Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 August 8

= August 8 =

Oceania
The Wikipedia page of Oceania says that there are different opinions on which areas of the world are part of Oceania.

1) What is the reason for these different opinions? It seems odd to me - geographical areas should be an agreed, set thing, it isn't exactly a dispute over differing scientific theories. 2) What do most people, in modern-day every-day usage, refer to when they say Oceania?

I find it to be particularly problematic when nation-wide tests will ask a question about Oceania, for example on a history test, because there are different opinions on what exactly Oceania is.

Thanks.

-- Activism  1234  00:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Continents are a matter of convention, shaped by cultural and historical influences. Oceania is not only the only continent subject to different definitions. Boundaries between continents lists several others. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oceania is not really a "continent" &mdash; I know that word is sometimes used, but it's imprecise. The relevant continent is called Australia and does not include New Zealand, which is made up of volcanic rather than continental islands . --Trovatore (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm... Interesting... But still, if I said "Africa" people would know what and where I'm referring to. If I say Oceania, where would I be referring to (meaning, what's the most commonly accepted definition?)  Thanks. -- Activism  1234  00:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * People will get the general idea of "Africa" or "Oceania". The only problem is on the boundaries and islands of both continents. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have a nationwide test which uses a certain convention, you need to use an educational curriculum which uses the same definition. Even if the differences are a bit arbitrary, just use the same convention the test-writers used.  It doesn't pay to argue with a test.  It can't argue back.  -- Jayron  32  00:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I'm a bit above the age of taking tests, my question was hypothetical, but your response is very true. -- Activism  1234  00:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For 1), the lead in our maritime boundary points out several potential causes behind geographical areas boundary dispute: A maritime boundary is a conceptual division of the Earth's water surface areas using physiographic and/or geopolitical criteria. As such, it usually includes areas of exclusive national rights over mineral and biological resources. Sometimes it's national pride, but Fishing zones + potential oil extraction sites are especially problematic - see List_of_territorial_disputes and especially Territorial disputes in the South China Sea. Royor (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. Will check it out. -- Activism  1234  02:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Concepts are tools, and how they are used depends on the context. There are circumstances under which the Arabian plate is seen as part of the African continent, so even "Africa" is not so well defined. See Sahul, Zealandia, and the Geography of New Caledonia for some interesting facts. My experience with "Oceania" is that it is a convenient term for encyclopedists when they want to refer to what is left over after the look at the Old World, The Americas, and Antarctica. μηδείς (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Nazi plans for the occupation of the US
In the Ken Burns series The War, Episode 6, The Ghost Front, near the start, a former US soldier stated that a captured German claimed that he had been trained for the administration of captured US mainland territories:

1) Did such training occur ?

