauses, how many play santa claus, number how many play santa claus, santa claus school, santa claus training, santa claus course, santa claus students, santa claus graduate, and santa claus recruit, in that order. (I copied those 10 sets of terms from my Google searches in my browsing history.)
 * —Wavelength (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have done additional Google searches for santa claus count, santa claus census, santa claus survey, and santa claus statistics, in that order, without finding the answer. (However, I found http://www.christmasnewswire.com/2010/11/16/88-percent-of-adults-believe-in-santa-claus/ and http://www.directhit.com/ansres/Santa-Claus-Statistics.html, which I found to be particularly interesting.)
 * —Wavelength (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Tragically, even the long form of the recent Census inexplicably neglected to include any question about whether respondents had dressed up as Santa Claus within the previous year. Looie496 (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically, that is a travesty if at all. Tragedies are when someone dies. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. Tragedies don't necessarily involve death.  It was a tragedy that T E Lawrence lost his manuscript of Seven Pillars of Wisdom, and a triumph that he was able to rewrite it from memory.  There's an overlap between travesties and tragedies, and Looie's example may well be a case of both.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   11:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, The Amalgamated Order of Real Bearded Santas Inc. claims a membership of several hundred. Neutralitytalk 21:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I found 800 Santa Clauses gathered In Massachusetts | News Amen.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

5-page phd thesis
is that for real? How often does that happen? tx. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Did he get the doctorate? I heard a (possibly apocryphal) story about a Philosophy student who in answer to the question "What is bravery?", answered "This is." AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know how "for real" this is. If you Google this guy and a lot of very odd looking, non-peer reviewed stuff comes up, 90% of which seems to involve stringing together references to major works combined with digressions and casual observations by the author. It looks like nonsense to me, but what do I know. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "stringing together references to major works combined with digressions and casual observations by the author..." Aw man, that sounds like my thesis! Adam Bishop (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not an academic site and "dissertation" can apply to anything, if it were a real dissertation it would indicate candidacy for doctorate and applicable faculty, not just student and university. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 15:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It does appear Matt is a Ph.D. candidate&mdash;but dissertation is not the document here. Matt appears to be on a quest to accumulate an impressive hodgepodge of letters and dots after his name. But what do I know. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 15:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that "dissertation", while most commonly used in the context of a Ph.D. thesis, isn't restricted to that meaning. dissertation for example, defines it as "A formal exposition of a subject" or "A lengthy lecture on a subject; a treatise; a discourse; a sermon." Merriam-Webster had "an extended usually written treatment of a subject". The chance that he's using the term "dissertation" to mean something different than "Ph.D. thesis" is increased by the fact that he is probably not a native English speaker (note the uni-muenchen.de domain). -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is one of these things that (at least sometimes) changes meaning as you go across the Pond. In the States, probably most universities have PhD "dissertations", and "PhD thesis" is certainly understood but considered informal.  You write a "thesis" for a Master's degree.  (There are certainly exceptions; some US universities do officially have PhD "theses".)
 * In the UK, on the other hand, "thesis" is the usual word for a doctoral work, and "dissertation" generally sounds like a discourse requiring less effort rather than more.
 * In the instant case, though, the word is definitely being used in the sense of "PhD dissertation", as you can see on the title page. --Trovatore (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There's lots of legends about short doctoral theses, including physicist Louis de Broglie (for his thesis on electron waves) and mathematician John A. Rhodes, but most are incredibly exaggerated.
 * Some sources whose reliability I'm not sure of say that physicist Tathagat Avatar Tulsi holds the record for shortest doctoral thesis at a more credible 33 pages.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colapeninsula (talk • contribs) 13:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Back in grad school days, one heard of some very short doctoral dissertations in mathematics. In most fields, an extensive literature review is customary, besides the particular research project. A certain number of pages is needed to have a sufficiently thick binding to adequately display the dissertation title and author's name on the spine when it is bound for display in the author's library. Edison (talk) 05:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * John Rhodes' MIT thesis was actually large, 600 pages or something like that. Its unusual feature was that it was co-written with Kenneth Krohn, a grad student at Harvard (a mile or so away).  Both turned in identical dissertations, about what became known as Krohn-Rhodes theory.  It was important enough research that they got away with it. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 11:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * While I am not aware of the specifics here, the likelihood is they got prior approval for such a thing. For a substantial work in which the contributions of the two authors are not doubted by the dissertation committees, this is not an impossible arrangement, though it is unusual. There is no rule that prohibits such a thing; the approval of dissertations is left to the discretion of the committee members, generally speaking. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no such thing as legal insurance? How the HELL do poor people pay for lawyers?
It can be argued that lawyers are on the same socioeconomic strata as doctors, but why can't there be legal insurance if there can be medical insurance? What's so wrong about having legal insurance exist in the first place?

