Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 February 20

= February 20 =

Mardrus-Mathers translation
Is the story "Khudadad and his brothers" included in the Mardrus-Mathers translation of The 1001 nights? I ask this since a number of the stories have different titles than other translations. Yes, I'm aware of MM's shortcomings as a translation. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitefox (talk • contribs) 01:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently not. Deor (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

lgbts and communists
is there any link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.247 (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah.--Wetman (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, most communist countries had (harsh) laws against homosexuality and they were enforced. --71.142.65.227 (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. They had laws against sexual activity between people of the same sex, as did many other countries, and some still do.  But no country has ever legislated against homosexuality itself, because the internal feeling states of individuals are impossible to control legislatively.  But back to the question, there is no reason to suppose that Communists would not include some LGBT people, just as any other political/social group would.  Some LGBT people would be attracted to the idealism inherent in Communism, but others would be repelled by the repression of minorities that has actually characterised Communist regimes in practice.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   10:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We have an article: Communism and homosexuality. Apparently, the views have been mixed, from Albania where there was a prison sentence for homosexual conduct to this: Homosexuality was officially decriminalized in communist East Germany in 1967, a year ahead of the Allied-backed West Germany. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made a comment on that talk page about the sloppy and misleading terminology used in the article. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Both are conservative bogeymen? The Hero of This Nation (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hence the mock-conservative comment that I think was from National Lampoon's High School Yearbook Parody: "A communist is worse than a homosexual. In fact, a communist is worse than two homosexuals." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As our article points out, Czarist Russia's anti-homosexuality legislation was abolished by the Bolsheviks in the first years of Soviet rule, and Stalin re-introduced it some time in the 1930s. He also re-banned abortions and promoted "family values" in other ways. And he began to appreciate patriotism and even the Church as he grew older. Stalin was quite the "red"neck in many ways, and I'm sure that if he had been an American living today, he would have been a Republican; so would his modern admirers in Russia. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Paul Robeson admired the Soviet Union, but I doubt he would be a Republican today. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Western admirers of the Soviet regime back then are very different from its modern admirers in Russia. Western Sovietophiles were usually progressives who didn't realize the regime's anti-progressive aspects. Those people were progressive in terms of social issues and doves in terms of foreign policy. They were kidding themselves, because if they had realized how similar the other side was to everything they hated at home, they would have felt compelled to shoot themselves, and people tend to avoid realizing such things in the name of self-preservation. In contrast, modern Russian Stalin sympathizers are conservative in terms of social issues (aside of the economy) and hawks in terms of foreign policy.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

antarctic
Hello would it be possible for a town to exist on tip of antarctic penisula? i do not mean scientific research station but town like others with hotel and resort like for tourist and such? (Dr hursday (talk) 08:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Assuming you had the legal matters straightened out, I don't see why not. It would of course be costly to construct and support, so the real question is, would it be worth it? Would enough tourists go there for it to be feasible? TomorrowTime (talk) 11:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Straightening the legal matters out" would be far from trivial for a land with legally belongs to no country (or is possibly claimed by multiple countries). See the Antarctic Treaty and Antarctic land claims. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What legal matters? —Tamfang (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there is one there already - do not remember the name. 78.149.241.220 (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, there are no towns anywhere in Antarctica, and no permanent inhabitants. There are only research stations, though the largest of them can accommodate over 1,000 people.  Marco polo (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You are wrong, if the map at the Villa Las Estrellas article is to be believed. Its got houses, a school, a post office, a kindergarten, a registry for weddings etc., a bank, a library, a hostel, a souvenir shop, a church, supermarket, tv, internet, radio. I'd call that a town, and its within Antartica. I know you are going to quibble and say its on an island next to the peninsula. 78.146.167.216 (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Villa Las Estrellas is the name given to the residential area of Chile's Montalva Station. --Cam (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It still appears to be a town in its own right. Tourists can go there. 78.146.74.227 (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are towns on Svalbard which at 78 degrees N is considerably closer to the North Pole than the northern part of Antarctica peninsula is to the south pole (about 63 S). It's harder to supply the Antarctic due to its greater distance from significant cities, ports, etc, but this doesn't absolutely prevent settlement.  Temperatures in the Antarctic peninsula can reach 9 C although winters are cold. --Normansmithy (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Winters in the Antarctic are cold, eh, Norman? Who would ever have believed it?  Do you have a citation for that unexpected assertion?  :)  --  202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ever seen a 2008 model Audi RS6 Avant in the wild outside Europe?
(Not sure if this belongs in Humanities, but it is sort of a business question.) Just out of curiosity, has anyone ever seen a 2008 model Audi RS6 Avant in the wild outside Europe? By in the wild I mean not at a show or in a racing context, if that even happens. I understand it is not sold in the US (the saloon is, though), but it is in Australia.