2) Do we have an article on it ? StuRat (talk) 01:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * We have an article that goes into detail on Axis operations in North American during WWII, as well as plans for the same that never saw fruition. There is no mention of a planned occupation, however: American Theater (1939–1945). I also looked through our categories on cancelled German military operations of WWII, and didn't see anything of the like. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure, but almost positive that Hitler planned to conquer America at some point. -- Activism  1234  01:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I completely believe that, and we do have Category:Cancelled military operations involving Germany as well as the more general Category:Cancelled_invasions, whose contents are mostly from WWII. But I have a suspicion that the occupation of the United States was more of a pipe dream for Hitler than anything else. There were certainly efforts to get spies and saboteurs on the American mainland, and plans for military attacks, as well as rampant speculation of an future Nazi invasion, but I find no solid sources that any such plan moved beyond the imaginary. Maybe someone will show me something that really should be on Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah I don't think he got anything ready before he died, since he was busy in the east/west Europe front, but I don't think it's disputed he did intend on eventually conquering America. Indeed, see New Order (Nazism), which describes Hitler's plans to bring Nazism to the entire world. -- Activism  1234  02:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I fixed your link. StuRat (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * So the implication of the documentary was incorrect ? StuRat (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I completely believe that a US soldier claimed that a German soldier said he was trained for such an operation. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * But one of the two must have been lying, right ? StuRat (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Allegedly, after the Navy Seals killed Osama bin Laden, it became very popular for douchey men at bars to claim they were seals to make themselves look macho. It wouldn't surprise me if POWs did much the same thing, especially the comparatively well treated ones held by US soldiers. The German soldier could also have just been trolling. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have a question--if Nazi Germany wanted to occupy the entire U.S., how exactly were they planning to deal with the massive resistance that would follow afterwards? Also, I seriously doubt that Nazi Germany would have been able to cross the Atlantic in large numbers AND build a nuke before the U.S. built some nukes of its own. Futurist110 (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, any plans to invade the US would have been foolish, but that doesn't mean they didn't make them anyway. After all, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was just as foolish, since they had almost no chance of winning, based on industrial capacity, but they went ahead with that plan anyway.  As for how the Nazis would deal with resistance, their usual pattern was massive reprisals against civilians.  As for nukes, the Nazis didn't know how quickly the US program was progressing.  StuRat (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The Japanese proved to be tough fighters. In many battles with the Japanese, far too many American soldiers were killed, for the reason that Japanese soldiers in WWII fought to the very last man, and even the last man kept on fighting.  That was one of the factors in the decision-making of whether to launch a nuke on Japan.  Launch a nuke and kill thousands, or invade and lose thousands of soldiers?
 * The Nazis as well would likely have attempted a form of blitzkrieg which they did across Europe, with a possible Battle of London style bombings taking place beforehand. I doubt they would've been able to conquer America in 1945, but given enough time and strength, it's possible they may have been able to in the future.  That's not a future I would want to live in.
 * If their own citizens (especially white ones) are killed Americans tend to get extremely angry and go out of control. And didn't the Nazis have spies in the U.S. to determine the pace of the U.S.'s nuclear program? Futurist110 (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Fighting to the death isn't always the best military strategy. If outnumbered and about to be surrounded and wiped out, if often makes military sense to retreat to a more defensible position, where your forces will be more effective.  Force preservation is important even if you have an inexhaustible supply of trained soldiers (which the Japanese did not), in that the equipment the retreating soldiers carry with them and prevent from being captured may also be critical to winning future battles. StuRat (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In a recent movie about the Japanese Army "Letters from Iwo Jima," the Japanese soldiers in a bunker killed themselves with hand grenades, which is hardly "fighting to the last man." If they had run down the mountain toward the Allied soldiers and THROWN that same hand grenade, then made a bayonet assault, that would have been "fighting."  In some cases, on other islands there were such forlorn hope human wave assaults. Edison (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's tougher to provide resistance when you're locked inside a ghetto with fierce guards and forced to toil because you're not an Aryan, or under strict military control with soldiers who don't mind to shoot you, even if you're a child, on spot, or send you to a gas chamber, or a death camp. See Warsaw Rebellion, one of the few rebellions in concentration camps, which ultimately failed and ended up with everyone being killed. -- Activism  1234  23:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, if I was with the resistance, I wouldn't attack, knowing it would get everyone in town massacred. What I'd do, instead, is stockpile weapons and bide my time, until when they were too weak to retaliate (maybe due to a counter-offensive, maybe due to a power struggle within the Nazi Party, etc.) StuRat (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of the Nazis having any real idea how well the Manhattan project was coming along. The Soviets did, for sure, and even had the blueprints for the bomb. We have a section on it at Manhattan_project. The German attempts to infiltrate the project is barely a blip its history. Coincidentally, the Soviet spy that penetrated the project was born in Germany. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * A lot of this reads rather like American Exceptionalism to me. If their own citizens (especially white ones) are killed Americans tend to get extremely angry and go out of control? Please. Do you genuinely think that people in other countries don't mind their citizens being killed?
 * The Nazis had various unpleasant methods to quell resistance in occupied territories – read Harry Turtledove's short story The Last Article for a counterfactual look at a Nazi occupation of India to see some of the methods they might have used on the conquered Americans. 87.112.129.180 (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * And racist exceptionalism, to boot. --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  20:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the racist part is right. When a cute white girl goes missing or is killed it's national news here, but not when it's a black girl. StuRat (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Careful, Missing white woman syndrome is generally not considered unique to the US so you risk more American Exceptionalism. Nil Einne (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm no expert on Nazi Germany and its "plans", but I understand that the dominance of the Third Reich was meant to last for 1000 years, or some equally silly, very long time. It's virtually a certainty that some folks with that belief structure would have felt that taking over every country in the world was simply a matter of time (within that "very long time"). So yes, there would have been "plans" to invade and occupy the US (along with everywhere else) in some peoples' heads, but they probably weren't very detailed, nor possibly even written down, nor would they been intended for implementation in late 1945. HiLo48 (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Training people to administer the occupied US territories implies that they thought they could conquer the US far sooner (certainly within the lives of the people they were training, but probably in the 5-10 year zone, since, if it was going to take longer than that, they could use those people in the war effort early on and train them later). StuRat (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * We have an article on the equally silly Kaiser Bill's plan to invade the US called Operational Plan Three. A recent reprint of some maps from a 1942 issue of Life Magazine seem to represent how the US imagined that it might be invaded, or more likely what the US Government imagined would make the war effort seem more urgent to tthe folks at home. This page apparently reproduces a Wikipedia article called Axis plans for invasion of the United States during WWII which seems to have been deleted. This forum discusses an entry in the Goebbels Diaries, suggesting that weapons and equipment might have been manufactured by secret factories in Mexico, so that only personel needed to be moved across the Atlantic. Alansplodge (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The deleted articles only sources were a history channel program and various German plans to conduct long-range bombing raids on U.S. targets. Rmhermen (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If we're extending this to the WW1 period, then the Zimmermann Telegram is by far the most famous... AnonMoos (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Any plausible invasion of the USA by Germany during the Second World War, would first have required that Germany conquer the fifty-first state. After German defeat in the Battle of Britain in 1940 before the USA even entered the war, such conquest was pretty much impossible. Of course, this wouldn't have stopped a few small units still carrying out planning or training, for morale or deception purposes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt if the Nazis planned for WWII to end when (and how) it did. HiLo48 (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well indeed - they invaded Poland in 1939 in the hope that Britain and France didn't really intend to do much about it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Why Are Druze Much More Patriotic Than Other Israeli Arabs?