How do poor clients pay for lawyers without any way for an insurance to pay for them? --70.179.178.5 (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Er, where? This is Wikipedia, a global cooperative effort, and such questions can hardly be answered without context? From your question, I'd suspect you are asking about the US system, in which case I'd suggest that the answer depends on many factors, not least on what the lawyer is needed for. I'd try to be a little more specific (though don't ask for legal advice, because we can't give it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Funny that you mention doctors because they DO have what you call "legal insurance". It is called "malpractice insurance", which is used to cover legal issues and penalties involved in malpractice lawsuits. --  k a i n a w &trade; 04:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In the U.S., if you need a lawyer and genuinely cannot afford to pay one, you can get one for free. The Public defender is availible for criminal cases, and Legal aid for civil cases or for other things lawyers do, like reviewing paperwork or preparing a will. If you get charged with a crime, the government is required to give you a lawyer; that's what a public defender does.  If you get sued, or wish to sue someone else, or need a lawyer for some other reason, that's what legal aid does.  -- Jayron  32  04:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * (e/c) We have an article that discusses pro bono legal counsel (free legal service) in the US and the UK. In the US, it is common for people who need legal representation but cannot afford it to be granted a court-appointed attorney.  Legal insurance seems like a good idea, though, and may be obtainable in some places.  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  04:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There's legal insurance -- see legal expenses insurance. It can be either "before event" or "after event".  It comes with a lot of company benefits packages (we have it where I work). Antandrus  (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) So first of all, you understand that it's not the basic idea behind insurance to make things affordable for poor people, at least per se? Insurance is a way of making your costs predictable, not so much of reducing them.  For example, if your chance of having a fire that destroys your home is one in a thousand per year, then the annual cost of your fire insurance will be somewhat more than a thousandth of the value of your home (with the simplifying assumptions that the insurance would cover the entire value, and that your home is either completely destroyed or untouched).
 * If you could be a homeowner for ten thousand years, and if you had the discipline to put that money away in a special-purpose account for the ten times your home is destroyed by fire, you could do it more cheaply that way than by buying insurance.
 * The reason that it's worthwhile to have fire insurance, in spite of its negative expected value, is that you can afford the insurance, but you can't afford to lose your home and not be reimbursed.
 * All that said, there is such a thing as insurance to cover legal costs. I know, for example, of a company called MetLaw. --Trovatore (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Legal insurance is usually just called "insurance". Car insurance, by far one of the most visible forms of insurance, almost everywhere in the U.S. contracts that the insurer will provide and pay for an attorney for the insured party. Malpractice insurance (whether for lawyers, doctors, or other professionals) is the same thing. In fact the duty to defend is pretty common in many insurance contracts. Shadowjams (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Common law instructs that the pleadings of the self-represented be interpreted broadly. How much due process offsets the conflicts of interest brought about by paid representation? Are there analogous problems with paid editing? Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 10:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how this point relates to this question, but the liberal pleading standard is a product (in the U.S.) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under the common law in say Blackstone's time, most litigation began with a writ, not a pleading (I could be wrong, but I think that a "pleading" is a modern creation) and writs were anything but liberally construed. You might be interested also in Roscoe Pound, one of the intellectual fathers of the FRCP. Shadowjams (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * An interesting and related practice is legal financing. There have been a number of stories in the New York Times lately about this practice, which has been controversial for centuries. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * While this doesn't necessarily help the poor, many companies offer their employees Employee assistance programs which can include some coverage of legal fees. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Were Adam and Eve Muslims?
A few days ago we discussed whether, within Judaism, Adam and Eve are considered Jews. The general consensus was that no, Abraham was the first Jew, and everyone before him was an uncircumcised sheygetz. However, the question of who is a Muslim is radically different than who is a Jew. I recall reading somewhere that certain prophets like Jesus, John the Baptist, and so forth are accorded the status of Muslims because, although they preceded the revelations of Muhammad, they adhered to the "correct path" by the mere grace of God. So what about Adam and Eve? Obviously their whole significance in Christianity is that they didn't adhere to the correct path, but maybe Muslims see things differently.

My curiosity extends beyond Eden. What about relative goody-goodies like Abraham, Moses, Job, Pinhas, etc? Are there any other pre-Islamic (or extra-Islamic) figures that are sometimes considered Muslims-by-grace, perhaps by a particular sect but not by another? Would it be conceivable for an Egyptian to uphold Akhenaten as a Muslim, or for a Persian to uphold Zarathustra as a Muslim, on the basis of their monotheism? Or would this kind of revisionism be universally regarded as heretical? L ANTZY T ALK 07:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Adam (and Noah, Moses, Jesus, etc) are Prophets of Islam, for which we have a convenient article. There is also an article on the Islamic view of Adam (and of Noah and of Abraham and whoever else you would like to compare). Islam is supposed to have existed for all eternity, but it was imperfectly revealed until the time of Muhammad, so while Adam and the rest are considered prophets, and the Qur'an does refer to them as "Muslims", they did not live in an age where everyone was capable of understanding the revelation. (In reference to pre-Islamic Mecca this "time of ignorance" is called jahiliyya, but I don't know if that extends to every other pre-Islamic period of history.) Adam Bishop (talk) 08:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and for Akhenaten, it's certainly possible for modern Muslims to consider him an early Muslim, just as he is sometimes seen as a predecessor of Christians and Jews, but that wouldn't be an official doctrine of any of the modern monotheistic religions. He wasn't really a monotheist (his god was still the god of the sun), and he was long forgotten by the time of Muhammad. He's not mentioned in any Jewish or Christian writings, so he doesn't show up in Islam either (early Muslim stories are often poorly-told or poorly-remembered versions of Jewish/Christian ones, as in their version of Alexander - or, if you prefer, Allah simply didn't reveal anything about Akhenaten to Muhammad). Zoroastrians on the other hand were generally tolerated as "people of the book". That wasn't exactly a monotheistic religion either, but it was close enough, and Zoroaster is sometimes considered a Prophet (he is mentioned briefly in the aforementioned Prophets of Islam article). Adam Bishop (talk) 08:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