("Avant" is Audi-ese for estate / station wagon. See .)

83.81.42.44 (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

british royal succession
When HRH Prince Charles becomes King, and decided to abdicate the throne, would that abdication have any legal or binding effect on his own line of succession? ie; would William be next in line, or would the abdication apply to Charles's progeny and therefore revert to HRH Prince Andrew ascending the British throne?Mcwade-s (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The former, William would be king. -- Flyguy649 talk 16:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Any references for that assertion? --Tango (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no laws in Britain regarding abdication, so there is no way to know precisely how it would be done. A special Act of Parliament is required for each abdication and determines what happens. The only precedent is the abdication of Edward VIII. When he abdicated he also waived the rights of any of his children to inherit the throne, however he didn't have any children then (and, in fact, never had any), so it is very different. It makes sense that children born after the abdication wouldn't be in the line of succession (other than, perhaps, through their mother) - the alternative is a very confusing line where someone can be born and take the throne off someone that had it for years. If Charles were to abdicate, I would expect his existing children to keep their positions in the line as if their father had died but any future children would not be in the line, but there is really no way to know. There is no precedent. It is very unlikely that Charles will abdicate, though. --Tango (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hypothetical: Suppose Edward had remained as king, and remained without issue. Would Elizabeth have become queen anyway? Though presumably not until Edward died, which was in 1972. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Princess Elizabeth would have been the heiress presumptive at the time of the King's death. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Since he died without issue, his abdication ceased to have any effect after his death. --Tango (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That confuses matters. We're now discussing the hypothetical case where he didn't abdicate.  Any hypothetical issue he had while king would have succeeded him in 1972.  Barring such issue, Princess Elizabeth was next in line, being the elder daughter of Edward's next younger brother (the brother himself having died in 1952).  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. If we change one fact about the past, we can't just assume everything else stays the same. If he had married someone else and had children, things could be completely different. --Tango (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * True. By the way, Princess Elizabeth would have ceased being heiress presumptive and become heiress apparent when her father George died in 1952.  There was no longer even the hypothetical possibility that her place in the line of succession could be taken by a later-born brother.  Even if the Queen Mum remarried and had a son, that son would have had no right of succession.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   21:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But if Edward hadn't abdicated, there would still be a chance of him having a child. --Tango (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, which is why I said above "any hypothetical issue he had while king would have succeeded him in 1972".
 * Actually, Elizabeth would never have been heiress presumptive at all. George was heir apparent (barring Edward having kids of his own), and she was just his daughter.  Then George died in 1952, so Elizabeth would have become heiress apparent; until 1972, when she would have succeeded Edward VIII.  The heiress presumptive tag only applies where the reigning monarch has only (one or more) daughters, but that monarch is still alive and so can still potentially produce a son, who would displace the daughter from the head of the line of succession.   --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   21:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * When George died, she became Queen... --Tango (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're still confused, Tango. We're still talking about the hypothetical scenario that Edward VIII did NOT ABDICATE, but remained king till his death in 1972 when he was succeeded by Princess Elizabeth, her father George having predeceased her in 1952 and NEVER became king.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   22:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If Edward is still king and still alive, then he can still have issue that would take precedence over Elizabeth, which is the point I made above. --Tango (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Which I have acknowledged twice now. But let's stick to the original side question, which assumes Edward never had any children.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   23:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. The question I posed was, what if Edward had remained king and did not have children. I had thought Princess Elizabeth would have been the next in line in 1972, and apparently I was correct. Now, if Edward had died in 1951, without children, presumably his brother who in real life became George VI in the 30s, would have become king in 1951, and after he died then Elizabeth would have become queen. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we moved on from that question. The present discussion is about whether Elizabeth would be heir apparent or heir presumptive after her father's death. She would have been heir presumptive, because Edward could have had children. --Tango (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Until just now, when did we ever move on from Baseball Bugs' original question, Tango?
 * "She would have been heir presumptive, because Edward could have had children" is a meaningless sentence. You can't mix up your woulds and coulds, and your heirs and heiresses, with gay abandon, and hope to get away with it. :)
 * If Edward had never abdicated, and had heirs, then they and their progeny would have succeeded him according to law. In that circumstance, Elizabeth would never have got close to the throne at all, and would certainly never have been heiress anything.  She would have been simply the cousin of either the heir apparent, or of the heiress presumptive, and when that person succeeded Edward, she would have been the cousin of the King or Queen.  Or, if Edward's children all predeceased him, but had children of their own, one of those grandchildren would have become monarch, and Elizabeth would be cousin once removed to the monarch.  Which is exactly how she was viewed when she was born.  At that time, nobody imagined she would ever become queen; it was widely assumed the heir apparent, her uncle Prince Edward, as he then was, would marry, have children and become king (not necessarily in that order).  Even the notion he would remain childless was pretty much unthinkable, as he was rumoured to have already fathered illegitimate children in various parts of the Empire.  Let alone the idea he would abdicate. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   23:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Round about my post at 21:35 UTC, I'm sorry if it wasn't clear what I was questioning. You are simply incorrect about Elizabeth being heir apparent. I can't see any way a woman could ever be heir apparent, since there is always a chance of the current monarch having a son. She would have been heir presumptive because, at that hypothetical time, there would have been a chance of Edward having children. You don't retrospectively rename an heir presumptive to heir apparent in all the history books when they inherit and you discover that nobody else was born above them. --Tango (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Tango's point was valid: with Edward childless, after his death there is no dynastic difference between the two versions of history (ours and the alternate in which he reigned and remained childless). It was merely expressed in a form that made its logic a little bit harder to see than it might be. —Tamfang (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to make Tango's explanation a little bit more explicit. As a matter of law, Edward VIII didn't "abdicate and waive his children's rights", because the relevant law (Act of Settlement 1701) says that the senior legitimate descendant of Sophia of Hanover, not disqualified by religion, is the monarch; his or her wishes, or parent's wishes, ain't relevant.  So he asked Parliament to amend the law to exclude him and his descendants, Parliament did so, and Edward sealed it.  Charles could do likewise, or he could ask Parliament to amend the law to further exclude [oops, I omitted that word before] anyone born in 1948. — Here's another fun hypothetical. If a descendant of the Duke of Windsor marries someone in the succession, is their child excluded by the terms of the Act of 1938? —Tamfang (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * An interesting question. The relevant section of the Act says: "His Majesty, His issue, if any, and the descendants of that issue, shall not after His Majesty’s abdication have any right, title or interest in or to the succession to the Throne, and section one of the M2 Act of Settlement shall be construed accordingly." A literal interpretation of that would seem to imply that they could not inherit, even through another line. It would seem odd if that was the intention, though - the aristocracy interbreed so much that, had he had children, within a few generations a significant portion of the line of succession could be excluded, possibly including people that would have been near the top. For example, first cousin marriages are very common among royalty, so it wouldn't be that surprising for George VI's eldest son (had he had one) to marry Edward VIII's daughter (had he had one) and for them to have a son. That son would be direct line to the throne, but unable to take it due to the 1938 Act. Very odd... --Tango (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (deindent) On reflection, you're right. I was taking the hypothesis that Edward never had children while remaining king and assuming this was known to the players.  But while that scenario was playing out, the players would not have known the outcome, and as far as they were concerned it would have been possible for him to produce children, so she would indeed have been considered heiress presumptive at the time.
 * However, it is possible for a woman to be heiress apparent. Here's an example:


