Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 November 4

= November 4 =

How would Romney improve healthcare and education?
1) How will Romneycare improve over Obamacare?

2) What does Romney plan to do with higher education - costs, student loans, etc.?

3) How would Romney help college students and anyone shortly out of college? How would he harm such demographics?

I haven't decided who to vote for. Your answers could sway it! Thanks. --Let Us Update Dusty Articles 00:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I numbered your items. However, his answers are all quite vague, so nobody really knows.  His argument is basically "I haven't worked out the details, but trust me, I will".  In my case, I don't trust politicians that much. StuRat (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's try to give only answers that come with references. Otherwise this is going to descend into partisan bickering, name calling, and just get hatted or removed immediately. It's a good question and an important one, but if we the answerers can't treat it with some seriousness we know what will happen to it. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please refer to Political positions of Mitt Romney.A8875 (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That article must be getting pretty long by now. Isn't it about time to split it up into Political positions of Mitt Romney on Monday morning, Political positions of Mitt Romney on Monday afternoon, etc.? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't bother with the trouble; the article will be gone pretty soon. Romney only has 4 days of relevance left in him. A8875 (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you folks just imagine what all this looks like to non-partisan non-Americans. Bring on Wednesday I say! (And delete this pointless thread now.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) It's a tragedy that the impartiality and NPOV I presume is evident in the Romney article and similar ones is not being practised here. We really ought to have a rule about not advocating for or against either side when it comes to answering political questions. That's if we want to consider ourselves a credible and professionally organised reference desk. -- Jack of Oz  [Talk]  02:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The jokes are clearly set out in small text, and follow after a serious, non-partisan response. Then there are two complaints about the jokes, I guess, and last (so far) this summary. I'd be very happy to everything, including this comment, starting from A8875's first comment on down, hatted or deleted. Opinions? All In favour? Aye Bielle (talk) 04:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd hardly call the first post (StuRat's) non-partisan. He wasn't necessarily supporting the other guy, but he was definitely passing judgement on Romney's campaign.  The "nobody really knows" bit was quite inappropriate, and totally inaccurate.  I'm quite sure many of Romney's supporters could tell you in great detail whatever it is he's on about.  Hence Mr 98's comment. If Stu doesn't know, he should leave it for those who do have some idea.   --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  05:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Just looking at Romney's proposed budget, we get this statement from the first Presidential debate :

'ROMNEY: Which is -- which is my experience as a governor is if I come in and -- and lay down a piece of legislation and say, "It's my way or the highway," I don't get a lot done. What I do is the same way that Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan worked together some years ago. When Ronald Reagan ran for office, he laid out the principles that he was going to foster. He said he was going to lower tax rates. He said he was going to broaden the base. You've said the same thing, you're going to simplify the tax code, broaden the base.

Those are my principles. I want to bring down the tax burden on middle-income families. And I'm going to work together with Congress to say, OK, what -- what are the various ways we could bring down deductions, for instance? One way, for instance, would be to have a single number. Make up a number, $25,000, $50,000. Anybody can have deductions up to that amount. And then that number disappears for high-income people. That's one way one could do it. One could follow Bowles-Simpson as a model and take deduction by deduction and make differences that way. There are alternatives to accomplish the objective I have, which is to bring down rates, broaden the base, simplify the code, and create incentives for growth.'