All people were, have been, and will continue to be superstitious to the extent that they believe false myths. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 10:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So they should be more selective and only believe the true ones? Blakk   and ekka 13:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Does that have any reference at all to the matter at hand? I don't see it. Marnanel (talk) 12:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence for created initial humans, only for humans evolved from apes. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * To paraphrase a Myron Cohen item:
 * "Do all apes wear those little caps?"
 * "No, only the Orthodox."
 * ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I repeat my question: does that have any relevance to the matter at hand? The question is whether, in Islam, two characters have a certain attribute.  The matter of whether these two characters existed in the real world is utterly irrelevant to the question.  Your response appears to be a petty attempt at point-scoring. Marnanel (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If anyone had anything to gain by opposing superstitions, we'd all be rich. Perhaps I have been spending too much time at the science reference desk, but the question was about human origins, and to perpetuate falsehoods that many people believe as truth is more certainly a sin than deriving laws from mistakes inferred from superstitious falsehoods. I wish we all tried to disabuse each other of shared falsehoods and superstition more often. Because I believe doing so is helpful, I intended my answer as friendly help for a question particular to the origin of humans and therefore on topic for the desk and the question.
 * Specific examples include the harm that superstitious origin myths do to the ability to teach both biochemistry and radiochemistry, both of which involve substantial facts contrary to the young age of the Earth inherent in those superstitions. Because genetic biochemistry is necessary for the development of vaccines and other medicine, inhibiting the education of biochemistry, including by perpetuation of false origin myths, is an attack on health. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The question was in no way about human origins. I have to wonder whether you even read it, or whether you saw the words "Adam" and "Eve" and jumped on your hobby-horse.  Marnanel (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree, the question was about Muslim beliefs, so a response of "Muslim beliefs are dangerously false superstitions without scientific basis" is simply the wrong answer, Ginger. Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  02:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ginger, for the record, I have a rare cognitive disorder that allows me to entertain ideas without believing them. L ANTZY T ALK 02:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The Mormans baptize every known human after the fact, Adam and Eve were therefore Morman, obviously :> The most likely scenario to be historically accurate is that there was no "first human couple," or even "first human." The people "Adam" and "Eve" were based on, probably lived among other humans. The reason we have singled these people out is that at some point someone asked who was my father's father's father, etc and at the time "Adam" was the further back anyone could go. At that point, the name took on importance, and was preserved for history. If they had any religious beliefs, they are lost to (accurate) history. 184.32.33.102 (talk) 01:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I hadn't heard that "Mormons baptize every known human after the fact" before, but I found this claim by The Catholics:
 * "Mormons believe that their church has missionaries in the 'spirit world' who are busy spreading the Mormon gospel to dead people who have not yet received it. [...] Temple Mormons hope, in time, to have all of the dead of previous generations baptized posthumously into the Mormon church."
 * I knew vaguely that they practiced something called "baptism of the dead" but had no idea it was that extensive! Is that really the declared goal of the LDS Church...?  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  02:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is why they have the genealogy project. They are endeavoring to find and identify every human who ever lived and posthumously baptize them into Mormanism. I had not heard about having missionaries in the 'sprit world' though. That is a new one on me. Greg Bard (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've heard about that Mormon necrobaptism thing and here's my question: Who cares? Why is Mormon voodoo a source of concern to those who place no stock in Mormonism to begin with? It's like an atheist taking offense when a Christian says, "I'm praying for you." In fact, that's precisely what it's like. If Christopher Hitchens has to put up with being prayed for, why shouldn't Catholics have to put up with being posthumously Mormonized? L ANTZY T ALK 08:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say you've hit the nail on the head. Who cares what religions claim who as members? It's all an attempt to revise history so as to favor their own religion. No "Adam" wasn't Morman, Jewish, Christian, or Muslim. It's a very silly question. Greg Bard (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Adam" and "Eve" mean "mankind" and "source of life" respectively. In fact, the first book of Genesis only talks about mankind in general being created, as the last step in the creation process, which coincidentally roughly parallels scientific concepts about the evolution of the earth. A couple of lines into Genesis 2, a second story is tacked on, in which man is created first, followed by most everything else, and that's where trouble begins. Man and woman are in harmony with and obedient to God (Islam means "submission to God"), but then they disobey Him, and the struggle between good and evil commences. So it's easy to see how Muslims could claim that Adam and Eve (or early mankind, if you will) were submissive to God ("Islamic"), and then went astray. This squares with traditional Judeo-Christian teachings that mankind "fell from grace", so while the creation stories (especially the second one) may be poppycock from a factual standpoint, the metaphors are still good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good distillation. And based on this article, it looks like Adam would indeed be considered a Muslim, and a prophet to boot. He even went on the hajj. L ANTZY T ALK 08:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Economics/statistics/policy question: Tendency for a scoring metric to be increasingly uncorrelated with a variable as that metric is emphasized by policy?
I've been going bonkers attempting to remember this rule, law, or theory (in the loosest of senses). I'm not sure if it's more in the policy realm, or the economic realm, but I have read it attributed to someone in particular, and I thought I had once found an article on it here on Wikipedia. I also think the article might have included someone's name, as in "John Doe's Law." Many searches didn't find it, of course. The concept is in the title, but I'll try to explain it another way: the basic idea is that even if a metric is well correlated with some underlying variable or collection of variables (what we actually want to improve) at first, as the metric is emphasized in policy or research, it will be of less and less use--it will be less and less correlated with what we actually want to improve. For example, a test score might be correlated with performance in some area, but as that score increasingly becomes the focus of policy attention, the score will be increasingly less correlated with actual performance. Anyone have any leads? Papers, scholars, etc? --76.115.3.200 (talk) 08:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "You get what you measure"?
 * 67.117.130.143 (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That may help, but I still haven't found it. Thanks. --76.115.3.200 (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Policy changes frequently change the various causal relationships of policy, yes. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 10:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Leave your snark at home. --76.115.3.200 (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That would be the Lucas Critique Jabberwalkee (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Median value of reminders
What is the median economic value for a person to:

(1) remind others to brush their teeth;

(2) remind others to floss their teeth;

(3) remind others to apply net present value accounting to economic extrapolations; and