 * William marries Kate and they have 3 daughters in quick succession. No sons.  Charles is still the heir apparent.  Then Charles and William are killed in a skiing accident.  They check whether Kate is pregnant - no.  William's eldest daughter Desdemona is now the heiress apparent to her great-grandmother.  Why not heiress presumptive?  Because there is no possibility any more that William could have any sons, being 6 feet under.  And there is no possibility that she could be supplanted by any of her father’s siblings, as William was the elder of 2 males; or by her grandfather's siblings, as he was the eldest of 3 males and a female.  Kate could remarry and have 20 sons, but they would not be in the line of succession.  Even if Elizabeth and Philip were to have another child (!!) at this late juncture, it would have no impact on Desdemona being heiress.  There is simply no way she would not succeed Elizabeth, unless she herself were to die before Elizabeth, in which case her sister Demelza would become heiress apparent. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   03:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See also Heir apparent. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   04:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * True. There were cases when women were heiresses apparent to their grandparent's peerage. See Category:Female heirs apparent. These possibilities are exactly what makes male-preferance primogeniture much more interesting than the so-called "equal" primogeniture. I wonder: would an heiress apparent to the British throne be granted the Princedom of Wales? Surtsicna (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is discussed @ Prince of Wales. The situation has never arisen, so it's still in the realm of hypothesis.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   19:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Princess Elizabeth was heiress apparent while King George VI was king. She was never created Princess of Wales. --Kvasir (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, she wasn't. King George VI could have had a son at any time during his life who would have taken precedence over Elizabeth. --Tango (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was gonna add that but you beat me to it. George VI would probably not going to have a son at the time of his death (Lizzie was already 26 or something), but it was indeed possible. At any rate, our article Prince of Wales specifies the title is given to a MALE heir-apparent. Is that in law somewhere. --Kvasir (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, no law. It's all just a matter of tradition and precedent.  Princess Elizabeth was never going to be made Princess of Wales, because a brother could have come along at any time, which is why she was only ever heiress presumptive.  Princess Desdemona in my example above would have a much better chance of being Princess of Wales, because she could never be tipped off her perch as heiress apparent.   --  202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's another interesting nuance. English inheritance law/tradition does not distinguish between elder and younger sisters, so at one point during George VI's reign a question was asked in Parliament whether the Crown could fall into abeyance between Elizabeth and Margaret.  (There had never been an uncontested succession involving sisters.) —Tamfang (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, Princess George of Denmark was heiress apparent to the English throne during the reign of her cousin/brother-in-law William III, having been designated as such by the parliament and irreplaceable by any children William could have had by any wife other than Anne's sister Mary II. Nonetheless, she was never created Princess of Wales. Perhaps that's because she was already a princess of Denmark. Surtsicna (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