Some Druze even vote for Likud and Yisrael Beitenu, despite the latter's anti-Arab platform and the former's desire to keep all of Jerusalem united under Israeli control. My question is--why? Futurist110 (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Becouse they not consider themseves Arab or Muslims.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The Druze have traditionally been somewhat less permeated by Arab nationalist sentiments than either Arab Muslims and Arab Christians, and they certainly do not have the same attitude of historical entitlement ("We should be the rulers!") that Muslims do, so many decades ago they made a pragmatic decision to serve in the Israeli army, and reap the corresponding benefits... AnonMoos (talk) 06:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The Druze, being a minority, might fear that they would be mistreated in a Palestinian state. Similar logic applies in Syria, where ethnic and religious minorities have supported the current regime, because they fear how they might be treated under a new regime (of course, this logic changes once they believe the current regime will soon collapse). StuRat (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that Druze were Arabs. This is like how I am partially ethnically Jewish even if I do not want to be. Also, Druze consider themselves to be "an Islamic Unist, reformatory sect", which implies that they consider themselves to be Muslims. If Druze are afraid of being mistreated in a Palestinian state, then why is there not such a large support for Israel among Arab Christians in Israel and Palestine? Also, why exactly was Arab nationalism less popular among the Druze than among other Arabs? Futurist110 (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * While Christians are a minority in Israel, they are a far larger group, overall, than the Druze, so may feel they would be protected by other nations, should Israel collapse. StuRat (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Christian countries sure haven't done much protecting of Christian minorities in Muslim countries lately, such as the Copts in Egypt. Futurist110 (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Are they being systematically massacred ? StuRat (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No but I haven't read of any countries systematically massacring or wanting to massacre Druze either. Futurist110 (talk) 08:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As to why Druze have been less influenced by Arab nationalist ideologies, I would assume it's because many of the special factors which made Christians and Muslims nationalistic didn't apply to the Druze. In particular, Christians were more likely to be literate town-dwellers, and to be influenced by European modernism and nationalisms, and felt pressure to prove themselves to be just as patriotically Arab as were Muslims.  So many of the early theorists of Arab nationalism (Antonious, Aflaq, etc.) were Christians.  Muslim Arabs resented Ottoman Turkish rule, and remembered the glorious history of the early Arab Caliphates, and felt that as Arab Muslims they had a natural right to rule.  All this would have been less relevant to the Druze, who tended to keep to themselves to some degree... AnonMoos (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Our excellent article on the Druze shows that they have experienced periodic persecution from what could be described as the more mainstream branches of Islam since the eleventh century. The article also says, "the Druze religion doesn't endorse separatist sentiments, urging the Druze to blend with the communities they reside in". --Dweller (talk) 08:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is it that the OP means by the Druze being more "patriotic" than other Israeli Arabs in this scenario? Could the OP give some examples? --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Serving in the Israeli army, being members of some right-wing Israeli political parties, etc. For example, a recent terrorist attack from the Egyptian border was thwarted a few days ago, and a Bedouin Reconnaisance Unit in the Israeli army were crucial for this.  Bedouins are excellent in the army for border control, as they know the desert very well and are great hunters and trackers. -- Activism  1234  14:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But how does that make them more patriotic than others not doing this? --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know how personally patriotic Druze or bedouins feel towards Israel, but as communities, they've been able to make pragmatic decisions which have brought them some practical benefits -- whereas Muslim and Christian peasants and town-dwellers are much more likely to be motivated by abstract rigid inflexible ideologies, and so make decisions on a maximalist "100% of what we want or nothing" or "the best is the enemy of the good" basis (and Muslims in particular are likely to have a burning sense that the world owes them sovereign authority, and that Muslims ruling over non-Muslims is the natural state of affairs, while non-Muslims ruling over Muslims is a grievous insult which must be avenged). Frankly, abstract maximalist and rejectionist ideologies have been the curse of Arabs in the Palestine area for at least the last 65 years, and those subgroups which have been least motivated by such ideologies have come out the best... AnonMoos (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not sure I agree with you on your characterisation of Muslims, but I do appreciate your interpretation of the special characteristics of the Druze regarding this question, it does make it more clear and seems to be a good answer to the original question. I think patriotism is a questionable term to use at random without any kind of specific definition to go with it, and of course it is a very loaded term that is also extremely subjective (one mans terrorism is another mans patriotism and vice versa). --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite. Basically, since the inception of the state, the existing differences between the Druze & others have been used to divide & rule, in a very common pattern. In this conflict, as usual, the abstract rigid inflexible maximalist rejectionist ideology is generally not - or at the very least not solely or predominantly - the province of the ruled & occupied side.John Z (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yet during the British Mandate period, the Yishuv leadership were experts at obtaining incremental practical short-term gains to help consolidate their long-term strength, and not letting fantasy daydreams get in the way of the immediate pragmatic needs of the moment. AnonMoos (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Saddhiyama, the examples make them patriotic because it shows that Arab Bedouins are more than willing to serve in the Israeli army and thwart terrorist attacks, thus recognizing that Israel is their country and taking the voluntary decision to serve that country. They are not required to serve in the Israeli army, unlike other citizens of Israel (since they're Arabs, and it's given that most Arabs would object), who are required.  Rather, many of them volunteer to do so, feeling that they owe something to the state.  The Bedouins are content with their nomadic lifestyle and are free to practice it.  Compare this with other Arab citizens, very few of which serve in the Israeli army, and most of which serve secretly out of fear that members of their community would attack them.  In the Bedouin community, there is no such fear.  Perhaps best way to explain this is to watch this YouTube video of a short interview with a Bedouin soldier and his father, to see their perspective.  Hope it helps. -- Activism  1234  23:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, there are so many variables in your post subject to discussion, but I am going to let it slide, because it will only play into the hands of the OP, who is obviously a ref desk troll, and I am going to stop feeding him. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The OP is a good editor whose using the ref desk in good faith, which should be encouraged, although I find that his posts are questions that can be done on talk pages that experienced editors know, as most editors here aren't going to be able to answer these questions which are typically on the same topic, and would prefer if that could be taken to talk pages (I'd be willing myself)... -- Activism  1234  01:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a troll, but if someone gets emotional or upset when I mention Israel or another topic, then I apologize, but all the topics that I post about are legitimate subjects of discussion. Futurist110 (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're certainly not a troll, but a lot of your legitimate posts have made the ref desk into a mini-Guardian newspaper, in which one small country the size of New Jersey receives disproportionate coverage nearly every day from all other topics. You understand what I'm mean?  There's nothing wrong, it's just awkward and it will mainly be the same people who will answer them. -- Activism  1234  21:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see what you mean. I'll try talking somewhat less about Israel and somewhat more about other countries from now on. For the record, though, some of my past posts do discuss other countries, such as the U.S., the U.S.S.R., Finland, Burma, Pakistan, Iraq, and other countries. Futurist110 (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm entering this discussion late (after an unannounced Wikibreak) to make a few considered remarks on the information proffered above. No doubt all participants wrote to the best of their knowledge and in good faith. My concern is that it be understood that a lengthy exchange of remarks here is no substitute for seeking out and reading authoritative sources on the topic. Bear in mind that a WP page is only as good as its contributors use of verifiable content, and that any source provides only partial information - in both senses (i.e. incomplete and/or biased). Here are some statements which I believe are valid, pertaining to - and in some points contradicting - what's been written above:
