Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 June 30

= June 30 =

Declaration of Independence
Copies of the declaration were almost certainly sent to England and France. Where are those copies now? Where can they be seen?James E Curtis (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * List of surviving drafts and copies of the United States Declaration of Independence may be informative reading for answering your question. -- Jayron  32  02:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As that list shows, there are several known copies in the UK, but none in France. Lafayette was said to have had a framed copy on his wall. I think we'd know about that copy if it still existed. Perhaps it was primarily news of the Declaration that was sent to France, rather than English-language broadsides. —Kevin Myers 02:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It could have been a real one; there were literally hundreds of copies of the first three broadsides created (the July 1776 version, the Dunlap broadside, and the Goddard Broadside). That only a few dozen of those first printings survive is actually not all that surprising, it wouldn't be odd for any of the copies to have disappeared, even ones owned by such important figures as Lafayette.  -- Jayron  32  03:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's every reason to suppose that Lafayette had a "real one" on his wall, since he was in America for much of the war. He could have easily taken a broadside overseas on his journeys to France during the war. The lack of extant broadsides in France today suggest that broadsides may not have been sent there in any great number, if at all. The Declaration was widely printed in newspapers, and this was the way folks overseas usually read it. There were more than three early broadsides, by the way: our article's reference to a "July 1776" version is really a catch-all phrase for the 16 or so versions of broadsides printed privately or by the states to spread the word. Our article on the surviving broadsides is a little vague on these details and needs some work. —Kevin Myers 04:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Back in 1949, an article in the Harvard Library Review listed the location of 71 known broadsides (none in France, I think). A few more have been discovered since then, so our list is only about half complete. I'll put this on my "to do" list. —Kevin Myers 04:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Presumably most Europeans outside of UK would only have wanted versions in their own languages, since English was not known by many in Europe at that time. So the ones dispatched to France and other countries, apart from official uses or sentimental reasons (like Lafayattes), would have gone to translators and printers and have been discarded after having served their purpose. The Journal of American History (vol. 85, no. 4, 1999) had a theme issue on the international reception of the Declaration and its translation history which might be of interest. The article on French reception specifically mentions that it is the version Dunlap also used for his broadsides, which was used for the first French translations (which incidentally appeared as clandestine editions printed outside of France). --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Service of the document is a puzzle. The Declaration presumably was intended to be a legal document, declaring that the United States were no longer subject to the British Crown. If a government wants to summons someone, or break a lease, or foreclose on property, or declare war, it is customary to hand the other party an official document, signed by the person with the authority to do so. Did the Continental Congress depend on newspapers and reports of British colonial officials to convey the action of separation to the King? It would seem that the Secretary of the Continental Congress should have sent a letter to George, along with a copy of the declaration, also signed and sealed to establish that it is the official approved document and not a variant or draft. In theory, at least, when a country declares its independence, the "mother country" might just say, "Well, so be it. Lots of luck and don't come crying to us if it doesn't work out for you," the same as if someone resigned from a business partnership. Edison (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There were copies that were sent to King George, the list notes at least two that ended up in his hands, obtained by some of the Generals and sent back on ships to England. There are several confounding issues, however, with treating the actual document as an "official writ" like a summons or a subpeona, or something like that, which requires a specific act of transferance to put it into action (i.e. a subpeona is only official once it is recieved by the intended party).
 * Firstly, the so-called "engrossed copy", the one that everyone signed, was considered to important of a symbol to ship anywhere, so they weren't going to just send it off.
 * Secondly, the actual written declaration was always intended to be a symbolic, and not a legal, document. For most involved, the event which was the "official" moment when the U.S. became independent wasn't the signing, it was the vote whereby the Second Continental Congress decided to declare the United States to be independent.  John Adams himself thought more of this date (July 2) than of July 4.
 * Thirdly, for many independence was already a fait accompli, they were already de facto independent from the UK, and while the formal vote and the pretty signed paper were a nice touch, the "situation on the ground" was that the U.S. wasn't subject to the British Crown and Parliament any more. They had their own working national legislature (The Congress), military, etc.  Furthermore, some actually saw the independence of the States as already endorsed by Parliament and George well before the Declaration by the Continental Congress, the Prohibitory Act had specific language in it which treated the various colonies in rebellion as enemies rather than revolters; that is it treated them as a foreign power in war with the UK, not as subjects of the UK in revolt; it was an act of war, not an act of policing.