(4) remind others to get enough exercise? Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't believe we can calculate this. Quest09 (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course we can. USD44.2568. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt that the median value is that high. The median economic value for me to remind others of doing something is probably 0, unless I can get some value back from people who got my advice. Quest09 (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What is the median value for not believing this 'median value' humbug from the pseudoscience of 'economics'? There is no evidence whatsoever that economic theory can be used to accurately describe human behaviour. (And BTW, 'money', which is what you are probably trying to measure 'value' in, is yet another of these social constructs that only exist in that people think that they ought to...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If money is worthless, will you give me all yours in exchange for a flower? 92.24.184.218 (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is such a thing, then it would be negative. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Is that for reminding the people you know in person, or reminding the people you know in person and online both? I imagine there's a greater value for the local people, because of the greater impact on the local cost of health care. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In theory it would be the discounted future value of the consequences of not being reminded (eg the cost of dental bills plus the worth of the discomfort, pain etc) minus the worth of the work they do when reminded, all times 1 minus the chance that they'd do it anyway without being reminded. However the market price of a reminder service would be a lot less, as it would be competing with a diary entry or a note stuck to your batnhroom mirror which would have the same effect for almost no cost. 92.24.184.218 (talk) 11:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Francophobia
As someone who is of partial French ancestry and bears an obvious French first name, I have experienced some Francophobia on occasion. I am baffled by this bizarre Francophobia that people in the US and Europe display towards France and French people. Can anyone shed light on this matter? Does it go back to the megalomania of Napoleon or possibly even further, to the Hundred Years War? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say there is francophobia in all European countries. In Austria and Spain I'm sure you won't encounter additional problems. In the UK and Germany, it could be a bit different, but you are far from being beaten up in the street. It is much more sporadic disgusting encounter with disgusting people making disgusting comments. Quest09 (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, there's a certain phenomenon in Europe of the people of a country tending to hate the immediately neighboring countries (with which they're likely to be in direct competition), but liking countries which are one removed. So the Poles traditionally hated the Russians and Germans, but were fond of the French, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In the UK, there are many obvious historical conflicts, partly arising from the fact that they're neighboring countries. It wasn't until 1904 that the UK and France started to be in somewhat consistent long-term quasi-alignment.  For the U.S., there's the XYZ Affair and Quasi-War in old history, and the French refusal of U.S. overflight rights for the 1980s raid on Libya in recent history.  Probably more important is that the French are considered to assume haughty attitudes of disdainful superiority which aren't considered justified by the facts.  Americans are certainly slightly mystified by the fact that the French complain loud and long over American "hegemonic cultural imperialism" and "Coca-colonization", and vocally proclaim the superiority of French culture to that of the despised anglo-saxons, but then give the Legion of Honor to Jerry Lewis...  By the way, British and U.S. soldiers who fought on the front-lines in the trench warfare of WWI often emerged with more anti-French attitudes than anti-German attitudes. AnonMoos (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You got a citation for that last claim? --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * From reading certain books such as Goodbye to All That, the lyrics to Mademoiselle from Armentieres, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The song doesn't seem to contain any anti-French sentiment as such. From the article on the book it seems Robert Graves mostly criticises European civilisation in general as well as English civilisation specifically. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Anti-French feeling among most ex-soldiers amounted almost to an obsession. Edmund, shaking with nerves, used to say at this time [c. 1920]: "No more wars for me at any price!  Except against the French.  If there's ever a war with them, I'll go like a shot."  Pro-German feeling had been increasing.  With the war over and the German armies beaten, we could give the German soldier credit for being the most efficient fighting-man in Europe...Some undergraduates even insisted that we had been fighting on the wrong side: our natural enemies were the French.' (Goodbye to All That (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1960) p. 240). --Antiquary (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be wary of taking Robert Graves as representative of the average Tommy. Notice how Graves takes his examples from a friend and university undergraduates. Hardly representative of most soldiers.--Britannicus (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. See 112 Gripes About the French... AnonMoos (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The trouble with the French is that they can't stand being foreign. When they manage to get over it I'm sure they'll become much more likeable. DuncanHill (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Mark Twain had some fairly salty things to say about the French, which probably helped fuel our kind of love-hate relationship with the French. About some scandal or another: "That is un-English! It is un-American!! It is French!!!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure General Lafayette is turning over in his grave.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In somewhat more recent times, the perceived arrogance of Charles DeGaulle and some of his successors has helped to fuel this situation also. However, I think there's an underlying cultural divide between Northern European and Latin European that figures into this; somewhat like what Americans of Northern European descent feel about the "invasion" of Hispanic culture. Nordic types are considered more serious, while Latin types are considered more gregarious. I used to work with a Brit who, although he actually liked the French in general, said, "The only thing the French know how to organize is a party." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Although French is a Romance language, one cannot consider the French to be Latin, such as the Italians and Spanish. Most of the French immigrants to North America came from Northern France. People from Gascony, the Languedoc, and Provençe would be Latin, but not Bretons, Normans, Picards, Lorrainers, or Parisians.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are defending the exact point of view that makes many people dislike the French. They consider themselves to be different. You can also consider a part of the Spanish to be Bask or Celt or whatever (nobody knows for sure) to be non-Latin. However, as a matter of fact all these three countries are product of the same Latin culture and speak a modern version of Latin. Mr.K. (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * We have an article on Anti-French sentiment in the United States which discusses the issue and its history in some detail. It says that this sentiment "returned to the fore in the wake of France's refusal to support U.S. proposals in the UN Security Council for military action to invade Iraq" and goes on to describe other factors of its development from that point.  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  16:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I sometimes think of French-speakers and English-speakers as being like brothers who don't get along very well: they constantly bicker and quarrel about all manner of things, but when an enemy arises, they will defend each other. The current anti-French sentiment has much to do with a feeling of betrayal of that understanding. However, as George Will once said, nations don't have "friends", they have "interests", and those interests don't necessarily coincide all the time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * TVtropes is quite good on this . Certainly the kneejerk anti-French reaction in the UK tends to centre around their perceived lack of will to fight, particularly in World War II, although (OR alert) I have often found such people remarkably ignorant of European military history, and the practical and political issues that brought France to defeat in 1940.  There is also, I believe, a certain unspoken resentment of a nation that has great food and wine and the international language of seduction, whose women possess the ability to look effortlessly chic even when clad in a dustbin liner and flip-flops, and whose city centres feature more of an adult cafe culture, and fewer gangs of teenagers on alco-pops).  Ka renjc 17:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Dialogue from Doogie Howser, M.D., from memory. Doogie is talking to his friend Vinnie about an email message he plans to send to a girl. "I'll write it in French." &mdash; "French?" &mdash; "The language of love." &mdash; "I thought Italian was the language of love!"  --Anonymous, 01:17 UTC, December 3, 2010.

