Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 January 7

= January 7 =

Aragon
What body had the power to choose the King of Aragon during the 1400s? Did the Barcelonan Consell de Cent have any rights to choose the King of Aragon? Understand that I am using a very loose termology for the word choose since the Kingdom of Aragon was only ceremonially elective at that point in history.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The article Compromise of Caspe may be useful to read. -- Jayron  32  01:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The underground war
I want to write an article about an underground war. I am looking for an authoritative source. Странник27 (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What underground war, specifically? If it's underground then it may be a little difficult to find sources. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't unnderstand the question. By "underground war", do you mean a battle fought by badgers?  A war fought in secret?  Do you want information on one in particular, or any such conflict? --Saalstin (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I suppose he wants to make another fake article which will just get deleted anyway, as with his previous requests. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a guerrilla war, is that what you mean ? StuRat (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Are there any non-military companies, organizations or countries whose secrecy rivals (or at least matches or is close to) that of Apple?
Apple is extremely notorious for secrecy that makes the CIA, FBI and even North Korea look like amateurs. But is there any company that does not work for the military, organization or country on Earth that has nothing to do with the military whose secrecy is even close to theirs? Honestly, I can't think of any (major) company or country that has such a level of secrecy (except North Korea), not even half of theirs, and even when a company is secretive, it is only focused on one part of the company (like trade secrets) but usually not the company as a whole; the only company I can remember was a small solar-power company called Bloom Energy (don't know if they're still in business); Apple is so secretive that it is likely to be the most secretive group of people of any kind in the world. And as a side question, exactly when and why did their obsession with secrecy begin in the first place? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Swiss banks? Probably many companies providing services to the wealthy. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If a company plants to fill a patent, it has to keep things secret. If the things are worth something, the secrecy has to be tight. Apple is hardly an exemption here. 88.9.214.197 (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Many many technology companies are secretive like that. That's just part of doing business. Apple is not unusual in that regard.  It's vital to keep your technical details secret until you've filed your patent, and it's vital to keep your product details secret until your scheduled announcement.  The technical details are kept secret to avoid them being ripped off, and the product details are kept secret to give competitors as little time as possible to "top" them. (While still leaving enough time for your advertising people to do their magic. It's a balancing act.) 00:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's hard to compare, or even evaluate, levels of corporate secrecy, but certainly in the 80's IBM had a reputation for it similar to that of Apple today. I recall a story in the 80's that a different division of IBM was working on its own comparable machine at the same time as the PC was being developed, and that it actually launched at about the same time: the story ran that it was quickly withdrawn and hushed up. I have no evidence for that though, and I think it would be hard to research. But stories of that kind, whether true or not, are indicative of the way that IBM's secrecy was regarded. --ColinFine (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Apple appears unusually secret because they're well-known, high-profile, and the fact of their secrecy is widely discussed. A less publicly high-profile company with similarly tight secrecy policies isn't going to seem "secret" in the same way.
 * That said, they benefit from a set of circumstances which make extensive secrecy easy. Not all businesses have this opportunity - if you're drilling for oil, you need public disclosure of sites for regulatory reasons, and you can't hide an oil rig anyway. An aerospace firm could theoretically design and build a new aircraft secretly (with great effort), but the limited market means that Boeing or Airbus has to announce their plans a decade in advance in order to get orders placed. A retailer wanting to diversify into new regions has to buy sites, which is hard to keep secret, and so forth. For Apple, on the other hand, almost all their work is either intangible software/services (and so can be kept entirely in-house until release) or involves a manufacturing and distribution chain which the company controls. Their physical products are small and nonspecialised enough to be tested in-house, and there is a large market available to recieve them. They only have to make very limited regulatory disclosures, allowing them to avoid releasing much information except on their own terms. Shimgray | talk | 13:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that Apple's secrecy appears higher than other companies' because there is a public demand (as in supply and demand) for information about their future products. Few people outside the business will care about what the next generation Airbus will look like, but Apple users would want to know the minutest technical details of products that are still on the drawing board.Sjö (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Apple's secrecy does not make the FBI and CIA look like amateurs. Apple does not require its employees to hide their identity and breach of the secrets would not lead to the death penalty or life imprisonment.  Apple does not send FBI agents to investigate your background prior to employment.  Apple does not conduct psychological examinations on its employees as a prerequisite for employment.  Ask yourself what would happen to a CIA agent for leaving the secret files in a bar and what would happen to an Apple employee for leaving an iPhone prototype in a bar.  Your idea that Apple's secrecy makes government intelligence agencies look like amateurs is misconceived.  What are the most secret corporations in the country?  Lawfirms.  If any of the information about a client escapes the custody of the firm, the lawyers responsible to the client can loose their license and face prison.  Lawyers are responsible for keeping client information safe.  If someone steals it under their nose, they are responsible for the leak.  At Apple, you get fired and can get a job elsewhere, at a law firm you loose your ability to practice law and can face criminal indictment.  Apple's secrecy does not make the FBI and the CIA look like amateurs. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny story, and slightly OR, but I've met the guy that left the iPhone 4 in the bar and he didn't even get fired. 76.202.195.236 (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you can't think of many highly secretive organisations other than Apple suggests 1. That, like most of us, you have a very limited view of what's on this planet and 2. That the companies you can't think of are doing a great job of being secretive! 213.120.209.210 (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know any good quotes relating to beginning/ amateur poets?
Hi all, I was writing my first ever sonnet, and I knew it would be pretty horrible, but it turned out so bad that I had to finish it with: "This illustrates an oft-repeated theme/ Beginning poets should stick to..." then I can't think of anything. Is there any "official" line (ie. the word of snobs) on how amateur/ bad poets should go about hiding their badness? I know there's plenty of stuff, like this, about how they usually don't hide their faults, but I felt there had to be some genuine advice from the masters to the wannabes, either telling them how to hide it or (as an alternative) how to identify lack of talent. IBE (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I ask myself, how should I hide, the badness of my verse?
 * And what would be left on the page when hidden be this curse?
 * Good poetry? How could that be? If talent I do lack?
 * The bottom line, is simply that, the page would just be bla(n/c)k. (Ouch...)
 * By the way, you're in good company See also: This article --NorwegianBluetalk 20:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * More seriously, a prerequisite for writing good prose, poetry or whatever, is that you have a story to tell that is worth remembering. Poetry predates literacy, and originated as a device for propagating information unaltered from generation to generation ( &mdash; yes, I know ). Rhythm and rhyme make your story easier to remember, and more difficult to change without breaking the rhythm or the rhyme. Kind of like a checksum. I interpret your question as being primarily about the technicalities of rhythm and rhyme. ( My feeble attempt above proves that I am totally unqualified in giving advice about that ). But keep in mind that no amount of wordsmithery can make a dull story exciting. --NorwegianBluetalk 00:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The only way yo be a good writer (of any sort) is to let yourself be a bad writer and force yourself to read what you write. think of it as literary homeopathy - poison yourself with your own writing and your brain will scramble to write better out of sheer self-preservation.  Don't show anything to anyone until you can read through it all the way yourself without wincing or gagging.  Then show it to people to see what they wince and gag at.