 * Druze is the religion of an Arab people. Druze do not marry outside the faith and so have the identity of an ethnic/cultural community.
 * Druze are loyal to the government of the country they live in, which may obligate them for military conscription.
 * A law-abiding citizen's military service and voting behavior do not necessarily indicate a motive of "patriotism".
 * Bedouins in the north of Israel live in villages and towns.
 * Military service by Israeli Bedouins is by no means widely accepted in that community.
 * Sources supporting these statements might be found in the Israeli print media and their electronic editions accessible on the Web. These are produced by journalists practicing their profession by accepted standards, though inclusion or exclusion of content is necessarily determined by their employers' editorial policies. Some relevant information would be kept, and possibly published, by the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, some might be classified for reasons of security. With all due respect, there are some things current inhabitants of Israel are likely to know better about their own communities and their neighbors, than would those who only (or never) visit, but original (primary) research is inadmissable for WP mainspace page content. So while I hope what gets shared here is reliable, I remind us all to bear the caveats in mind and take responsibility for verifying information as we acquire knowledge. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Kaliningrad Oblast
What benefit does Russia get from Kaliningrad Oblast? Why haven't they sold it to Poland or Lithuania? --108.227.27.111 (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Your second question seems to assume that any bit of land that is not contiguous with the main geographical part of the country is of no interest to them. Why hasn't the USA sold Alaska to Canada or Russia?  Countries do not just give up bits of themselves like that.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  06:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It could be a year-round naval port, for one thing. And Lithuania is poor. Indeed, would Poland or Lithuania be interested? Surely some Germans would, but other Germans would be repelled. But let's suppose that nation X wants Kaliningrad. (China or Saudi Arabia could afford it, and might find some use for it.) Yes, common sense says that if (say) Argentina is so keen on (re) acquiring the Malvinas, it should just make an offer for them. But common sense and national dignity clash. (NB national dignity, or anyway his notion of it, seems to be of particular importance to Putin.) Also, the inhabitants of the Malvinas consider themselves British and not Argentinian, and the inhabitants of Kaliningrad consider themselves Russian, even though the EU may beckon. &para; NB this is all just off the top of my head. -- Hoary (talk) 06:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * What does NB mean? Also, I agree with everything you wrote, and I also want to point out that Kaliningrad is a large city (not some small rural area) and thus it has important economic (and strategic) value for Russia. Also, considering that most (or a very large part) of the Soviet casualties during WWII were Russian (Russia formed a majority of the U.S.S.R.'s population at the time), many Russians even today feel that Kaliningrad is their compensation from Germany for being forced to endure so many casualties and damage during WWII. Futurist110 (talk) 06:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nota bene, or "note well". (Or New Brunswick, but that might not apply here.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 08:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See Nota bene, which includes a link through to the Wiktionary article. --Dweller (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Russia's need for a year-round warm water port was a huge concern for the country in the 18th and 19th centuries, but with improvements in shipping technology and operations, and the building of the trans-sib, that's not such a concern any more. If it had to, Russia could operate its commercial and military shipping from Murmansk, Archangel, and Vladivostok alone. St Petersburg's ports (incl. Ust-Luga and Vyborg) are iced about 40 days / year, and can still be operated with icebreakers (with only occasional major closures). To the extent that it still has a blue-water capability, the Russian Navy's fleet is centred around Kola Bay and to a lesser extent Vladivostok - the Russian Navy doesn't harbour (sic) any fantasy about maintaining a strategic ocean-going presence from enclosed seas like the Baltic and Black Sea. But, while not being strategically or economically vital, Kaliningrad is still a major port and a major economic asset.  Between them the Baltic ports handle the majority of Russia's shipping, of which the St Petersburg ports seem to get the lion's share, but Kaliningrad's traffic is growing. The  Port of Kaliningrad is hooked up to the Russian railway and pipeline networks, which means its convenient for the Russians to use, and the transit fees they pay to the Baltic states are a nice earner for them. So (tl;dr) Kaliningrad is not strategically necessary, but it's nice for Russia to have, and profitable to run. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 11:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The article Kaliningrad says "Kaliningrad is the only Russian Baltic Sea port that is ice-free all year round and hence plays an important role in maintenance of the Baltic Fleet". --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Its primary benefit is military in nature — even more so now that the Warsaw Pact is kaput. Having a forward outpost on the Western front is highly advantageous to Russia; giving it up for a cash settlement would be a bad idea even if the Russians were not flush (which they are, at the moment). --Mr.98 (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * But, as I said at the outset, the notion of a nation just selling off bits of itself is wrong-headed. We don't ever need to find reasons to justify why Russia has NOT sold Kaliningrad.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  19:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * To be fair, we are not just talking about giving up parts of your territory but selling it (Mr.98 in particularly noted cash settlement and Russia being flush). Although it's very rare nowadays, it wasn't unheard of in the past with colonialism etc, to sell some of your territory when you were desperate for cash, particularly if you thought someone was just going to take it anyway. E.g. speaking of Alaska and Russia; Alaska Purchase. Nil Einne (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The world has moved on a pace since then. And we should too.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  20:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * But 'moving on' doesn't mean we can't consider what things would be like if it were different. There's nothing wrong with pointing out to the OP their basic misconception, but there's also nothing wrong with explaining even if their misconception wasn't a misconception, their suggestion still made little sense. Also, we have no idea how the world would change in the future so there's even less reason why people shouldn't give the question are more thorough analysis rather then saying people aren't allowed to because someone already pointed out one flaw in the premise. Nil Einne (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Apart from the fact that up above in the rules we explicitly ask people not to ask questions that would involve us engaging in hypothetical discussions. Apparently we regulars are permitted to initiate such hypotheticals ourselves, but outsiders can't initiate them.  Worst double standard I've ever seen.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  10:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course, this ignores the part where we ask why the Russians that live in Kaliningrad would be keen on suddenly being abandoned/sold off by Moscow to some foreign power to which it has no connection. True, it had been a German territory in the past, but the Germans were driven out after World War II, and it's been an almost entirely Russian territory since then.  There are a few smatterings of ethnic minorities there (I believe a small number of Volga Germans were relocated there at some point), but it is basically as Russian as Moscow or St. Petersburg today.  Russia has LOTS of territories which aren't very convenient to hold on to, which is still does (i.e. Chechnya), why it would want to get rid of a loyal, peaceful, productive territory which is populated mostly by ethnic Russians is completely silly.  -- Jayron  32  01:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiosity, has Kaliningrad's isolation provided it any protection against the mafia infiltration that has so blighted the rest of Russia? Wnt (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