 * Those are some reasons why the Declaration wasn't treated as an "official writ" which required service to an intended recipient in order to come into affect. And, of course, it is all mooted by the Treaty of Paris (1783) which made the independence of the 13 colonies "official" in the really we mean it, it's really official sense.  -- Jayron  32  20:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the colonists were "de facto" independent already on July 4, 1776. Many of them were still loyal to their King, who had a large army on the ground, easily able to control the major cities and harbors and the coastline. They were only a bit more "de facto independent" than some guy in Idaho or Texas announcing his farm is a sovereign nation. Edison (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Today, we usually think of the Declaration as a "document", but we're better off thinking of it as an "announcement" that was printed in a variety of documents. It was more of a press release than a legal document, since there was no court of law where Congress could have presented the Declaration to show that the United States were independent. Instead, the Declaration is a justification for independence addressed to a "candid world". It was the announcement, and the argument therein, that mattered, not any specific document. Congress did not send the Declaration to King George, since it was not addressed to him, although of course some copies found their way to him. —Kevin Myers 02:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * When I left a job, I handed the boss a letter of resignation. It seems that someone declaring independence, sovereignty, or whatever might be expected to do at least as much. So what letter or document did the Continental Congress send to the King, to Parliament, to the King's Governors, his Generals or whomever? Our article on the Declaration just says "British officials in North America sent copies of the Declaration to Great Britain." Did they get an official copy with a transmittal letter, or was it just "revolution by hearsay?" Edison (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting question. I don't recall reading that Congress sent the Declaration in any form to any British official. As far as I know, the broadsides that did come into British hands came indirectly, either intercepted or turned over by a Loyalist. I believe that protocol would prevent a British official from officially receiving a document from a Congress not recognized by the Crown, so perhaps Congress did not bother to send notice through official channels. They did send a broadside overseas to Silas Deane at the French court, but it got lost, and by the time Deane got ahold of another, it was old news. —Kevin Myers 07:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No one has come up with evidence of an official communication from the US to George announcing "independence." In some cases, lack of an official and timely communication has been the basis of major propaganda. The Japanese government tried to send a declaration of war to the US government before the Pearl Harbor attack in 1941, but it was, well, just a bit late, justifying Franklin Roosevelt's "Day of Infamy" speech and motivating a previously isolationist America to want to crush Japan. Even a half hour between handing the declaration to Secretary of State Cordell Hull and the bombs falling would have made a major difference, in making it a mere attack rather than a "sneak attack." All the language an=bout respect for the opinions of mankind is obviated by lack of valid service. Wasn't there some sympathy with the demands of the colonists among the Brits before the initiation of hostilities, with the lack of appropriate communications lessened? When the Southern US states seceded in 1861, did they serve the US government with some "notice of secession," or did they just communicate by newspaper headlines as in 1776? Edison (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting question about 1861. The Declaration was widely published in 1776, so a "lack of valid service" had no impact on its dissemination. Had Congress sent the Declaration to the King and not the newspapers, the British people might have not read it, since the British government could and did suppress publication of certain items. If there was a "lack of appropriate communications", it had no impact on British public opinion, which was somewhat favorable towards the Americans until the French became a US ally. —Kevin Myers 06:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Route 101 collectibles
I'm interested in buying some U.S. Route 101 patches. Where's a good place to start?24.90.204.234 (talk) 08:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Here. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Inflatable rats at strikes
I've seen some hints somewhere that there is a custom in the US of erecting a giant inflatable rat outside scenes of strike action. Could someone explain the significance of this, or preferably link to an article or webpage discussing it? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag► Subsyndic General ─╢ 10:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * We have an Inflatable rat article which has a little info on it. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 11:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * StuRat puffs up with pride. StuRat (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Submarine enemies
I was watching a tv program about current UK submarines last night, where people were being trained to attack other submarines. I can understand that submarines could be used as a platform for nuclear deterrent to rogue states. But my questions are, 1) after the peaceful end of the Cold War (despite Putin apparantly wishing to be more belligerant again) which nations could enemy submarines come from? 2) Of these, are there any potentially enemy nations that have nuclear-powered modern submarines? Thanks 92.24.188.232 (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The article List of submarine operators might help but it clearly needs some work.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 11:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Nuclear submarine lists 6 nations with nuclear submarines (USA, Russia, UK, France, China, India). Brazil is working on one.  Israel has non-nuclear submarines with nuclear weapons.; see also Nuclear weapons and Israel.  