 * Remember, even professionals start out bad. Frost's first draft of Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening started out: "Whose woods these are I think I know./His house is in the village though;/He will not see me stopping here/To drink a half a cask of beer."  Or so I'm told, anyway…    -- Ludwigs 2  01:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

A good illustration of the principle that asking a quirky question can get you a really interesting answer. (NB I don't personally care much about NOR on the ref desks, since it's impossible to police it here.) Curiously, there are mentions of the poverty of inspiration in several places in Shakespeare's sonnets - in fact it was Sonnets 100 and 101 that inspired me to have a go. I mean, if he can't do it, there's a good chance that I might not be able to either, and since it didn't stop him... Basically it seems whenever Shakespeare addresses his Muse in his sonnets, he's having a whinge at her for lack of inspiration. Maybe if he'd started with a prayer to the Muse in the first sonnet he wouldn't have found himself writing a complaint later. And maybe he would have written a much longer poem. IBE (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just between you and me, I've always been more fond of Keats' sonnets than Shakespeare's. Shakespeare was a playwright; not that his poetry was bad, but it wasn't his forte. -- Ludwigs 2  06:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * And since we're talking off the record, I've always thought Shakespeare was overrated in many ways, but I have a grudging admiration for even the worst of his writing. Personally I can sympathise with bits of Tolstoy's essay, and I could never take Lear seriously on psychological grounds. I just like the fancy dialogue. IBE (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * George Orwell thought Tolstoy disliked Lear so much because of the similarity of Tolstoy's later life to Lear... --Shirt58 (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Tolstoy was only getting started with Shakespeare. He wrote to Anton Chekhov, You know I can't stand Shakespeare's plays, but yours are even worse.  He was a good hater, old Fatso Tolstoy. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  08:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you know, Shakespeare was kind of the George Lucas of his day, given more to iconic moments with broad public appeal than real artistry (think of Hamlet's soliloquy as roughly equivalent in impact and function as the light-sabre battle between Vader and Obi-Wan). I can see why Tolstoy hated him: Tolstoy was erudite and tended to write characters with a vast nobility of spirit; in Shakespeare everyone is crude, rude, and boisterous (add jocularly cynical for the comedies and myopically self-centeredly for the tragedies).  Tolstoy couldn't help but look at Shakespeare with the same attitude he'd look at a poem starting "There was a young lady from Kent…"  -- Ludwigs 2  17:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Pope's An Essay on Criticism might be the sort of thing the OP is looking for. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That is a great essay - I only wish it were an essay, rather than a secret code that only poets know. Still, I think it's telling me things I have long been aware of, but wanted a more literary source for. Yes, when you hear "You hurt me, and you make me cry" you know what's coming - "But if you leave me," ... much appreciate the link, IBE (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