What % of the Roman empire was Jewish?
What % of the Roman empire was Jewish?--Gary123 (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A fairly small percentage, but there were actually a significant number of converts and semi-converts attracted by the moral code and strict monotheism of Judaism before the two great Jewish revolts of the 60's and the 130's (after which there was much more conversion to Christianity rather than Judaism). AnonMoos (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The truth is that we just can't know. There are no reliable, detailed statistics from that time.  I have seen estimates that Jews made up 10% of the population of the empire during the 1st century CE.  The Atlas of World Population History by McEvedy and Jones, which remains the best survey of historical population estimates, gives a population of about 800,000 for the present-day areas of Israel and Jordan in 1 CE.  (Incidentally, this was a population peak not to be regained until 1900.)  Jews were probably a majority in this area during the early 1st century, but not an overwhelming majority.  So, that suggests 500,000 to 600,000 Jews in Judea and surrounding areas, with maybe another 300,000 in Syria (out of a total population for Syria—including Lebanon—of 2.3 million.  The same source gives a population of about 50 million for the Roman empire at its peak during the 1st century.  Now, the same sources that suggest that Jews made up 10% of the population of the empire state that Jews made up 25% of the population of cities in the eastern part of the empire and a lower proportion of the population of cities in the west.  My understanding is that, outside of the Levant, Jews were almost entirely urban.  The Roman empire was more urbanized than most premodern societies, but even in the heavily urbanized east, cities almost certainly made up no more than 30% of the total population.  If we take 30% of the population of the eastern provinces outside of the Levant, for which we have already accounted, we get an urban population of 3.84 million for Egypt, Asia Minor, Greece, and Thrace.  If it is true that Jews made up 25% of the people of these cities, that suggests another almost 1 million Jews in addition to the almost 1 million in the Levant, for a total of about 1.8 million in the eastern empire.  Outside of Italy, the population of the western Roman empire was almost certainly less than 30% urban, and the cities of the west certainly had a lower percentage of Jews.  If we accept that 30% of the population of Italy was urban, that 20% of the population of the more advanced western provinces—such as Hispania and Gaul—was urban and that cities made up only about 10% of the population in the more remote and primitive provinces, such as Britannia (conquered during the 1st century), we get an urban population for the western empire of just under 6 million, still relying on the source I mentioned above.  If Jews made up 10% of the people in these western cities, that would be 600,000 people, for a total population of Jews in the empire of about 2.4 million.    This would be only 5% of the empire's total population.  I find it hard to accept estimates that Jews made up 10% of the empire's population and wonder what is the basis for such a high estimate.  Marco polo (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * According to our article on Jews, James Carroll is the source for Jews constituting 10% of the population, although I've heard 9% said in the name of Josephus.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 04:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither James Carroll nor Josephus is really a reliable source on this question. Marco polo (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In the Gospel According to Luke, Joseph and Mary had to go to Bethlehem to be counted. Is there any record of this count?  Woogee (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The question of "Luke's census" has been perennially rehashed numerous times over the past few centuries, with debates over the year of Jesus' birth, whether Quirinius was governor twice or only once, etc. etc. The exact occasion referred to in Luke is not attested in Roman historical sources. AnonMoos (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Parental rights of a rapist
This question may seem bizarre, but I am nonetheless curious about this. If a child is conceived (and born) due to a rape, does the rapist himself (or herself) have any parental rights to the child at all? Or does the rape act itself somehow automatically preclude/bar/invalidate any claim to parental rights? It would seem a bizarre circumstance where a rape victim would actually have to share custody of the child with his or her rapist. But, I can see where a rapist might actually make a legal claim to parental rights. This question is general and relates to the state of the law in the United States. Also, as a side note, I think that I may have heard some such claim on the TV news recently regarding the Phillip Garrido / Jaycee Dugard case. And, it also brings to mind the Fritzl case in Austria. So, I guess my question is not as academic as it may seem at first blush. Any insights? Thanks. (64.252.68.102 (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC))
 * I don't know of any specific laws about this, but the usual principle is that the interests of the child are paramount. It would probably not be considered in the interests of a child to be put in the custody of a convicted rapist (if they weren't convicted then, as far as the law is concerned, the rape didn't happen). However, it may be in the interests of the child for them to know their father, so they might have supervised visits or something (those visits would, for a few years at least, take place in prison, of course). In the specific cases you mention, the children were brought up with the rapist. Often it is considered in the interests of the child to make any changes to their lives as gradual as possible, even if their old life was horrible. That could mean they would be allowed to see the person they have been brought up by for their own psychological health, rather than due to any parental rights. Those visits would only happen for a short time (getting gradually less and less frequent), though. Of course, once the child is 18 (or whatever the age of majority is in the jurisdiction in question) they can make their own mind up. --Tango (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Think the father was denied most or all parental rights in this case: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/01/nyregion/grandparent-keeps-rape-victim-s-baby.html -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Certainly the laws would vary from place to place, but even forgetting the rape situation, wouldn't a convicted and imprisoned felon typically have many rights taken away or reduced, including parental rights? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To - Baseball Bugs ... I am not sure that I understand what you are asking. Are you under the impression that all incarcerated felons lose their parental rights automatically?  Or am I misinterpreting your question?  Thanks.   (64.252.68.102 (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC))