None of these nations seem to be enemies of the UK. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You should realize that Si vis pacem, para bellum. Certain countries may be unable and unwilling to attack today but may become so in the next couple of years. They may be unable to build nuclear submarines today but they may buy them from another country or even learn how to build them themselves. To maintain a solid core of experienced officers and crews during peacetime is IMHO a wise policy because they will teach and pass their skills to the new sailors (recruited when the political climate becomes worse). Who knows of the future? The allies of today may become the enemies of tomorrow and vice-versa. Flamarande (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The first of the newest Astute class submarines took 9 years from being laid-down to completion. I'm sure it could be done a bit quicker, but you get the idea. If all the skills for designing, building and operating them are lost, then the whole thing is going to take longer and be less efficient in the end. Either we keep these things in service or lose them forever - a likely fate for our aircraft carrier capability. Alansplodge (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, the rise of the military industrial complex can tend to increase the opportunity for wars of choice, or so Eisenhower claimed in his Farewell Address. The wars between the U.S. and China/North Korea, Viet Nam and Iraq could have all very likely have been solved with diplomacy or espionage instead of military action, but the ease and availability of mass produced mechanized arms and easily available soldiers on both sides led to hostilities which are seen by most as unproductive in retrospect.  If only there was a diplomatic industrial complex.  Or maybe a diplomatic commercial complex, or a diplomatic residential complex, or all three and a few million more exchange students. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No reason to limit ourselves to nuclear subs. According to Libyan Navy, it isn't clear what happened to all of their conventional subs. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * IMHO if the war machines become too expensive for a country, it should dismantle/disband/sell them. Security is very important but to bankrupt a country is foolish. Supposedly the British defence budget can't afford both the maintenance of the old aircraft carriers and the building of new ones at the same time. Therefore the old British aircraft carriers are going to be dismantled/sold so that new ones may be built. That seems to be reasonable. Flamarande (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I suspect they'd save more money by just upgrading the old carriers, instead of building a new fleet. StuRat (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The "scrap-old-carriers-to-build-new-ones" argument has been used before. Alansplodge (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There are certain limits of upgrading old carriers like size, technology, cost of maintenance, seaworthiness, age, etc. Certainly, to announce-something-only-to-cancel-it-later is a true possibility (happened before and happens all the time). However to maintain old ships and build new ones at the same time is very costly, some argue too costly for the UK. Flamarande (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see how an old hull limits technology, you can upgrade the radar, etc., as needed. Seaworthiness should be addressed by the maintenance.  Age isn't in itself a problem.  The cost of maintenance has got to be less than building a new fleet.  Now size could be a valid reason.  If they need a carrier twice the size, they need to build a new one.  They might be able to extend decks a bit on the old one, but not that much.  Hmmmm, I wonder if you could mate two aircraft carriers together to make a Frankenstein carrier twice as long. StuRat (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * To go with your example of an upgraded radar, the new radar may require more electrical power. This, in turn, would require installing a new, bigger generator.  This might not fit in the compartment allocated for the old generator, which means moving bulkheads to make room (or moving the generator, but the need to run steam lines to and from the boiler rather limits where you can put it).  The bulkheads may be part of the ship's load-bearing structure, in which case moving them reduces seaworthiness.  There are also weight and balance issues (the new radar may require additional ballast to keep the carrier seaworthy, which could reduce the number of aircraft carried).


 * No matter how much effort you put into it, a WWII carrier such as the USS Yorktown could not effectively operate modern carrier aircraft such as the F/A-18 "Super Hornet": the boilers don't generate enough energy to run the electrical load of a modern carrier, they don't generate enough steam to operate a catapult capable of launching the aircraft, and there isn't enough room inside the hull to fit all the pieces you'd need for an upgrade. --Carnildo (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, with my Frankencarrier, you'd have two boilers and therefore twice the electricity and twice the steam. :-) But seriously, if you could build a new carrier at the same cost as upgrading an old one, that would be the way to go. However, more likely, the choice is between upgrading 2 or 3 old carriers or building a single new one, in which case the larger quantity of upgraded carriers is probably the better deal, overall. StuRat (talk) 04:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Why doesnt the West or Europe run their warships in common, rather than duplicating them in each country? Or hand them over to NATO? So instead of several western countries having their own aircraft carriers, the carriers are owned and run by NATO or Europe and used by any country as needed. 92.28.251.70 (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, duplication of effort in having them each build their own, potentially incompatible military equipment wastes money. However, I suspect that each also wants to maintain it's own ability to act unilaterally, such as when the UK fought the Falklands War. StuRat (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

ordinary in South Carolina
What was the function of a district or county ordinary in South Carolina during the 19th century?