New Hampshire Primaries
Which states have tried to move their primary before New Hampshire? --CGPGrey (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Does the info in the Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012 article help? RudolfRed (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

What title would Camilla have if she outlives Charles?
If Charles, as king, is outlived by Camilla, what would her title be? Quasi-Queen Mother? --90.220.162.186 (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * She will retain her current title - Dutchess of Cornwall. Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But what if William has a male heir apparent? --90.220.162.186 (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe she becomes the Dowager Queen. Queens retain the title of "Queen" after the death of their husband, see Mary of Teck. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother got that title as a courtesy, to avoid confusion with her daughter (also Queen Elizabeth). This is all assuming Camilla receives the title of "Queen". It may not happen, she may just retain the title of Duchess of Cornwall as Blueboar said. And besides which, Charles may not succeed his mother... --TammyMoet (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Our article Queen Dowager explains the situation in more detail, and also the difference between a Queen Dowager and a Queen Mother. Camilla would, of course, not be the latter but would be the former. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) Ah... I had forgotten that the title of "Duke of Cornwall" is traditionally (by statute?) granted to eldest male heir of the Monarch... so... presumably when Charles becomes King, the title "Duke of Cornwall" will be transferred to his eldest son, William (and Kate would presumably become "Duchess of Cornwall")... if so, King Charles will have to come up with a new title for his wife (This will probably be "Duchess of ____" with the blank filled in by one of several Dukedoms that are directly attached to the Monarch... perhaps "Duchess of Lancaster"). Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This BBC News article should clear things up. The plan is for her to use the style Princess Consort. --Tango (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think a "Queen Camilla" would considerably advance the cause of republicanism in the UK.   D b f i r s   19:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So, it's OK for her to be the Queen, as long as nobody calls her "Queen", eh? Who's fooling whom here?  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  19:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Putting up with her being in the background might be accepted with just a minimum of resentment, but actually calling her queen would reawaken republicanism, in my opinion, but we'll see .... perhaps Charlie will abdicate, or perhaps he won't outlive his mother?    D b f i r s   13:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that is an outdated view. In the UK, the "Diana thing" is, for the overwhelming majority of people, ancient history now, and I suspect that Camilla is at least as popular as her husband.  Which might not be saying a lot, but she is certainly much less unpopular than she was a few years ago.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, the title Duke of Cornwall is inherited by the eldest son of the reigning monarch either at birth or at their parent's accession to the throne. Prince Charles became Duke of Cornwall the moment his mother became Queen, which was the moment his grandfather George VI died.  Should Elizabeth die tomorrow, Charles would become King and his elder son William would automatically become Duke of Cornwall; he'd continue to also be Duke of Cambridge and Prince William.  See Duke of Cornwall and Duchy of Cornwall.
 * As for Camilla, she couldn't continue to be Duchess of Cornwall, because that title would now belong to William's wife Catherine. Camilla could be the Dowager Duchess of Cornwall, at least until such time as William died before becoming King himself, in which case Catherine would be the Dowager Duchess.  The Duke of Cornwall would then go into abeyance because it belongs to the eldest son of the monarch, not the eldest surviving son (Harry).  When Charles dies, the eldest son of whoever succeeds him would be the new Duke of Cornwall (Will's eldest child would be the new monarch if Will's already dead; but if he died without issue, it'd be King Henry IX) . --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  19:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any precedent for the term "Dowager" being used when a woman's husband has ceased to be the current holder of title due to becoming King, rather than death? --Tango (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I very much doubt it. Dowager says A dowager is a widow who holds a title or property, or dower, derived from her deceased husband. It's never applied to wives of living people.  Apart from subverting the word to mean something it just doesn't mean, and confusing the whole royal-watching world in the process, why would the consort of a very much alive reigning king not want to be known as Queen?  (They say Camilla will be called "Princess Consort", but time will tell.)  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  23:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Duke of Cambridge will become the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cornwall, the Duchess of Cambridge will become the Princess of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall. Sleigh (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's right, as long as Charles deems to make him Prince of Wales, which he is not required to do. Charles himself was not created Prince of Wales until 1958, when he was 9 years old.  If Will's given the nod, he would generally be referred to as "Prince William the Prince of Wales" but he would still hold whatever other titles he has.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  01:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Before his creation as Duke of Cambridge, Prince William's official title was "Prince William of Wales". The name sewn on his RAF uniform was "Wales", as it was for Harry. (By the way, Prince Charles's investiture as Prince of Wales took place in 1969.) --TammyMoet (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, 1969. But an investiture to a Prince of Wales is like a coronation to a monarch: They always postdate the person’s occupation of the office involved. Prince of Wales says: Princes of Wales may be invested, but investiture is not necessary to be created Prince of Wales.  As I said, Charles was created PofW on 26 July 1958.  He was not invested until 1 July 1969 but he’d still been PofW since 1958.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  09:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So... to get back to the original question... What title will she have when Charles dies? That depends on a) whether Charles outlives Queen Elizabeth, and b) if he does what title Camilla is given when Elizabeth dies... and while there is lots of speculation as to what title will be given to Camilla when Elizabeth dies... the real answer is: We don't know... yet. Blueboar (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A world away from your original answer - but that's a good thing in this case. :)  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * While it's true that she could no longer be "Duchess of Cornwall" once William had succeeded to the Duchy, surely recent examples would indicate that she could still be called "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall" --rossb (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. That form is used by women who divorced their ducal husbands (Diana and Fergie). More to the point, though, is that Charles would now be king, so surely his consort also gets an upgrade in title, even if only to "Princess Consort".  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  09:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But see Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark which would actually suggest she might be "Princess Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall" (Marina was of course a princess in her own right, which complicates the issue in her case). The point being that there can only be one "Duchess of X" at any one time, but previous Duchesses can apparently use the title with a qualification such as their Christian name and perhaps other titles. --rossb (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Marina never used the form "Marina, Duchess of Kent". It was "Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent", a unique combination that (a) recognised she was Princess in her own right (and always had been, even when she was known simply as "Duchess of Kent" when her husband was alive), and (b) avoided her having to use the form "Dowager Duchess of Kent" in order to distinguish herself from her new daughter-in-law, the new Duchess of Kent.  The point I rely on is that the wives of kings are queens, and all their earlier titles go by the wayside.  Camilla is a special and unique case already, being the Princess of Wales but not being so-called.  We've been told that when Charles becomes king, she will become "Princess Consort".  (I don't quite believe that; I believe she will in fact become "Queen Camilla" - but we cannot know either way until the time comes.)  I see no value in speculating on other, lower titles when we've already been told the decision has been made that she will be called "Princess Consort"  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So, Princess Dowager? --90.220.162.186 (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Where did that come from? --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  23:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