 * Not automatically, as far as I know, but it would be taken into account. --Tango (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Also ... for the sake of this discussion, it need not be assumed that the rapist is jailed. I am sure that there are many instances where rapists might get some other form of punishment (e.g., probation, etc.) ... and/or might not even get convicted at all (i.e., they might be factually guilty of the rape, but not legally so). (64.252.68.102 (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC))
 * What sentence they get shouldn't be relevant, although I would be surprised at anyone not getting a custodial sentence for rape. The UK sentencing guidelines say "Rape is always a serious crime. Other than in wholly exceptional circumstances, it calls for an immediate custodial sentence." Apparently 98% of rapes in 2000 were given immediate custodial sentences. If they aren't convicted, then they are innocent as far as the law is concerned. The child's interests would probably take priority over the rapist's right to be considered innocent unless proven guilty, but only if there was significant evidence of guilt and but that would be at a judge's discretion rather than anything written down in law. --Tango (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The sentence is indeed relevant: it is far different to have a parent (on probation) who is "out and about" and lives in the child's immediate neighborhood ... versus a parent (incarcerated) who lives in a prison 500 miles away or three states over. Also, many forms of rape (e.g., statutory, 2nd degree, 3rd degree, etc.) are not punished as severely as 1st degree aggravated rape.  When a 20-year-old boyfriend statutorily "rapes" (i.e., has consensual sex with) his 16-year-old girlfriend ... this is punished far differently than a midnight-stalker crazed lunatic who rapes a complete stranger at gunpoint in an alley.   (64.252.68.102 (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC))
 * It makes a difference to the people involved, certainly, but it doesn't make a difference to whether or not the rapist is entitled to see his child. In the UK, "rape" is a specific offence and, as I said, almost always carries with it a prison sentence. Having consensual sex with a 16-year-old isn't illegal here, since 16 is the age of consent, but having sex with a child aged 13 to 15 wouldn't be rape, but "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" or something, and does indeed carry a lesser sentence (in fact, it isn't prosecuted very often). If the child is 12 or under, that's statutory rape and you would almost certainly go to jail. --Tango (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

To answer Bug's question: I can't comment about all states, or even what the majority rule is, but I know of at least one state that terminates all parental rights for a conviction of rape, but does not do so simply because of a crime. Most criminals, even heinous ones, would not have parental rights extinguished except if the abuse occurred to the child. I also know of at least one state that gives no parental rights to the child of a rapist (if the mother is the victim). I'll try to find some specific citations. Shadowjams (talk) 07:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Texas family code, Sec. 161.001(1)(L) - Termination of rights; as for the never giving of rights, I can't find it there, but I know that other states have similar provisions. Shadowjams (talk) 07:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Aha. That's why I asked the question (I did not assert it as fact). Logic would tell you that if the father is in prison for a long stretch, it is not practical for him to have normal parental rights, since he is not allowed to leave, and exposing kids to a prison (to visit him) would probably not be allowed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Some prisons have special play rooms for prisoners to meeting with their young children in a safe environment that won't scar the child for life. It is unlikely such an arrangement would ever be used in the case of rape, though. --Tango (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to all for the above feedback and discussion ... it was very helpful ... and much appreciated. Thanks! (64.252.68.102 (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC))