do all humans have synesthesia?
like if there is an food flavoring that is clear but tastes like orange, and you put an equal small-ish amount in two glasses of water, but in the second you also put orange food coloring that has no taste - then will people actually "taste" the second glass as having more orange taste? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.3.160.86 (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

not asking what they would say about it - just whether it ACTUALLY "tastes" more ornage-y. (becaues the raw input from taste is mixed with visual cues or knowledge to come up with "sense of taste"). here is another example of two sense affecting each other. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0. --84.3.160.86 (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Have no idea what the experimental results of the test you proposed in your question would be, but I'm not sure that this would really test for synesthesia as such. When I was younger, I had an association between letters of the alphabet or numerical digits and colors -- not activated when I read words and numbers in context, but only when I considered isolated symbols in the abstract -- and this seems to be more what synesthesia in the classic sense is (though a very mild case)... -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I see from our article Synesthesia that that's "Grapheme → color synesthesia" (though I didn't actually see letters or numbers on a printed page as being colored -- only when I contemplated them in my mind's eye with eyes closed). AnonMoos (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The bouba/kiki effect suggests that almost everyone has at least some degree of "synesthesia-like mappings" -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not exactly synesthesia in the strict meaning of the term, but probably all humans have interactions between sensory modalities. You might be interested in the McGurk effect, an even more striking example. Looie496 (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The scenario you propose would not be a case of synesthesia but rather just the power of suggestion; there is no direct interplay between the visual and gustatory processing centers but rather a cognitive influence first suggested by a visual queue but influencing (in your hypothetical) gustatory perception.  This is quite different from the top-down influence of synesthesia where sensory data from two different modules is fused into a single (and automatically unified) perception.  So, this situation does not suggest the influence of synesthesia.  Even so, the answer to your initial question is still yes - the current popular view amongst neuroscientists who have studied synesthesia in its more striking forms is that they are probably not isolated and anomalous conditions so much as they are examples of particularly strong associations in pathways which are common in neurotypical individuals but not as robust as they are in the synesthete.   In other words, synesthesias are not best defined as binary conditions so much as a variation in degree of potency.  Snow (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