"...all these three countries are product of the same Latin culture and speak a modern version of Latin." Even if true, which can be disputed, that's not quite the point. In France, the homogeneity of language is largely the product of an aggressive policy, from the French Revolution through to the late 20th century, of seeking to stamp out all regional and minority languages. Breton is not even a Romance language, and its speakers are down from 1.3 million in 1930 to about 200,000 now, most of them old. The French are probably no more Latin than the English are Germanic, and that's another discussion to be had. Moonraker2 (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the case of the Bretons is also the case of some Spanish minorities like the Bask. And Spain also pushed heavily towards linguistic unity in the past. That doesn't make France less Latin than Spain. It makes both similar. Quest09 (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I see it, Francophobia in the US (and I imagine in Britain as well) has its roots in Anglo-puritanicalism. The French have a (historically well-deserved) reputation for being sexually liberal, and particularly for female sexual independence (start with joan of arc and work your way through the post French-revolution licentiousness to the common-place nudity on the modern French riviera); in the old US west bordellos were always modeled on French themes, and much of the modern sexual vocabulary in the US has french roots (from French kissing to French ticklers to French-maid costumes to liaisons, frottage, and menage-a trois).  Upright (uptight) people in the US have historically viewed anything 'French' as sketchy and/or distasteful, and that prudishness always resurfaces whenever there's some other (more prosaic) reason to be irritated at the French.-- Ludwigs 2  17:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your assumptions, and even if that's the perception in the US I don't think it is in the UK, which has few Puritans and is as liberal about sexuality as the French, or more so. Moonraker2 (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My mother's dad was always called a Frenchman and many of his neighbours considered him to have been different from themselves. There is something sexually-threatening about the French; this sentiment was expressed in the film the Scarlet Letter. Anne Boleyn's appeal partially derived from the fact that she was educated in France and spent her formative years there.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * James Joyce had a lovely quote about the attitude of the Anglo-Saxons towards the French: "Our civilization, bequeathed to us by fierce adventurers, eaters of meat and hunters, is so full of hurry and combat, so busy about many things which perhaps are of no importance, that it cannot but see something feeble in a civilization which smiles as it refuses to make the battlefield the test of excellence." And there's a great moment in Fer de Lance where Nero Wolfe advises his assistant: "To pronounce French properly you must have within you a deep antipathy, not to say scorn, for some of the most sacred of the Anglo-Saxon prejudices." L ANTZY T ALK 19:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Joyce obviously did not realise that the Normans who invaded England and spawned a long line of fierce warrior kings came from France, Joan of Arc was French, the armies of Louis XIV and Napoleon were French. Author Michael Ennis described the French Army prior to the Second World War as having been the most vaunted military force in the world. Listen to the words of their national anthem : "To arms citizens, to arms...."--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Alexis de Tocqueville had an interesting observation, in "Voyage en Angleterre et en Irlande": The French want no-one to be their superior. The English want inferiors.  The Frenchman constantly raises his eyes above him with anxiety.  The Englishman lowers his beneath him with satisfaction.  On either side it is pride, but understood in a different way.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Everybody wants to rule the world....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Some people are Francophiles, and probably some Francophiles are Basques (especially French Basques). Also, the article "Tourism in France" (permanent link here) refers to France as "the most popular tourist destination in the world".
 * —Wavelength (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a complex issue. In my experience, I would say there is an anti-France sentiment in the United States more than an anti-French sentiment.  In some parts of America, especially in the past, there may have been discrimination against people of French background.  First-generation French Canadians had a particularly rough time in New England especially in the late 19th and early-to-mid 20th century; however this is much more likely a symptom of being a recent imigrant group rather than being French per se.  As someone of nearly 100% French ancestry myself, who grew up in New England, I never felt any sort of negative attention for my Frenchness.  France is somewhat derided, probably dating to their withdrawal from NATO and their refusal to support U.S. wars in Iraq and Afganistan.  But this derision, in my experience, hasn't really extended towards people with French last names or French ancestry in the U.S. today.  -- Jayron  32  04:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A notable exception to US Francophobia occurred in the early 1960s when the press capitalised on Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy's French ancestry (1/8th), and totally ignored her Irish and Scottish lines. Her father-in-law, Joe Kennedy, according to one of her biographers, reportedly liked to emphasise Jackie's French descent, claiming that the French names "gave her class".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Another notable exception to U.S. Francophobia is when U.S. and British forces (among others) stormed the beaches at Normandy and depossessed the Nazi's of France's native territory. Shadowjams (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Being a little less glib, I think that there's no real U.S. bias against the French (the French were pivitol in securing U.S. independence, and the U.S. has never invaded France's European territory... something that can't be said for a number of other European powers), and it certainly isn't anymore distinct than a French bias against the U.S. Humans tend to fall victim to the fundamental attribution error, which may explain some of the concern.