Can someone link to (or create) a map of countries of Europe as for a child?
Just as books for children first starting to read have very little text, which itself is as simple as possible ("the dog is small, the cat is big") can someone link to a simplified map of Europe, as for a child, which simple has each country in a different solid color and not text or features other than the names of the countries, NOT abbreviated. I've seen many maps that fit my requirements, except for this last point: ALL the ones I could find assume you already know the country and so that it is fair to abbreviate it, or maybe just put a number correspondig to/a line connecting It directly with a legend. I feel this unnecessarily complicates things, makes it hard to learn the name of the countries. Is there a map somewhere (or could you create one) which is large enough for each country actually to contain it's own name in readable type? Some near misses: (closest to what I have in mind; problems with this one: not all countries colored, several abbreviated). (not all countries labelled; I don't like that some adjacent countries have the same color) there are several other near misses, and them some real ugly ones where the names go way outside the border of the smaller countries, it is hard to tell which country is which. I would really like each name WELL inside its borders, even if that means the whole map has to be relatively big or the font relatively smaller (shouldn't be tiny though...)... Thank you for anything like that you might know of or be able to create for me :). Best wishes... 89.204.153.66 (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am posting this at Graphic Lab/Map workshop for you. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In a lot of cases, it might be hard to fit in the names "Luxembourg" and "Liechtenstein" at a readable font size unless the names are abbreviated.... AnonMoos (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Right. A map of Europe would need to be several meters (or at least 10 feet) in length and width if you wanted the label for a country like Liechtenstein to fit within that tiny country's borders in a readable (but still rather minuscule) type size.  Even labeling a country like Montenegro within that country's borders would require a map larger than a standard book page.  Marco polo (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A child might understand a color coded key down below. "The blue country is Luxembourg, the green and white striped country is..." if the target age is old enough, say 6 or 7.209.244.187.155 (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not make your own map of Europe? I'm sure you can find a totally blank map with just country outlines - like this one.  Use an image editor to add colours and text as needed.  Astronaut (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As for tiny countries, how important to your students is it that you include Andorra, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, San Marino, Vatican city? Astronaut (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * According to a back-of-the-envelope calculation, if you want the name of Vatican City to be readable, the map would be about 150 feet wide, with a scale of 1 inch = 1 mile. --Carnildo (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Move to commons tag for other-language Wikipedias?
Sorry, I know this is probably not the right place to put this, but is there an international tag for other-language Wikipedias? I've found some images on other Wikis that are free-use, but don't know how to tag them properly. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Danger of the "you can, if you want, attitude"
Does some psychologist at least disapprove the "you can, if you want, attitude" preached by many films (and many people), since in some instances it can lead to unreasonable risk taking? Or do all psychologist consider positive thinking always positive? Just imagine the case of a gambler who thinks positive - he would gamble even more.--Quest09 (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Barbara Ehrenreich's last book (Bright-sided etc) seems to fit the bill perfectly. TomorrowTime (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The gambler analogy doesn't fit, because he can't control whether he wins or not (unless he has arranged to have the match fixed, in which case it isn't gambling). What he can do, if he wants, is to decide whether to gamble or not. As to whether a risk is "unreasonable", that's up to the risk-taker to decide. The "you can, if you want, attitude" is about empowering oneself to make one's own decisions about how to run one's life, instead of constantly submitting to nannies and busybodies. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The question is totally valid. Nobody controls if they win or not, in the end.  If you prefer a different analogy, suppose it's a soldier whose "think positive" attitude makes him take risks that are viewed as unreasonable by more skeptical people.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Those folks are often called "heroes". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Only if they achieve, or try to achieve, something the speaker considers valuable, risking only their own life, when another reasonable option was not available. A soldier who risks his life to rescue a child from a burning building? Generally considered a hero. A soldier who decides not to double check the identities of the vehicles in the distance, and fires a missile because he's sure he can identify the enemy by the sounds of the engines? Not a hero. Goodbye Red Cross. 86.146.195.12 (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the OP is missing the point of the "you can if you want" axiom. The more complete way to say it is, "If you think you can, you can; if you think you can't, you can't." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But that's clearly not true, which is the point. No self-respecting system would accept it as an axiom. Quite apart from the well-studied effect whereby those who can't think they can, and those who can think they can't do it as well as others, there are some things that you just can't do, no matter how much you think you can. For every person who tries and succeeds against all received wisdom, there are dozens who still fail and (if they've bought this crap) think they have only themselves to blame. When in reality, some people are never going to be able to sprint at an Olympic level, or get a genuine masters degree, or fly unaided by technology. Wishing does not make it so.
 * A much healthier phrase would be "Try hard for the things you want, and be happy with what you achieve. If you want neither the process nor the outcome, do something else." The ridiculous phrase you quote is positively harmful: it suggests we all live in the Matrix, it emphasises outcome over process, and it suggests failure to do something, no matter how much luck was involved, is all your fault. If I think I can beat the house at roulette, that doesn't mean I can. It doesn't even make it likely. If I think I can't sing, but someone convinces me to have a go, I might find I can. Certainly getting good at it would require work, but my lack of confidence doesn't ensure I can't do it. 86.146.195.12 (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The reverse axiom is to give up before you try, to "settle for what you can get", which means you'll never progress. How is that any better? And lack of confidence, self-doubt, certainly can erode your ability to succeed. I'm thinking of a line from Chariots of Fire. Harold Abrahams: "I don't run to take beatings. I run to win. If I can't win, I won't run." Girlfriend: "If you don't run, you won't win." I say again, the roulette wheel analogy is false, because you can't control the outcome unless you can cheat somehow. But the outcome of personal effort in some activity is not predetermined. You should read some of the comments attributed to Teddy Roosevelt and others about the "power of persistence", which can trump talent and presupposed superiority. Thinking you can, in some enterprise that you have some measure of control, does not ensure success, but it makes it more possible. Thinking you cannot will almost certainly ensure defeat. For a simple example, consider climbing Mt. Everest. Mallory and Irvine thought they could climb it, and they were (apparently) wrong, but they gave it their best effort. Hillary and Tenzing also thought they could climb it, and they were right. You or I might look at Mt. Everest and say, "I can't climb that." Guess what - we're right. But not because we can't climb it for some inherent, predetermined reason. We're right because we're not willing to make the effort. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe there's some confusion over words. "You can succeed" is not the same thing as "you will succeed." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm also reminded of a ref desk question from many months ago that asked why someone being shot by firing squad is tied to a post or whatever. The OP asked, "Wouldn't most people be resigned to their fate?" That's the mentality proposed above. If you resign yourself to dying, then you'll die. If you struggle to get away, you will probably still die, but maybe something will happen and you'll be able to get away. As Han Solo said, "Never tell me the odds." If you don't try at all, you've sealed your fate. If you try, you've at least got a chance. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