US House of Representative and Senate seats New York Dearborn Minneapolis
Which district of House of Representative does New York City fall into? Which district of House of Representative does Dearborn, Michigan fall into? Which district of House of Representative does Minneapolis, Minnesota fall into? Which district of House of Senate does New York City fall into? Which district of House of Senate does Dearborn fall into? Which district of House of Senate does Minneapolis fall into? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.66 (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * New York City is covered by more than one district.  You can look up the districts by zip code at house.gov or try this map.  RudolfRed (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You can see maps of the House of Representatives districts at New York's congressional districts, Michigan's congressional districts, and Minnesota's congressional districts. The United States Senate does not have districts.  Every senator is elected by the whole state "at large".  You can see each state's two senators at List of current United States Senators.  -- Jayron  32  20:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As to why the districts for the House of Representatives look the way they do: see our article on Gerrymandering. Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am assuming (as the previous answers have done) that the OP is asking about houses of congress, rather than houses of the state legislature -- but I'm not sure. At the federal level,  GovTrack.us seems to say that Dearborn is divided between the 13th, 14th, and 15th congressional districts.  Boundaries may have changed as a result of the 2010 census, but the maps at NationalAtlas.gov don't have enough detail to show city boundaries.
 * Here are pages from the Michigan Legislature for the state house and state senate from which you can find members and districts. --- OtherDave (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)