 * Maybe the more interesting point is that France had substantially less emigration to America than other European nations, particularly when you consider population. I have no idea why that is, but if one were so inclined you could spin it however you wanted. Shadowjams (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Shadowjams (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The bulk of French emigrants went to Canada, where they have a strong voice in government, etc; whereas relatively fewer ended up in the US (apart from Louisiana), and their descendants were largely assimilated into the mainstream Anglo population. Apart from the Cajun community in southern Louisiana, there is no French cultural centre in the USA.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So they went to a territory of a sworn enemy. They probably weren't great supporters of the King. France also had its flirt with execution. Shadowjams (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you on about? Is this about France, or just basic high-school US jingoism?
 * The French forces that assisted the colonists were subjects of a king themselves, for one thing. And not everyone in France suddenly became a fully paid-up supporter of republicanism come 1789, not least because the French revolution proved extremely unpleasant for many. Many French emigrants were fleeing the atrocities of the Committee of Public Safety, so the fact that Canada had a king wasn't exactly uppermost in their minds. Not everything revolves around the precious American War of Independence. 87.114.101.69 (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Garlic. Their farmers or rather hobby-smallholders get lots of free income from the EU to subsidise inefficient uncommercial tiny farms that ought to go out of business. They work short hours and retire early. Food snobs and wine-drinkers. They do or recently did drive 2CVs made out of tin cans and beach chairs. They don't like speaking english or including or adopting english words into French. There's still a memory of them riding around on bicycles in England selling onions. In short they seem work-shy yet they indulge in epicure foods, and (sterotypically) live in a bucolic sunny pastoral bliss that we envy. And during WW2, they appeared to give up without much of a fight. And they have horrible stinking drains without U-bends. 92.29.114.35 (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There weren't many nations in 1940 that were able to withstand the mechanised juggernaut of the German Army as it rumbled inexorably across Europe. Had the French not surrendered, Paris and major French cities would have likely been obliterated from the face of the earth. The French made a huge mistake in allowing the Germans to occupy the Rhineland when the latter was vastly outnumbered by the former. A political/military error does not make the jewel of civilisation that is France a nation of cowards or defeatists.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Vichy France collaborated with the Germans rather than fighting. The Germans didnt even have to invade it. 92.29.114.35 (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really true - the Vichy regime was a result of the Armistice which was concluded when a significant part of France had been occupied and the rest was indefencible. The British Army and Royal Air Force had already (very sensibly as it turned out) shown a clean pair of heels. Alansplodge (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It requires a lot of effort to fit your spin to the facts. 92.15.20.70 (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't want to thread this, but its a response to a comment above by Jeanne Boleyn... Louisianna gets better press for its French-ancestry, but the Frenchest state in the country is New Hampshire, with over 1/4th of the population self-identifying as of French ancestry. See French American. Most of the "Welcome to New Hampshire" signs on the highway say "Bienvenue".  The town I grew up in on the Massachuetts border had one. (see )  Its fading, but as recently as 50-60 years ago there were large French Canadian pockets in many parts of New England; my dad grew up in a French-speaking community near the Massachusetts/Rhode Island/Connecticut border areas; my mom in a French-speaking community in Lowell, Massachusetts (same area that produced Jack Kerouac a generation before her).  In much of Northern New Hampshire and Vermont and New York, especially the Northeast Kingdom and the area around Littleton, New Hampshire have areas where the signs are bilingual,(see this sign from Plattsburgh New York) or occasionally French-only.  Louisianna has a better press agent, aparently, but most of the French-ancestry people in the U.S. are from New England. -- Jayron  32  05:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it I have a friend from Massachusetts and she told me there is a large French community in New England; her own stepfather and many of her friends are originally French. I had forgotten this.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the fact that the English and (at least part of) the French crowns were joined for a large period of the two countries history: it was only during the reign of Queen Mary I that England finally lost its grip on France. I think this is quite probably a major cause of the animosity which exists between the two countries. Us Brits have never forgiven Willy the Conk for what he did to us, you know! --TammyMoet (talk) 10:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Harold Godwinson was hardly St. Francis of Assisi. He ordered his two cousins' eyes to be put out so he could usurp the throne himself. And William paid him back in his own coin, courtesy of a Breton arrow. Poetic justice, no?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as the joining of the English and French crowns, see Hundred Years War. The succession crisis between Edward III of England and Charles II of Navarre and Philip of Valois was the origin of the English claim to the French throne.  The only English king who actually exercised power as King of France was Henry VI of England, who actively ruled part of Northern France during the Wars of the Roses and used it as a base against the Yorks.  Though he was confirmed as King of France from the Treaty of Troyes, the future Charles VII of France eventually won out in that one; the Plantagenet "rule" of France is usually not counted among most official lists of French kings.  See also Dual monarchy of England and France and English claims to the French throne.  The last actual claimant who officially used the title "King of France" among the English Kings was George III of England; he dropped the title in 1800, somewhat ironically since the last ruling king of France had been deposed and beheaded some years earlier.  The Mary thing mentioned by TammyMoet (which was also the source of a claim by Phillip II of Spain) is because Mary (and Phillip) were the last English monarchs to rule a part of what is now part of France, that being the Pale of Calais.  -- Jayron  32  15:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say Henry VI actively ruled France (or even England for that matter), seeing as he was insane, and only lucid for brief periods. His consort Margaret of Anjou, one of the belligerents in the Wars of the Roses, was the de facto ruler of England during his reign.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If only the mere presence of insanity actually prevented megalomaniacs and others from ruling countries. Sadly, it never has.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually Henry VI was not a megalomaniac during his lucid periods; however, insanity never debarred one from ascending the throne, nor did it stand in the way of royal matrimony. Joanna I of Castile was obviously insane, but this factor did not hinder her marriage to Philip the Handsome.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Online trending site
I'm looking for a website that shows trending in retail business. Specifically, I want to see an up-to-date list of things people are purchasing online. Google used to do that with their cart system, but don't anymore. eBay has a tiny trending thing that is updated once a day. Searching for anything like this keeps hitting dead ends. -- k a i n a w &trade; 15:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Does Google trends help at all? Shadowjams (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is commercially valuable information you seek. Why should Google et.al. give it away to you for free?--Aspro (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedias are commercially valuable too. Why would anyone provide an encyclopedia for free?


 * I've tried using Google Trends. They used to have a shopping section on it, but that comes up "page not found" now.  I found popular.ebay.com, which is providing some help. --  k a i n a w &trade; 12:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * See http://search.twitter.com/search?q=bought+online. You can use various search terms.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My google search for online shopping trends reported more than 18,000,000 results, including the following page.
 * 2010 Online Shopping Trends: What To Watch and How Not To Get Trapped | Internet Marketing
 * —Wavelength (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes - there are many many many news articles about shopping trends. I want one that updates at least once a day.  Preferably, I want it to update every minute or so, showing the trends right now.  That is why I specified an "up-to-date list". --  k a i n a w &trade; 22:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Buddhist iconography and Chinese fictional literature
There is a motif in Buddhist iconography where the celestial bird Garuda sits above the Buddha's throne. The theme was obviously known in China as the Chinese folk biography The Story of Yue Fei (1684) mentions Garuda being demoted from this position after killing the embodiment of a star constellation and subsequently being reborn on earth as Yue Fei. The earlier fantasy novel Journey to the West (1592) gives a folk origin for how Garuda, called a Golden Peng Bird in the novel, came to hold such a rank in the Buddhist hierarchy. When did this iconographic motif make its way into China and do other works of Chinese fiction mention it? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Garuda article discusses what I think you are asking somewhat:
 * In the Qing Dynasty fiction The Story of Yue Fei (1684), Garuda sits at the head of the Buddha's throne. But when a celestial bat (an embodiment of the Aquarius constellation) farts during the Buddha’s expounding of the Lotus Sutra, Garuda kills her and is exiled from paradise. He is later reborn as Song Dynasty General Yue Fei. The bat is reborn as Lady Wang, wife of the traitor Prime Minister Qin Hui, and is instrumental in formulating the "Eastern Window" plot that leads to Yue's eventual political execution. It is interesting to note The Story of Yue Fei plays on the legendary animosity between Garuda and the Nagas when the celestial bird-born Yue Fei defeats a magic serpent who transforms into the unearthly spear he uses throughout his military career. Literary critic C.T. Hsia explains the reason why Qian Cai, the book's author, linked Yue with Garuda is because of the homology in their Chinese names. Yue Fei's style name is Pengju (鵬舉). A Peng (鵬) is a giant mythological bird likened to the Middle Eastern Roc. Garuda's Chinese name is Golden-Winged Illumination King Great Peng (大鵬金翅明王).