It was a county-wide office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.132.79 (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know about then, but this job description talks about the position of a County Ordinary now, as an official responsible for various hearings to do with local government. This describes the Ordinary as being the official concerned with issuing marriage licences. I'm surprised that Wikipedia doesn't appear to have an article (or link) about that (the Ordinary article talks instead about the comparable ecclesiastical official). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 11:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added a paragraph to the article about the civic ordinary. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You may also be able find information on this from a local historical society, or perhaps (since the current ones seem to be associated with marriage licenses) even a geneology group. Not being from South Carolina, I don't know how things are there for sure; but the city I grew up in in Indiana had one, and it's less than 100,000 people, and Indiana isn't as old of a state as South Carolina, so I imagine there's a few historical societies or associations there. Wabbott9  Tell me about it....  15:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * In the 1800's, the job of the ordinary was primarily to adjudicate probate matters. The ordinary kept a minute book of them, which served as a timeline for when things were filed. If you search for "south carolina ordinary minute book", you'll certainly find a few. I quickly found one for Marion County, SC 1800-1814. -- k a i n a w &trade; 02:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Bride kidnapping
Where can I find prevalance statistics for the countries listed in Bride kidnapping per capita? Also why does this reference desk page say "view source" instead of "edit" when I'm logged out? I can still edit. 69.229.154.254 (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a direct answer, but a caution. You will get very different "prevalence statistics" if you go by records of crimes reported to the authorities, or by a victim study such as the British Crime Survey. Remember also, as it says in the article, that the term "bride kidnapping" covers marriages along a spectrum of consent. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently at least one government refuses to collect statistics but the trend has increased after religious freedom was restored when the USSR fell. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Referendums on independence from sovereign states
Scotland, ruled by the Scottish National Party in a devolved parliament, are intending to have a referendum on independence near the end of their second term in office. Whether the referendum will be in favour of independence is another subject, but are there other western countries today who would constitutently allow a referendum on whether a part of a sovereign state could be split. I just realised it can and has happened in Canada, but would the US, France, Spain etc allow a referendum to take place? For the record, I am in favour of an independent Scotland. Carson101 (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Puerto Rico votes occassionaly and always stays in the U.S. (1967, 1991?, 1993, 1998) (and still the UN bugs us for keeping them as a colony.) Rmhermen (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Surprising they would have so many votes on it in such a small space of time. I assume the votes were always very close? Carson101 (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Political status of Puerto Rico goes into more detail on individual referendums (or plebiscites as they call them), and you can also read in Politics of Puerto Rico how the issue of independence has continually been a distinguishing characteristic of major party platforms. Since both of those articles are kind of sprawling, you can check out the sections of the Puerto Rico article that summarize them pretty well, if you're not interested in all the gory details (Puerto and Puerto). &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 17:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and this looks like you might be able to learn some more about independence movements in general: Lists of active separatist movements. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 17:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that Puerto Rico is not actually on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, they were removed after a vote and while there have been attempts and there is discussion to re-add them, they are clearly not officially considered a colony. Also the issue is likely not simply about the independence (or lack thereof) but whether their current arrangements meet the expections of the international community. For example our article says:
 * Though the subject continues to be debated in many forums it is clear that (1) the current territorial status has not satisfied Puerto Rican political leaders,[75] and (2) that despite the divergent views that Puerto Ricans have with respect to their preferred political status, 'all factions agree on the need to end the present undemocratic arrangement whereby Puerto Rico is subject to the laws of Congress but cannot vote in it.'[75]
 * While the referenda did propose various options, I'm sure some would say none was the right option (similar perhaps to the Australian republic referendum that a few here like to mention) or if they were they weren't actually followed. For example the commonwealth option seems to leave open enhancement of the current arrangement and in the 1998 vote 'none of the above' was the winner.