look, we are dealing with aphorisms or affirmations here, not factual truths. There's a value (of sorts) to convincing yourself that things will work to your advantage, because if you convince yourself of that, you're likely to work harder and be more persistent, and those qualities lead towards success. it's more in the order of a self-affirming prophecy than some kind of cosmic rule, but people are not noted for their ability to distinguish between those two things. As the old saying goes "God helps those who help themselves", so if prayer helps you get down to business then - by all means - pray. There's no problem here (except in the minds of philosophers who irrationally insist that reason should come first in the world...) -- Ludwigs 2 08:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The original question was basically whether some psychologists disagree with the idea of taking risks. If they do, they should surrender their license, as they are engaging in suppressing self-actualization. Someone who never takes a risk has already "died" in some sense. Another old saying: "The coward dies a thousand deaths, the brave taste of death but once." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No-one told me I was dead. When does the craving for brains kick in? Vimescarrot (talk) 10:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Be sure and let us know. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Bugs, why do you keep intentionally misrepresenting the original poster's question as you prattle? Nobody disagrees with the general idea of taking risks.  The question was about the ceaselessly positive attitude recommended by crazies like Anthony Robbins leading to unreasonable risk taking.  Or, to quote the subtitle of the book mentioned by TomorrowTime, whose post was the only post in this entire thread that answered the original poster's question, whether the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America.  If you have a reference to cite about this, go for it.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's the erosion of positive thinking that has undermined America. We're becoming more like Europe every day, while can-do nations like India and China continue to improve their situation. I am not misrepresenting the OP. I am challenging his loaded premise. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To answer the OP's question, yes, many psychologists are concerned about such philosophies. They can lead to disproportionate self-esteem, narcissism, overestimation of one's own abilities, and dissatisfaction.  Jean Twenge is one psychologist who has written a lot on this subject (The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlemen, Generation Me: Why Today's Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled--And More Miserable Than Ever Before).  Such narcissism is linked to increased violence, unrealistic expectations, relationship breakdown , eventual feelings of failure and inadequacy when they can't match up to their expectations of themselves  and can be socially destructive .  As another example, the recent collapse in the banking system and resulting recession can be traced back to investment and trading practices of a generation of investors with the "if you think you can, you can" overconfidence in their own abilities.  Gwinva (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hypothetical monarch numbering
Since King Arthur is legendary, if a future British monarch were to have the same name, he would be Arthur I, not Arthur II, correct? But what if a future British monarch were named Alfred? Would he be Alfred I or Alfred II? 129.174.184.114 (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The numbering starts from the Norman invasion, so Alfred is not included. That's why all those early Edwards and Edwins don't have numbers. (e.g. Edward the Confessor, Edward the Elder, Edward the Martyr). We don't get an Edward I until 1272. 86.146.195.12 (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * An Arthur or an Alfred would likely have no number at all; until such time as a second one came along, at which point they'd restrospectively rename the first one "Arthur/Alfred I". Queen Victoria will never be known as "Victoria I" until a second Victoria ascends the throne.   --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   21:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember that legendary isn't the same as non-existant: Historical basis for King Arthur. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the responses. That clears it up. 129.174.184.114 (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "William The First was the first of our kings
 * Not counting Ethelreds, Egberts and things..."