 * (Is that business about farting for real...?) Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  18:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess so, per you, GE, way back in 2008! So I take it you know all that already...  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  18:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the bit about farting is real. I just need to know when the Garuda motif first appeared in Chinese Buddhism and if it appears in other works of fiction beyond the two I listed. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Garuda makes an appearance in the Avatamsaka Sutra (大方廣佛華嚴經). The Naga serpents take refuge with the Buddha because Garuda is eating them to extinction. The Buddha then uses his powers to keep Garuda from attacking the Nagas. Realizing the cause of his hindered abilities, Garuda goes to see the enlightened one, who tells him the reason why. When Garuda complains that he will surely starve to death, the Buddha says he will have his followers leave food out for him. This doesn't mention him above the Buddha's head either, but it has a connection to one of the works of fiction I mentioned above.


 * In chapter 77 of Journey to the West, after the Buddha has trapped the great Peng (鹏) in his halo, the creature complains that he had a good life on earth eating humans. He then asks why he should enter into the Buddha's service. The enlightened one tells him he will instruct those of his followers wishing to make an offering to the Buddha can sacrifice themselves to the bird so he will have plenty of fresh meat to eat.


 * Based on what I have read on Tibetan Buddhism recently, I'm starting to think the reason Garuda is shown atop the Buddha's throne is because he is one of the four directional guardians. In this case, Garuda rules the north and the element of air. But none of this shows when the motif made its way to China. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Muslim belt in Toronto?
Somebody told me that the Muslim belt of Toronto consists of neighbourhoods Don Valley Village, Henry Farm, Parkswoods-Donalda, Victoria Village, Flemingdon Park, O'Connor-Parkview, Thorncliffe Park, and Crescent Town. Is this true? But I think he (the who told me) said that it is because of they are from Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.40.217 (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome back! --Sean 19:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This product from Statistics Canada contains the information you seek. Marco polo (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Gay king
Hypothesize a gay king. Ferdinand the Fabulous. Baudoin the Bear. Of Spain or the Netherlands or Sweden or something, it doesn't matter. All those countries recognize same-sex marriage, so there would be no legal impediment to his marrying another man. But how would it square with the rules and customs of the monarchy? (Naturally, this will differ from one country to another.) Would the husband be treated like a man who had married (ahem) a queen regnant? (Like the Duke of Edinburgh, in other words.) Would he be informally accorded some sort of lesser ennoblement, so as to avoid either changing the rules or appearing homophobic? Or would he be ignored altogether, and be, from the perspective of the crown, a mere "good friend"? Considering the marked tolerance of Europe's monarchies towards gay people, I wonder if this contingency has ever been contemplated, perhaps by the royal families themselves. It seems like it would put them in quite a bind: On the one hand they're desperate to remain in the people's good graces, but on the other hand their rituals and procedures are frequently tied closely to churches, which are usually homophobic. (The only exception would seem to be in Scandinavia.) L ANTZY T ALK 20:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's funny to contemplate that, no matter whether it's a king and his husband or a queen and her wife, the outcome is still two queens. :)
 * It seems unthinkable, but so did an ambassador presenting his credentials to a monarch, accompanied by his gay partner - until it happened. Your scenario would truly be the last bastion, Lantzy.  (Until, that is, the Roman Catholic Church permits married clergy, and also approves of same-sex relationships.  Is it too much to dream that one day we might see a Pope blessing the crowds, with his husband by his side?)   --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   21:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, he hasn't put a ring on it, but Ratzi has this guy! L ANTZY T ALK 02:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The first obligation of the monarch is to produce his/her successor, and that might be the fly in the ointment. It's been said that if Wallis Simpson had been content to be merely a mistress of Edward, it would have been tolerable. Likewise, I suspect that a gay king would nonetheless be expected to marry a woman and produce children, albeit perhaps by artificial insemination, while his "true love", another man, would have to be relegated to the status of "mistress", as it were. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You raise an interesting point. Let us therefore postulate a lesbian queen, Victoria the Quite-Good-at-Bowling. If she's the queen regnant, then her offspring will be in line for the throne, correct? Now suppose that she and her consort, Alberta, inseminate themselves with the royal turkey baster. Or, to twist the tale further, suppose that Alberta's fertilized eggs were implanted in the queen, such that the child born to the queen was not biologically her own! (This is not an uncommon arrangement among lesbian mothers.) Anyway, my point is that a lesbian queen could easily fulfill the procreation requirement. Of course, it might be that the offspring would be considered illegitimate, and therefore unable to succeed. This question could also be relevant to heterosexual queens: if her consort proves impotent, for instance, and the queen must resort to imported man-seed, will the resulting child be considered legitimate or not? L ANTZY T ALK 02:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Lantzy -- that happened in the case of Isabella II of Spain -- few of the people around her thought that her children were fathered by her husband, but she was a queen-regnant, so the royal legitimacy came through her, not through her husband. Juan Carlos is descended from her... AnonMoos (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A child born to a married woman is assumed in British law to be the legitimate offspring of her husband. Such an assumption can be challenged only by that husband. Legitimacy doesn't depend on whether the husband is the biological father unless the husband chooses to make it an issue (before, perhaps, he is poisoned by a helpful household member to preclude the possibility of such a challenge). Of course, whether the assumption would be extended to the female spouse of a woman is thus far untested and I think doubtful, especially in the case of a monarch. - Nunh-huh 03:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But why doubtful? I mean, I concede that it might be doubtful right now, with the civil union malarkey that's currently in place, but if the UK were to establish true marriage equality, which is virtually sure to happen, what legal asymmetry would then remain? If Her Sapphic Majesty were sufficiently uxorious and implacable, and with public opinion on her side, what obstacle (apart from sound and fury) would stand between her child and the throne? L ANTZY T ALK 08:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would it be doubtful that the child of a woman would be legally