 * It's worth remembering even both major political parties in the US don't seem to think the current arrangements are ideal.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not strictly "independence" per se, but questions of sovereignty have come up in referenda/plebiscites in the past, see South Jutland County, which voted to join Denmark in a plebiscite in 1920. The Saarland voted in a referendum in to join West Germany rather than be an independent state in 1954, see Saar_(protectorate).  -- Jayron  32  18:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The situations of Puerto Rico and Scotland are not fully analogous. Puerto Rico is one of the unincorporated territories of the United States.  As such, it is not an integral part of the United States.  Its status is that of a dependent territory, and its relation to the United States is similar to the relationship of Bermuda to the United Kingdom.  By contrast, Scotland is an integral part of the United Kingdom.  The United Kingdom got its name from the political union of Scotland and England (which then included Wales). A referendum by Scotland on independence would be more comparable to a referendum by Texas (or some other state) on independence from the United States.  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White that, constitutionally, states do not have a right to secede. The last time any state attempted to secede, war resulted.  Marco polo (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, SCOTUS probably wouldn't care if Scotland left the UK, so who would have the power to force Scotland back into line if they attempted to leave the UK? Googlemeister (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just answering the OP's question whether other countries, such as the United States, would allow their constituent parts to declare independence. Whether the United Kingdom would allow Scotland to declare independence is a different question. As to who would have the legal power to overrule Scotland's voters, presumably that would be the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. If your question is who would have the physical power to force Scotland in the line, answering that question would require us to speculate on future events, which we try not to do. Marco polo (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Marco, just a teensy correction. The political union of England and Scotland was the Kingdom of Great Britain, created in 1707.  The word "United" did appear in the legislation, but consensus is that it was meant as a descriptor of the new state, and was not a formal part of its name.  The term "United Kingdom" only came into existence proper when Ireland was added to the mix in 1801 - at that time it was United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.  --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  21:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, regarding the history of the relationship between Scotland and England and the UK specifically, the single event which led to the eventual political merger of the two nations into a single sovereign state wasn't a takeover of Scotland by England, it went the other way around: it was the Scots that took over England, in a manner of speaking, the House of Stuart, a Scottish royal house, in the person of James VI and I, who inherited the English throne on the extinction of the Tudor line. (Of course the Tudor's weren't an English family either.  They were Welsh, Rhys ap Tewdwr was the founder of the dynasty).  While it took about a century for the union of Scotland and England to be completed, the genesis was still initiated by a Scotsman, and not by an Englishman.  What this has to do specifically with Scottish Independence, I don't know, but its a nice bit of tangentally related trivia to munch on.  -- Jayron  32  20:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There was the Norwegian union dissolution referendum, 1905 (which passed with 99.92% support) - it is very similar conceptually to what the SNP wants, as it was not constitutionally binding but was used to force a political agreement. There's a few others listed at Independence referendum. Shimgray | talk | 20:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * More recently, Czechoslovakia split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993 - an act that always struck me as a particularly dumb move. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * In 1973, Northern Ireland held a border poll to stay within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or to join the Republic of Ireland. Since nationalists who opposed continuing the union boycotted the poll, there was an overwhelming 99% pro-UK majority. As there was no independence option as such, it's closer to the other 20th century plebiscites, referred to by Jayron32 above, on the future of the Saar and South Schleswig and Memel . —— Shakescene (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sopron was another place that had a plebiscite, voting to join Hungary rather than stay in Austria. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In 1861,Texas, Virginia and Tennessee ratified secession from the United States by popular referenda, the electorate consisting of free white adult male citizens meeting whatever other qualifications (e.g. property) those states required for the suffrage. South Carolina seceded by ordinance of her legislature, and almost all of the other states that considered secession, following a long tradition in such matters, decided the issue through the vote of an elected special convention. ¶ For details, see, for example, Confederate States of America, The Confederate Nation and The Confederacy as a Revolutionary Experience by Emory Thomas, The Confederate Republic by George C. Rable, chronological almanacs of U.S. history like those edited by Richard B. Morris and Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., or a short article on "Confederate States and Secession" that's reprinted in almost every edition of The World Almanac and Book of Facts (p. 494 in the 2011 edition). Several of these sources, including the first and last, give each state's popular and convention votes for and against secession. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Mountain north of Mexico City
What large(?) mountain is immediately north of Mexico city? I can see it in Google Earth, but there are no labels or anything, and this doesn't tell me much. The border of the federal district comes near the summit, where it looks like there is some sort of mansion or resort. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 18:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's called the Sierra de Guadalupe. Here is a link to an article on the mountain in the Spanish Wikipedia. It has several peaks, the most prominent of which is Cerro del Chiquihuite. Marco polo (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fantastic, thanks. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 18:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Loki
Do the Egyptian, Greek, Roman or Hindu cast of gods have a trickster god like the Norse Loki? Googlemeister (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * We have the categories and  which list a number of different trickster deities in numerous religions. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Here are direct links for those categories: Category:Trickster gods and Category:Trickster goddesses. -- Dismas |(talk) 19:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, English mythology has a character who always tried to Puck things up. StuRat (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hermes sometimes has characteristics of a trickster god. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * (in response to "Egyptian, [...] Roman or Hindu": Hermes's close correspondent in Roman mythology is Mercurius aka Mercury. The article on Trickster mentions both, and others. The subsection tricksters in various cultures' oral stories lists Mohini and also Krishna for Hindu mythology, and Set and Isis for Egyptian mythology. (None of these are quite like Loki, whose article's subsection on "Theories" shows him elusive and confusing as ever :-) ---Sluzzelin talk  09:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

what do the Germans and Japanese have in common?