 * Eleanor Farjeon Kings and Queens (1932) Alansplodge (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the numbering is now a royal prerogative, i.e. the monarch gets to pick the number. That's why Liz is Elizabeth II even for commonwealth realms that did not exist during the reign of Elizabeth I. Indeed, we have an article on the lawsuit that establishes that right at MacCormick v Lord Advocate. Sometimes I'm amazed at the power of WP:WHAAOE. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The current heir to the throne, Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, is expected to become King Charles III. He could, of course, choose the name Arthur, or George VII.  But if he used his father's name, would he be King Philip the Second as there has arguably been a King Philip I ?  --Sussexonian (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * He was a sort of half-king. His kingship lasted only for as long as his wife was Queen, and as long as they were married; if they divorced, or she died, that would be the end of his reign.  As the conditions of his reign did not meet the normal expectation of a king (i.e. king for life, barring abdication), that probably explains why he's not normally counted as a king of England.  I think it's very unlikely Charles would choose Philip as his regnal name; maybe if he became king a short time after the death of his father (which would mean Philip died a short time before Elizabeth, or even together), but not otherwise.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   07:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding Philip's kingship, we've had a lengthy discussion on the matter here. In a nutshell, he was a monarch both de facto and de iure. His position was not unusal at that time; his own grandfather and his great-grandfather (Mary I's grandfather) both reigned together with their wives. Mary's and Philip's ancestor reigned over Castile as Ferdinand V until his wife's death but was still recognized as Ferdinand V by his successors who reigned as Ferdinand VI and Ferdinand VII. There are many other examples (Philip himself being numbered after his grandfather who reigned in his wife's right, etc). If Charles wished to reign as Philip II, history would be fine with that. William could then reign as Philip III. But I don't think that taking a number after a monarch who fought a war against his own (former) kingdom and who was married to a Bloody Mary is a good choice. Surtsicna (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Those in themselves would be bad reasons to avoid the regnal name Philip. Should Charles ever use Philip as his name, he would make it abundantly clear he was honouring his father, and not his great-great-.....-great grandfather's cousin seven times removed or whatever.  --  202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Fall of Dutch government
It sounds more dramatic than it is but still I don't understand why the government is considered to have fallen and new elections needed - if the Balkenende government still has a majority even without Labor's participation in the coalition. Isn't a majority enough? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They don't have a majority. Why did you think they do? See Dutch general election, 2006 - the CDA got 27.3%, Labour got 21.3% and CU got 4%. That gave the coalition a total of 52.6%, a small majority. With Labour leaving, they only have 31.3%, nowhere near a majority. --Tango (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, perhaps the confusion is over the meaning of "majority". A majority is 50%, it doesn't mean the party with the most seats - that's a plurality. A plurality is not enough. --Tango (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I should have asked this last night when I could have linked to the article I read. It was probably a reporter's mistake and removed by now. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Who were the Knights of Anara?
Recently found a metal pin and attached certificate presented to my Grandfather for serving three months on a Safety Patrol, that he "has repeated singly the Salute to the Flag," "has subscribed to the Knight's Pledge," and "has passed the examination on the State Traffic Code as supplied by the Automobile Club of Michigan and is now a Life Member of the Knights of Anara." My grandfather's brother remembers when they were growing up, around 8 years old that they were presented with these pins. The certificate is signed by somebody Rounds, who was a Grand Knight. There is also an address - 139 Bagley Avenue, Detroit, MI. Interestingly, there is also a Pledge on the back, it goes as follows:

As an arrow from the bow To its objective straight does go, So we loyal knights and true Do the job we have to do Protect the children, help the blind, Refuse dope and liquor which impairs the mind And we will run with flying feet To help small children cross the street.

I couldn't find anything on them in my search. Hope that you can help because I think this is something that I would like to find out about my Grandfather.

Thanks, Joshua Winchell —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwinchell (talk • contribs) 23:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the name "Anara" right because all I get is Starfleet roleplaying groups.hotclaws 23:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

youkai wearing a mask or a veil
In the Natsume Yuujinchou, several fairly human-looking youkai are shown wearing a veil or a Noh mask over their faces. Veil/mask is white, with a kanji or a pictogram on it. The face under the mask looks like a normal human face, not like a Kuchisake-onna's or similar. Now, the question is, does this mask or veil have any meaning in the Japanese tradition/folklore/customs, or is it just because Midorikawa-sensei chose to depict them that way? I do not recall seeing veiled youkai in ukiyo-e, but maybe my memory fails me. So is it something symbolic and meaningful, or is it not? --Dr Dima (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I remember seeing members of a gagaku ensemble wearing white square veils that covered the fronts of their faces, but I can't find any similar image on the Internet. Would you happen to have an image of what you are talking about? TomorrowTime (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)