 * It's quite clear from this statement that he doesn't actually have a budget to present, but just a a set of general principles. The same is also true in the areas the OP asked about.  Romney just hasn't released much in the way of details, saying he will work all those out later.  So, the OP then has to decide if he trusts Romney, or indeed any politician, to "work out the details later".  The only opinion I offered is that I don't trust politicians to do so. StuRat (talk) 05:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, of course, we haven't had a budget for three years or so, so surely not setting one out in detail for the next four isn't going to count against either candidate. - Nunh-huh 13:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * But not passing a budget isn't quite the same as not even proposing one. StuRat (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's pretty much identical in terms of effect. A budget proposal that can't get even a single "yes" vote in the Senate isn't a serious budget proposal. - Nunh-huh 19:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * However, only if a budget is proposed, do you really know what the person who proposed it stands for. They can say they're for everything good (like strong military and low taxes) and against everything bad (like deficits), until it comes down to putting numbers of what they would fund and what they wouldn't. StuRat (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I even have my doubts about the original question. It was inevitable that opinions would comprise the majority of answers. HiLo48 (talk) 05:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The link provided by A8875 was fine; exactly what we're supposed to do in answer to such a question. Odd that Bielle says that's one of the ones that should be hatted.  Can you explain your thinking, Bielle?  --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  05:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I dunno. It's obvious that what some Americans (and most of the rest of the world) would regard as an improvement to health care, many Americans regard as some sort of infringement on their human rights. So the word "improve" was provocative. HiLo48 (talk) 05:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. "Improve" was the wrong word. "Change" would be the right word. Not that it's necessarily much more answerable, but it's got possibilities. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) One thing which should be clarified is that Romney wants "Romneycare" to be passed by individual states, not the Federal Government. That is, he wants to repeal "Obamacare", then leave it to the states to handle the uninsured.  So far, of course, very few states have done so. StuRat (talk) 05:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You really shouldn't be voting if you are unfamiliar with the constitution, which gives responsibility to the states or the people for local issues like education. See the tenth amendment, and stay home until you comprehend it. μηδείς (talk) 05:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution overrides the 10th to a significant extent. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why there's no Department of Eduation at the federal level. - Nunh-huh 13:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How smart is it to vote without being aware that, in practice, the Tenth Amendment has been shredded? —Tamfang (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That's democracy for you! HiLo48 (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It could be worse - the ignorant ones who normally don't vote might live in a country where they're required to vote. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, it's good to know that only the well informed vote in the US. HiLo48 (talk) 06:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, in the USA we have freedom of choice. Voting is a right, not a requirement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm well aware of that. HiLo48 (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

People's squeamishness over plot details
While I would normally ask a question about spoilers on the Entertainment ref desk, I hope to get more relevant answers here. People tend to avoid reading about plot details before seeing works, or from disclosing such details to people. However, according to an article an article I've read, this habit is actually relatively modern and did not exist or was more subdued during historical times. The same article also suggests that many people actually enjoy a work more after learning the ending, because it allows readers/views to focus on the details and events leading to that ending. Basically, my question is, from a psychological perspective, exactly why do people avoid spoilers? I know that it's usually to enjoy a work better, but this would contradict the findings of a study in the aforementioned link (although I'm not sure how reliable it is). That is, why do they avoid them, from a psychological perspective rather than a practical perspective? Also, at around what era did people start avoiding such plot details? Did it coincide with the arrival of the internet, or around the increase in popularity of movies in the early 20th century? And have there ever been studies on the psychological effects of spoilers? (apart from the aforementioned one) Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Some thoughts:


 * 1) Not everybody does. There are perennial favorites we watch over and over, although by now most of us have figured out that Scrooge turns over a new leaf in the end.  (If he got hacked up with an axe, by Bob Cratchett, just once, it would be a refreshing change, though.)