National anthems that are fanfares.
I read in our article on national anthems that some countries only use a fanfare as their national anthem. What are particular examples? Is Jordan one? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This webpage, National Anthems of the World: Origins of National Anthems says; "Fanfares: A small group of anthems, mainly those of oil-producing countries in the Middle East (Bahrain and Kuwait) amount to little more than a fanfare-like flourish without text."
 * The National Anthem of Jordan, Al-salam Al-malaki Al-urdoni (Arabic: السلام الملكي الأردني‎ "Long live the Jordanian King"), is a bit fanfare-like, but has lyrics which you can hear on this YouTube clip, meaning "Long live the King! His position is sublime, His banners waving in glory supreme." It has the virtue of brevity, unlike the full version which runs to several verses. Alansplodge (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Badges on UK numberplates
150px|rightThis is not a request for legal advice: I don't even have a driving licence.

On modern UK numberplates there is a space to the left of the registration number where the country code is shown. Below this there is often a badge indicating in which part of the UK the car is registered. Are there any particular restrictions on what badges may be used here, and if so, what? In particular, I often see plates bearing the arms of the Football Association (right) in this position, which I suppose is a mistake for the royal arms of England (left). Is it legitimate to display the emblems of sporting organisations there, or is it in fact restricted to symbols of constituent countries? Marnanel (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Those symbols are discussed in Vehicle registration plates of the United Kingdom, Crown dependencies and overseas territories (it's from the owner's preference, not the place of registration - one could live in England and have a SCO emblem, for example). I don't believe other symbols, beyond those described in the article, are permitted. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 11:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The following does not constitute legal advice. As always, if you want to know the law on something, contact a lawyer. Vehicle registration plates as displayed on a vehicle in the UK must conform to certain specifications. They need to be a certain size, shape and colour, and have writing in a certain font. They must also display either the EU flag, one of the flags of a constituent nation*, or no logo at all. Other logos (including football clubs' & associations') are not permitted. However, it is possible to buy 'vanity plates' to put on your wall, in the front window of your truck or to be used on cars at motorshows. They sometimes have unusual fonts, irregularly spaced letters, or different logos. These plates must not be used on the roads, although it does happen. A car with such a plate will fail its MOT, and cannot be passed until the plates are replaced. Normally, the police have better things to do than pull over cars for having irregular number plates, although if you are pulled over for another offence they will be quite happy to stick on another 3 points (I think) for the dodgy plates.
 * The original purpose of these logos was to do away with the need for an International license plate code when travelling abroad. All vehicles registered in the EU can carry the EU logo and the 2- or 3-letter code for their country on the registration plate. Due to controversy over the display of the EU logo on all British number plates, a compromise was negotiated whereby there was an option to carry a national flag or no logo instead, but those vehicles still need to carry a separate country code sticker when abroad.
 * (*)The permitted flags are: the Union Flag, the English, Welsh or Scottish flags or the EU stars on a 'AB XX CDE' style plate, along with the letters 'UK', 'ENG', 'England', 'CYM', 'Cymru', 'Wales', 'SCO', 'Scotland' or 'GB' as appropriate; and the Union Flag and the letters 'UK', or the EU stars with 'GB' on a 'AIZ 1234' style plate in Northern Ireland. A coat of arms from a Crown Dependency would not be permitted on either of these plate styles, since the Crown Dependencies have separate registration systems and different plate styles. The English coat of arms is similarly not permitted, because it's not on the proscribed prescribed list above. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving slightly away from the question, the Royal Arms of England (three gold lions on a red ground) are widely respected as a Royal emblem and are very rarely seen in England. The only exception I can think of was that in my 1960s childhood, you could buy little sets of paper flags on sticks to decorate sandcastles with, and they always included the three Royal lions of England. I don't know if the College of Heralds eventually caught-up with the manufacturers. The FA lions however, are seen everywhere when there's an international football tournament afoot, but disappear quickly when we crash out of the competition at an annoyingly early stage. Alansplodge (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The College of Heralds in England have very little enforcement authority, as compared with Lord Lyon in Scotland... AnonMoos (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Although the Royal Arms of Scotland. the "Lion Rampant", seems to be used by every Tom, Dick and Jock north of the border. Alansplodge (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I've never noticed either of those two badges on a UK numberplate. Since I noticed this thread earlier this week, I've been actively looking. All I've seen are the flags shown in our article, as linked by Finlay. --93.96.36.99 (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * And that's as it should be. As I say, if you do see a different logo, the driver of the vehicle is breaking the law by driving an unroadworthy vehicle (i.e. a vehicle that, in its current state, would fail an MOT). But most people are law abiding, and it takes a conscious decision to go and buy a vanity plate and put it on your car. Nonetheless, it does happen, although I seem to find that more often it's the font or the spacing of the letters that people change. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Bach Cantata #4
Roger Wagner Chorale; Concert Arts Orchestra; Roger Wagner, conductor; recorded in Hollywood, California in 1960; first issued in January 1961 on Capitol Records SP 8535; re-released transfer from Angel Records S-36014; CD reissue Pristine Audio PACO 071. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.147.236.205 (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a question? Deor (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Michigan legal weirdness
A petition has been signed and approved to place on the ballot a proposal to repeal the Michigan Emergency Manager Law. This part I understand. However, the effect seems to be that the Emergency Manager Law is suspended immediately, until the vote results are counted. This I don't understand. Why does it not stay in effect until the vote ? StuRat (talk) 21:19, 8 August5 2012 (UTC)


 * That does sound strange. Can you provide a reference? It may be easier to understand if we can read the reports for ourselves. --Tango (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * (2nd paragraph). StuRat (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems to come directly from the constitution: "No law as to which the power of referendum properly has been invoked shall be effective thereafter unless approved by a majority of the electors voting thereon at the next general election." . It does seem very strange. It gives a group equal to 5% of the voters at the last gubernatorial election the power to temporarily overrule the elected legislature... I guess the idea is that the legislature shouldn't be able to deprive the people of this right by simply not giving them time to enact it. --Tango (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. StuRat (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know the details of the Michigan referendum procedure, but the Washington state procedure (which seems similar) is that a law goes into effect on a certain date, unless a petition with a sufficient number of signatures is submitted before that date, in which case a vote on the law is part of the next general election, and if passed, the law goes into effect the day the election is certified. Referendums don't suspend the law because the law never went into effect in the first place.  (See Washington Referendum 74 (2012) for the most recent invocation of the process.) --Carnildo (talk) 03:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That seems a bit more reasonable, since it prevents the law from going into effect, rather than suspending an existing law. The Michigan law seems likely to cause chaos. StuRat (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I will mark this Q resolved. StuRat (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