what do the Germans and Japanese have in common? Note: I mean besides the fact that they were allies in World War 2. --188.29.128.61 (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Industrial capacity. I think that amounts to coal and iron ore, but I'll leave it to someone else to look that up. Wnt (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked a bit further: apparently Japan began steel production in 1901, and rapidly increased its capacity. As a country it was always struggling to obtain coal and iron ore.  The Japanese invasion of Manchuria (1931) and Second Sino-Japanese War (1937) made these more obtainable. Wnt (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A rather queasy feeling about nuclear power. Really, it could be anything, given the declared territory. Please put us out of our misery before we get fractious and remember that the RD isn't an appropriate venue for trick questions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * They are both major US allies housing multiple US military bases, although technically I suppose that is a legacy of WW2. StuRat (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * A low fertility rate below the replacement figure (2.1). Read: List of sovereign states and dependent territories by fertility rate. Flamarande (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Both known for their auto industries. Rckrone (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I like this. Is there some cultural similarity that explains the auto industries?


 * The US also has an auto industry. Bus stop (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The Japanese auto industry expanded dramatically from the 1960s onwards as they created cheaper copies of British cars, with much better quality control, and quickly outsold the British. The German auto industry was older, with the Beetle being the mass market vehicle from Hitler's time.


 * Both countries have strong camera industries. In that case, it was German technology that the Japanese copied, and made cheaper. HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * But I'd like to know the underlying similarity that led both of them to go into the auto industry (as opposed to other countries which did not). Same for Cameria industries.  Why were they particularly and specifically them in that position?  188.29.123.18 (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All industrial countries had an automotive industry at some time in the 20th century. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly. So how is that a legitimate answer to my question of what Japan and Germany had or have in common! (OP here).  --87.194.221.239 (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Both are societies that value order and have a strong work-ethic. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 10:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Both names start with the "j" sound in English. Pais (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This disappeared in an edit: "Both are societies that value order and have a strong work-ethic. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 10:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)"


 * I like this answer, Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, it both answers my question and matches my experience (i.e. seems to be true) but it is kind of vague. Could you be more specific? 87.194.221.239 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This is entirely subjective, but neither culture really views diversity as a positive thing. Also subjectively and probably controversially they are fairly uncomfortable with their internal racial minorities in some ways, Japan with Koreans and Germany with Turks. 98.209.39.71 (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * For centuries the numerous German states existed as relatively autonomous entities, applying very varying systems of government, adhering to various Christian denominations, as well as differing very much in industry, economy and culture. Germany was literally a patchwork of states with only the language and the emperor in common. As such I can only agree that your opinion on this is entirely subjective. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

the below has become irrelevant after a title change

 * If this is a "trick question", then likely the OP knows the answer. Why are we spending time searching for something that the questioner knows? Is this "Test the Ref Desk Week", and I missed the parade? Bielle (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not how I read it. They probably saw it in a quiz somewhere, and want us to suggest an answer. StuRat (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, instead of complaining about the question, perhaps we can suggest references that would help answer it (we are a reference desk after all). Blueboar (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not really a "trick question", the only reference to that was in the title. I am normally extremely smart and have wide breadth and depth of knowledge, and could not come up with the similarities on my own: that's why I had that title in frustration.  It is a legitimate question.  I am most interested in cultural similarities: which might explain why they became allies in world war 2.  