 * 2) Surprise endings only work without spoilers. A typical Hollywood film, where you know how it's going to end before it even starts; not so much. StuRat (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily... I don't know if you have ever seen the movie The Sting... but most people find it even more enjoyable the second time around... when you know how it ends, and the surprise ending isn't a surprise. (You are now on the "inside" of the con, and see the plot from a totally different perspective.) Blueboar (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Perfect example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I remember being surprised again by the false ending of Vertigo, enough years having passed that I'd forgotten about it. It's now one of my top-three all-time favorite films and it's hard to believe I could have. --Trovatore (talk) 09:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think I enjoyed Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (the first time I watched it) far more (eg, than episodes I and II) because I knew what was to become of Anakin. There were a lot of nuances that I probably would have missed if I hadn't know the outcome. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that was actually part of the reason that 4, 5, & 6 were released first.165.212.189.187 (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Romeo and Juliet both die. HiLo48 (talk) 07:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My sister tells that, on the way out of the theater, having just seen Romeo + Juliet (the modern-set Leonardo di Caprio version), she overheard a couple of high-school girls behind her, one of them sobbing "I can't believe they died!" --Trovatore (talk) 09:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. I guess there was a first time for me too. Can't recall sobbing though. And I wonder if that girl would watch it again? HiLo48 (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The only reason to sob in that anecdote is over the fact those kids had no idea what the plotline of Romeo and Juliet is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Shakespeare clearly didn't care about spoilers, because the prologue of Romeo and Juliet summarizes the entire plot. Here's a quote:
 * "A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life;
 * Whose misadventured piteous overthrows
 * Do with their death bury their parents' strife.
 * The fearful passage of their death-mark'd love,
 * And the continuance of their parents' rage,
 * Which, but their children's end, nought could remove"
 * Even if you somehow miss the first reference to death, you'd have to try very hard to miss the other 3. --140.180.252.244 (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Good for Will. Most people want happy endings, and will be upset by sad ones.  It's good to warn an audience that what they are watching is a tragedy, because then they can expect the ending and deal with it with a bit of detachment. μηδείς (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I read (and enjoyed) the book First Blood - in which John Rambo dies at the end. I was thus very disappointed when I watched the movie and he didn't die. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That's what we call "the magic of Hollywood". The magic being that of making a decent, law-abiding citizen disappointed when a character doesn't die.  :)  --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  02:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Nihilism and violence
Is there any necessary association between both? Comploose (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Nihilism is a primarily philosophical concept and does not attempt to achieve its goals through violence. Nihilist movement instead utilized violence. Brandmeistertalk  02:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, no, a concept doesn't attempt anything ... —Tamfang (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Very funny. Comploose (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, but why many people associate both? Is that a kind of "anarchism = nihilism => violence" way of thinking. Or nihilism = nothing => destruction. Comploose (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Violence? Why bother? —Tamfang (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Very funny II, but the question was not what nihilist think of violence. Comploose (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I would think proper nihilists should respond to a proposal of violence by saying "what's the point?" While the Russian group was associated with "propaganda of the deed", how many Russian political movements of the time were pacifistic?  I think it was a harsh society in all its manifestations and ideologies. Wnt (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Charles VIII of Sweden
How is Charles VIII of Sweden, a descendant of Canute IV of Denmark's daughter, and how is an ancestor of Christian IX of Denmark? Can someone help me compile a lineage? Thanks.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The information may well be buried in ; you could ask that site's author whether there's an automatic way to extract it. —Tamfang (talk) 06:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a little advice it will not be because that deals with royalty and German nobility mostly. That site won't touch Scandinavian lesser nobility. See .--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Do we know if Knut IV had a daughter? And that she left progeny? Anyway, some of the ancestry of Karl VIII of Sweden is here, and that of Christian IX of Denmark here - Nunh-huh 12:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ingerid and Cecilia.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I found it finally. It was through Christian IX's Oxenstierna ancestors and through their female line ancestor Beata Eriksdotter Trolle, who was the great granddaughter of Bonde.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