East Jerusalem Arabs and Israel

 * http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-09-19/east-jerusalem-palestinian-state-arab-israel/50470736/1
 * http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=203269

Why have only 5% of East Jerusalem Arabs accepted Israeli citizenship so far when a very recent poll showed that at least 35% of them would prefer to continue living under Israeli rule? Was the poll that came up with the 35% figure flawed, or is there another reason, such as many East Jerusalem Arabs wanting to have dual Israeli-Palestinian citizenship but being afraid that if they accept Israeli citizenship before a Palestinian state is created, they will be denied Palestinian citizenship later on due to fear of having dual loyalties? Also, this is a separate but related question--how come no politician (at least to my knowledge) has proposed holding a referendum in all the Arab East Jerusalem neighborhoods (excluding the Old City, since that's a special case) to determine if these neighborhoods should belong to Israel or Palestine in a final peace deal? At least with a referendum, none of the sides can complain that they didn't get as much as they could have gotten in Jerusalem. Futurist110 (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's difficult to answer that, as people can have a variety of reasons. What you mentioned could be significant, also there could be social pressure among Palestinian Arabs/Muslims against holding Israeli citizenship. - Lindert (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The answer to the second question is easy: No one wants to split Jerusalem. Even along the most general lines of Arab/Jewish neighborhoods, no one is really that keen on the idea. And, given the fact that the neighborhoods are often distributed haphazardly, with little regard for geography or contiguousness, such a solution would probably not be practical anyway. Regarding the first question, I'd say Lindert's thoughts regarding social pressures are a strong possibility. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 22:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Your statement about no one wanting to split Jerusalem is inaccurate. Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert offered to divide Jerusalem in a final peace treaty in the past, and likewise Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas demanded that Israel divide Jerusalem when they were negotiating with Israel. It's true that some Israeli politicians (such as current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu) oppose dividing Jerusalem, but there is no consensus among Israeli politicians about whether or not Jerusalem should stayed united under Israeli control. Futurist110 (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Allow me to rephrase that: No one with any great amount of political power currently wants to divide Jerusalem. As long as Likud and friends are in power, it's highly unlikely that any two-state solution that entails a divided city is going to be agreed upon. Yasser Arafat is dead, and Abbas has had little credibility with the majority of Palestinians for years. In 2009, the Palestinian Authority refused to endorse even the basic principle of a two-state solution, so even if significant portions of the civilian population want a divided city, the leaders currently in place on both sides are either dead-set against it (Netanyahu), or highly unlikely to be able to effect it (Abbas), even through a plebiscite. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 23:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your examples though are cases of Israeli leaders offering concessions to Palestinian leaders, and this hasn't happened yet the other way around regarding Jerusalem. Also, I find it tough to imagine the Israeli public (not just right-wing) accepting a divided Jerusalem, if that ever happens, which I doubt it will.  Note that Yitzchak Rabin, who started the "peace process" with Oslo, specifically said he opposed dividing Jerusalem.
 * The Arabs in East Jerusalem (and Golan Heights) were offered citizenship following the 1967 war. Most refused, not wanting to recognize Israeli sovereignty.  Since then, those have been permanent residents, but they have municipal voting rights and are entitled to municipal services.  Since then, as that poll indicates, many of them have seen how life under Israeli rule differs from that under Palestinian rule, and prefer Israeli rule, although are not yet ready to accept citizenship and become actual citizens.  This is despite the fact that the poll shows that more East Jerusalem Arabs would prefer Israeli citizenship over Palestinian citizenship.  Thus, it is possible that they simply haven't accepted Israeli citizenship yet due to social pressure, although they would prefer it.  -- Activism  1234  23:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In regards to my statements about Israeli leaders making concessions to Palestinians in Jerusalem, my point was that there is no unanimous consensus in Israeli politics not to divide Jerusalem. As for the Palestinians, they made some concessions on the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem in the past, but not on the Arab neighborhoods (at least not yet). As for Rabin, he said that he opposed dividing Jerusalem, but that's what Barak and Olmert also said and then proceeded to offer Jerusalem up for re-division afterwards. This is especially interesting in the case of Barak, who was aware that Peres lost to Netanyahu just 4 years earlier partially due to Netanyahu's allegations that Peres would divide Jerusalem. It's possible that Rabin would have also embraced the division of Jerusalem had he survived, especially if he would have been Prime Minister or another prominent official at the time of the 2000 Camp David Summit. Barak was aware that refusing to agree to divide Jerusalem could certainly mean that the U.S. (and the world) would put some or all of the blame for the summit's failure on Israel. Barak was not prepared for that, and I'm not sure that Rabin would have been prepared for Israel to get blamed either.