I would like to remove this whole subsection, because the question has begun to be answered above it.  188.29.201.9 (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that "What do the Germans and Japanese have in common?" and "What did the Germans and Japanese have in common, which lead to them being allies in WWII?" are similar but distinct questions. (Most importantly, similarities which occurred post-1950 are irrelevant to the latter, but perfectly appropriate for the former.) We do have an article on German–Japanese relations, which does discuss the issue a little. Part of it was a mutual movement away from a weak fledgling democracy, and (back) toward consolidation of power under a single person (the Emperor/Reichspresident). Possibly even more important was the signing of the Anti-Comintern Pact, which was effectively an anti-Russia agreement. As I read the article, the main answer to the question "What did the Germans and Japanese have in common, which lead to them being allies in WWII?" was "they both were enemies of the Russians". -- 174.24.196.217 (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * And enemies of the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands and the United States. The system of government in pre-war Japan was really quite different to Nazi Germany. In Japan, although there was public deference to the Emperor, real power was in the hands of the military establishment. Hitler completely sidelined the traditional military elite by means of the Nazi party. His style of governance veered unpredictably from giving subordinates total freedom of action to enforcing his own micro-management when the fancy took him. The similarities (in my view) were:-
 * 1) The perceived need for military expansion
 * 2) The subordination of personal freedom to the needs of the state
 * 3) Resentment of the dominance of the great powers (US UK France and USSR)
 * 4) Belief in their own racial superiority (although this was problematic because both regarded the other as racially inferior)
 * Alansplodge (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the answer lies in the fact that Germany and Japan had common enemies, and that led them to ally. That's about it.  The real answer is that they both had the same groups of enemies.  Other than China, most of Japan's enemies were the major European colonial powers: The British (Burma and India and Malaysia) and the Dutch (Indonesia) and the Americans (Philipines and Hawaii).  Germany, remember, also had an alliance with the Soviet Union at the start of the war (the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact) which Germany rapidly ignored as soon as it wasn't in Germany's interest to be allied with the Soviet Union anymore.  The only thing that kept the Germans and the Japanese allied was the fact that Japan's territory and imperial interests didn't lie in the path of the Germans; that is the Germans had no impending need to invade Japan or compete for territory that Japan was also trying to take.  This is quite different from the Soviets, which is why Germany ended up invading the Soviet Union.  So, Japan and German were allies because a) they had common enemies and b) Germany didn't have any reason to stab them in the back.  -- Jayron  32  16:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd argue that the reason Germany and Japan didn't fight was that neither had the ability to defeat the other, due to their geographic isolation. Of course, that didn't stop them both from declaring war on the US, even though neither seemed to possess the ability to invade North America and defeat the US.  They must have thought that the US was a weak democracy which would refuse to fight. StuRat (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Not to put too fine a point on it, but I find it VERY hard to read your response as anything other than "The only thing they had in common - and which united them - was a mutual hatred of Freedom and Free societies." I realize this borders on flamebait, I am not saying this is what I think!  This is just my IMPRESSION from reading your paragraph above, which seems to me to imply it.  Maybe you could elaborate given this impression on my part, so that you are more specific and can "set me straight".  Thanks! Note: this applies more to the paragraph above beginning "And enemies of the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands and the United States" and ending "Belief in their own racial superiority". 87.194.221.239 (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That was my paragraph. I'm not sure that they had "a mutual hatred of Freedom and Free societies"; they didn't want a free society themselves and saw it as a weakness in their opponents. What Japan wanted was its own empire in mainland Asia to ensure security of resources, such as oil and rubber. That these were controlled by the western powers was seen as a major threat to Japanese prosperity. BTW none of the western powers had very "free societies" in their Asian empires. Germany wanted its pre-1919 borders back, and later to expand into Soviet territory. Germany kept the USSR from attacking Japan. Japan distracted the US and UK from their war with Germany. Alliance was pragmatic rather than idiological in my opinion. Alansplodge (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. There were strategic reasons for alliance (the enemy of my enemy is my friend), and the ideological positions were close enough not to be an obstacle. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * An interesting article, Honorary Aryan, proves me at least partly wrong on point 4) above. Alansplodge (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)