What did the people of Post-Roman Gaul call themselves before they became French?
Ok, I've been writing a little alternate history project in which the main turning point is that the Muslim Arabs won the Battle of Tours (732 AD) and the Merovingian and Carolingian dynasties are destroyed as a result. In my story, Southern France becomes Muslim and Northern France is divided between (post?)Latin speaking post-Roman native peoples in the centre and the Germanic Franks in the North. Basically the issue is that in this timeline there will be no "Frankification" of the population of Gaul, no language called French (Old French apparently didn't form as a distinct language until about a century after this time) and no country called France (since the Franks in the North will already be called "Francia", or whatever the Germanic equivalent of that is), but they will mostly still speak some post-Latin romance language. I what to know what would be a plausible name for this people and their language? I've tried looking through all the Wiki articles I can on what the post-Roman people of France called themselves before they become "French", but I can't seem to find any relavent info on that. I mean obviously I could go for something like "Roman", but that wouldn't make them distinct from the rest of the Latin peoples. What about "Gallo", or "Gallico"? Do those sound like linguistically plausible endonyms? --Hibernian (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's some good info:, "By 700, to all intents and purposes, everyone north of the Loire was a Frank, everyone in the southeast was a Burgundian, everyone in Spain was a Goth"; , "The situation never really changed in Aquitaine before the 8th century; the Aquitanians never became Franks. Instead, from the seventh century many of them increasingly adopted a Basque, or 'Gascon', identity."  So it seems the people of Post-Roman Gaul weren't ethnically united under a single heading.  If you need a heading under which to unite them all geographically, yes, I guess "Gauls" would have to be it.  But I think you could go a long way in referring to different groups specifically as "Franks", "Burgundians", "Goths", "Basques", etc.  As for language -- this question came up earlier: .  Certainly, what many of them spoke might fairly now be called "Occitan", but that name is new. But at least according to AnonMoos in that post just linked to, their language would have been known as Latin. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What I was mainly discussing is that most literate people didn't understand that they spoke differently from the ancient Romans. AnonMoos (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ferengi. μηδείς (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * By the end of the Roman period, Gauls were already thoroughly Romanized and would have probably retained the Roman name and identify as Romans (as has happened with Romania). You can try using the name of the specific surviving province or even city, like the aforementioned Aquitania. You could throw their lot in with the Burgundians, or you could merge them with fleeing populations from Iberia, the Basque regions, and southern France. I suppose they'll be speaking Vulgar Latin at the start, but yeah end up with something like Occitan or Catalan or even the closest living language to Latin - Romanian.-- O  BSIDIAN  †  S  OUL  06:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not remember where but I have read that the Roman and Frankish languages were called "lingua romana/rustica" and "lingua francisca/teutonica". So from the linguistic point of view they would call themselves "Romani". But I strongly doubt that there was a single ethnic identity in the modern sense. More probably there were pluralistic identities (religion, state, locality, family, language, social class, profession, etc.) and none of them prevailed. As for "Galli(ci)", it is seems to be artificial. The Gauls had no unified identity so (if I'm not wrong) "Galli" is an umbrella term invented by the Romans from Rome.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was the Greeks who started using it first. See Gaul for more information. Essentially, the word has the same root as modern English 'celt', and the 'Galatians', and the celts were invading Greece and Turkey while Rome was still trying to unify Italy, so they were well known before the Romans started building an empire. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am of Frankish descent and live in post-Roman Gaul, now called Saarland. We call our post-Roman neighbors "Welsch", which you find under Walhaz. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I know but I strongly disbelieve that the Romans would use such exoethnonyms to designate themselves in their native tongue. I can only recollect Wallon, but it seems to be a post-medieval term and to come into French from Dutch.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks for the help everyone. I think I'll go with either some variation of "Roman" or "Gallic" for the French people in my scenario. But I do have some other related questions, for instance, what would be a good term to describe the Occitan people, before that term came into use? (i.e. in the Dark Ages or Middle Ages, since I understand it's a modern scholarly word only). Also what do you think would be a term for a hybrid Occitan-Muslim/Arab culture in Southern France? I'm going to use the already existing terms "Andalusian" or "Mozarabic" for the Spanish Muslims in my scenario, but I'm not at all sure what to call their northern neighbours. Any ideas? --Hibernian (talk) 04:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Already mentioned. Much of the area would have been Aquitania/Aquitanica. The rest of the southernmost regions would have been Septimania, which was actually already under Umayyad control in the "normal" timeline, consisting of Viennensis and Narbonensis (colloquially "Provincia" to the Romans and Romanized Gauls). All of them part of what was Roman Septem Provinciae. This is assuming that what was Gallia Lugdunensis would be where you would be placing your "Gallia" and thus wouldn't be under Moorish control.


 * For a Muslim culture, you can simply retain the names and "Arabize" it as was the norm. You can play with it, remembering that written Arabic has no vowels. Roman Gallia was probably "Al-Gala" in the same way that Narbo was "Arbuna", Cordoba was "Qurtubah", Avenio was "Abinyun", and Lugdunum was "Ludhun", etc. So... probably something like Al-Qitan or something.


 * Also, it might interest you that Frankish-controlled Gaul was "Al-Ifranj"/"Ifranja"/"Faranj" to the Moors, which incidentally became the generic Moorish name for all Europeans north of Andalusia, in addition to "Salibiyun" for crusaders. It might be useful as a Moorish exonym for the Frankish-controlled territory.-- O  BSIDIAN  †  S  OUL  11:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Whence Ferengi. μηδείς (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, so I tried typing the Latin "Aquitania" into Google Translate and turning that into Arabic and it gives either آكيتن or آكيتاين, which this site says is Romanized as "Akytn" or "Akytayn". So is that what Southern France would be known as to the Muslims? If so, what would be the name of people from this area, Al-Qitan? I know nothing about the Arabic language, is there any general site has this sort of information about old names for countries and peoples in Arabic? --Hibernian (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That's probably a modern attempt to transliterate the name and not historical. Not to mention that it utilizes vowel diacritics, which would probably be unheard of during your time period as the first versions of which were just very recently invented (incidentally, at the instigation of an Umayyad caliph). But you can already see the mechanisms of how such a name could be spelled in Arabic. So yes, Al-Qitan, Al-Akitan, Al-Khitan, Al-Oqitan, etc. are all probable. Also, in case you didn't know, "Al-" simply means "The", cf. "Al-Quti" for the Visigothic settlers of Iberia and Septimania.