 * You're right that a vote for the re-division of Jerusalem might or might not pass a public referendum in Israel (which is required by Israeli law right now). There have been a number of polls asking Israelis about the division of Jerusalem, and the results so far have been mixed, since I've seen some polls where a majority said that they opposed re-dividing Jerusalem but also some polls where a majority said that they supported a final peace deal based on the Clinton Parameters and the Geneva Initiative (both of which call for Jerusalem to be re-divided). Futurist110 (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

- Futurist110 -- the 5% citizenship statistic is not too surprising, since changing citizenship would require them to make an irrevocable decision (burning the bridges behind them in a rather final way), and take the risk that their family's place of residence wouldn't end up in Israel in a final settlement, etc. The far more self-defeating action is actually the boycotting of Jerusalem municipal elections, since this ensures that East Jerusalem's interests receive an even lower priority than might otherwise be the case, in the service of some kind of theoretical political rhetoric. The Palestinians are long-term experts in shooting themselves in the foot and denying themselves immediate pragmatic and practical short-term gains and accomplishments in the name of abstract maximalist and rejectionist ideologies. AnonMoos (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, there would be a practical point in accepting Israeli citizenship since that will guarantee that your residency permit in Jerusalem will not be revoked. Also, if one has Israeli citizenship, then one can move to other parts of Israel outside of Jerusalem, and one would also be able to vote in Israeli national elections. If one expects that one's place of residence will end up in Israel anyway, then the only reason why one wouldn't accept Israeli citizenship right now is due to the fear of being denied Palestinian citizenship later on (if one wants dual citizenship). I strongly agree with you that it's especially stupid that East Jerusalem Arabs don't vote in municipal elections (which they can do even without being Israeli citizens), either due to strong social pressures or fear of rejection by their communities afterwards. Maybe if more Arabs voted in Jerusalem there would be much more government efforts to improve the lives of East Jerusalem Arabs, thus causing their financial situation to improve. Futurist110 (talk) 01:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I also want to point out that the reason that I asked about holding a referendum in each Arab East Jerusalem neighborhood was that the international community, some American officials (Bill Clinton, etc.), and even some Israeli politicians have completely embraced the Palestinian position on Jerusalem. A much fairer and more neutral proposal for solving the dispute over East Jerusalem would be to hold a neighborhood by neighborhood (with the exception of the Old City) referendum there. I don't see how either side would be able to wiggle out of accepting this proposal (if the referendum was monitored by neutral observers to make sure that it was free and fair), considering that both the Jews and the Arabs in Israel/Palestine have consistently argued for national self-determination for several decades by now. Futurist110 (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Old City is one of THE obstacles in the peace process. The other neighborhoods can be negotiated. It's the Old City that is a tough one.  Palestinians claim it as Islam's 3rd holiest site and their capital, while Jews claim it as their #1 holiest site and are scared of a 1949-1967 situation if they give it up, in which Jewish religious sites would be destroyed and Jews would not be allowed into the city, compared with the current situation in which every religion is allowed. -- Activism  1234  01:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In regards to the Old City, I think that either the status quo should remain or that some (such as the Temple Mount) or all of it should be put under international control. Do you honestly think that the Palestinians would be willing to give up all the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem to Israel in exchange for having parts of all of the Old City be put under international control? To be honest, I don't see what huge value the Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem outside of the Old City have for the Palestinians. Futurist110 (talk) 02:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * However, I think that if the Temple Mount becomes an international zone Israel should demand that the same be done to the Cave of the Patriarchs and other places that are important to both Jews and Muslims. I don't see the fairness in internationalizing the Temple Mount while letting the Palestinians have sovereignty over Jewish holy sites. Futurist110 (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

When did Russian unmarried women reach legal majority?
I have been told that in the 19th-century, all unmarried women in Europe - with the exception of Great Britain, as I understand - was under the guardianship of the nearest male relative their entire life. This started to change with legal reforms in the late 19th-century.

My question is: when was the law changed in Russia, to allowed unmarried women to be regarded as capable in the eyes of the law?

I recently read that in the 1860s, radical Russian women in intellectual circles entered in to marriages with male intellectuals merely to escape guardianship and separate afterwards on mutual consent, as the marriage was arranged by the couple only to free the woman from guardianship.

By that, I conclude that Russia was not an exception such as Great Britain, but that unmarried women were under guardianship there as well. When was this changed? Was it not until the 1900s? Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's complex, but a good place to start your research would be Women's rights. It took over a century, but there was serious intellectual consideration given to full equality for women as early as the late 18th century, in Britain Mary Wollstonecraft published A Vindication of the Rights of Woman in 1792, and a few years prior Abigail Adams was writing letters to her husband John in the early years of the United States in the Continental Congress to press for women's rights.  In France at around the same time, Olympe de Gouges was agitating in France much the same way as Mary Wollstonecraft and Abigail Adams was in France.  I'm not exactly sure what the situation was in Russia, per se, at the same time Category:Women's rights by country does not seem to have an article for Russia.  Digging around a bit, I did find Timeline of women's rights (other than voting) which has some interesting entries for Russia, which have references.  The Russian references are cited to this Book titled Women is Russia: 1700-2000, which may give you somewhere to start your research.  -- Jayron  32  01:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In the common-law countries, the main governing principle was Coverture (a restriction on married women only) until various Married Women's Property Acts started being passed in the second half of the 19th century. In much of continental Europe during the 19th century, forms of Code Napoleon prevailed; this was overall somewhat regressive, but sometimes gave married women more property rights than traditional common law did. Don't think any of this has much to do with Russia... AnonMoos (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If have checked the book linked above, but I could not find this answer. My question pertains to unmarried women, rather than married ones. Reading about the history of women's rights, the question does not seem to be that complex: each country have a clear year, when the unmarried woman was declared of legal majority - in Sweden, for example, that was in 1858, in Denmark in 1857, and so forth. I am looking for the year for Russia. It is somewhat odd, of course, that England is the only example in the Western World were unmarried women was not placed under guardianship, but so it seems. In no country other than England, as far as I am aware, was unmarried women free from guardianship. --Aciram (talk) 10:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)