assumed to have been sired by her wife? I think that when the situation arises, a law will be passed rather than rely on that assumption. It's true that biological impossibility has heretofore been no obstacle to the assumption (father impotent, or not near the mother for a year or more), but I think parthenogenesis would stretch the assumption to the breaking point. - Nunh-huh 08:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't mean that the child would be literally assumed to have been sired by a woman, but rather that the legal spouse of the mother would be accorded the same rights and responsibilities regardless of sex. How is one polite fiction more extravagant than the other? L ANTZY T ALK 15:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The monarchy and the lawmakers have been remarkably resilient at coming up with ways to keep the royal line of succession going, and I'm sure they would do likewise in these "gay" scenarios. And even if they didn't have "legitimate" kids, or any kids at all for that matter, there is a long list of others in the line of succession. I sometimes wonder what William the Conquerer would think if he knew his progeny were still running the country almost a thousand years later. Maybe the Old French equivalent of "Shazam!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. When the need for improvisation arises, Parliament is well up to the task. - Nunh-huh 03:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In the UK, there's still the Royal Marriages Act 1772, which might give some pause for thought, although the Buggery Act 1533 and similar provisions were repealed in 1967. All the same, under the Statute of Westminster all of the Commonwealth realms need to agree to changing the descent of the Crown, and in some of them (I think perhaps Antigua and Barbuda may be one?) there are still laws against male homosexuality which would get in the way of such agreement. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If those islands wouldn't cooperate, perhaps the British could sell them to highest bidder. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting angle that I hadn't considered. An openly gay British monarch might well engender a wave of republican sentiment in places like Jamaica. That might dissuade a potential gay king from advertising his orientation, or might lead him to yield the throne to a hetero younger brother or something. That would be a pity. Of course, no other European monarchs would have that problem. L ANTZY T ALK 07:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It bears stating that there have been kings widely suspected of being gay, see Henry III of France, who was at least bisexual. Edward II of England had a much publicised relationship with Piers Gaveston.  In many cases, it's hard to prove such relationships, as they are almost universally reported by the enemies of said kings; so it is often suspected that those reporting it have motivations to embelish.  It should also be noted that it is possible, maybe even likely,  that America had a gay President.  -- Jayron  32  04:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Or two. L ANTZY T ALK 07:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Lincoln wasn't gay. That's somebody's wishful thinking. Buchanan might have been, though. Although that potential issue is overshadowed by what a lousy President he was. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * . We'll probably never know what his true sexual preferences were. Buddy431 (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And the accusation of "wishful thinking" surely cuts both ways: Might we not credit our traditional image of Lincoln to the wishful thinking of generations of heterosexual historians and American citizens for whom homosexuality was utterly incompatible with a virtuous life and a heroic destiny? Lincoln scholarship is gradually inching itself toward the admission that, while he may not have been "gay", Lincoln was almost certainly more than heterosexual. It isn't just gay partisans who advance this idea. John Stauffer, in his recent book Giants: The Parallel Lives of Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln, contends that Lincoln's greatest romantic feeling was for Joshua Speed. There's nothing inherently implausible about the idea of a gay or bisexual Lincoln. What would be astonishing is if the idea hadn't been furiously repressed. L ANTZY T ALK 15:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no evidence Lincoln was gay. Men writing flowery prose to each other was not so unusual in his day. The wishful thinkers have tried to apply late-20th-century norms to the 19th century. It doesn't work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nor was same-sex love invented in the last century. No one is claiming that Lincoln was gay in precisely the same way that we understand the term today. That's a straw man. Moreover, personal correspondence is not the basis of this theory. More relevant are the records kept by others, for instance the memo books of Lincoln's law partner William Herndon, and various facts from Lincoln's life that are not easily reconciled with exclusive heterosexuality. Naturally the hypothesis is in its infancy, and may be rejected by future generations of historians. But you can be sure that the idea wasn't conjured out of thin air at a meeting of the gay mafia. L ANTZY T ALK 17:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Besides Edward II, other English kings reputed to have been gay or bisexual include: Richard I, James I, Richard II, Charles I--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to mention William II (Oh, I just did). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not quite the same, but there's some speculation that Eleanor Roosevelt may have been a lesbian. There's no hard evidence, but was sufficient to merit a mention from Doris Kearns Goodwin.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 05:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Queen Christina of Sweden was repotedly a lesbian; Marie Antoinette and two of her sisters were likely bisexual based on evidence of their relationships with other women.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Eric Idle's 1970 satirical novel Hello Sailor was about a UK Prime Minister who had a "secret" that's relevant to this topic (although you'd never know it from our article - how terribly coy we are sometimes; it's not as if the nature of the secret was kept from readers till almost the last page and we need to avoid having a spoiler about it; from my memory, the male PM's sexual preference for other men was clearly spelled out very early in the novel). I wonder if Idle was thinking about Edward Heath, who became PM that year, and about whose sexual orientation speculation continues to this day. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   23:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Which Scottish King died from a red hot poker up his bum as a reward for suspected buggery? Did he have theoretical progeny? Edison (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe you are referring to English king Edward II who was allegedly murdered in this fashion in September 1327 by Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March's hired assassins with the full complicity of Queen Isabella. And yes he did father four children including his successor Edward III of England whose paternity was never questioned nor doubted.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

For a real-life strong candidate, see Norodom Sihamoni, the current King of Cambodia. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   02:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)