 * But yeah, as evident by the use of the catchall "Al-Ifranj" for the Franks and Frankish Gaul, they obviously didn't know much about Europe north of the Pyrenees, and I doubt if they cared much. Franks and the unconquered Gauls then would have probably been rightly regarded as little more than "barbarians" (albeit militarily annoying ones) by the comparatively more civilized Umayyads, probably similar to how Romans once viewed the Germanic hordes. So I doubt if they had any "official" toponyms for these regions besides attempts to transcribe European toponyms in Arabic. There are, of course, plenty for Iberia (see Arabic language influence on the Spanish language) which you can use for comparison. Even then, note that most of the names retained the older Roman/Gothic/Celtic/etc. names, even if spelled differently. And I don't know of any compiling them, just single mentions here and there. If there are, they would probably be in Arabic, and sorry, I don't speak Arabic myself. :P -- O  BSIDIAN  †  S  OUL  19:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Salibiyyun" is a modern calque of "Crusaders", I think. "Crusader" itself is not a medieval word. Crusaders were almost always called "Ifranj" in medieval Arabic. They weren't all from France, but enough of them were that that Muslims didn't bother distinguishing them further (well, the very well-informed ones did). Sometimes they're called "Nasrani" or something similar, "Nazarenes" or simply "Christians", and very rarely they might be distinguished from the native Christians in the Middle East, who weren't Roman Catholic like the crusaders. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, my mistake. Yeah, first attested only in the 19th and 20th centuries it seems.-- O  BSIDIAN  †  S  OUL  02:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The source I gave above at says that by 700 in Gaul one "had to go to Italy to find Romans".  The Roman identity had disappeared in Gaul by then.  So for accuracy I would not call them Romans. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I'll read as many articles and other sites that have info on this as possible and try to come up with a set of (hopefully) plausible names for my scenario. Again, thanks for the help. --Hibernian (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Voting places for people displaced by Hurricane Sandy?
I am looking for sources that tell those who have been displaced by Hurricane Sandy where they should go to vote on Tuesday. A friend of mine was evacuated from a "Zone A" section of New York City... (one of the areas hit hardest by the storm). He is currently living in a Hotel miles from his home. The school building where he normally would go to vote was flooded and is currently closed. He has no idea where to go and cast his ballot. Any suggestions? Blueboar (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Here are two websites I found for the Board of Elections that could help you, once they are updated: and   The second link has updated locations for some locations, and both say more updates are coming soon  RudolfRed (talk) 03:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I find this or this which might be of interest even though it doesn't specifically answer your question. Bus stop (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * He really shouldn't worry. A whole lot of other people will be voting. Millions, in fact. It's not like there will be a shortage. μηδείς (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Medeis, that's the second time I've seen you suggest someone not bother to vote. Do you think that's appropriate on these pages? Rojomoke (talk) 06:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that's an attempt at humor. Or at least it better be. Because if serious, it's wrong-headed and inappropriate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think voting is superior to not voting. Medeis' comment may be off-topic but I don't find it "wrong-headed and inappropriate." Bus stop (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Urging people not to exercise their right to vote is an example of free speech. And it's an example of wrong-headed and inappropriate advice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If I hadn't read RD/H today, I might not know how important Bugs considers it to ratify the system. Makes ya think, eh? —Tamfang (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Ratify the system"??? Or are you aware of some other legal way the public can install or remove elected officials? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If I wanted to argue opinions on the RD, contrary to policy, I'd say: The government doesn't care about legality, so why should I? —Tamfang (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Is abstaining from voting something to be ashamed of? I wouldn't say so, unless the person later complains that the wrong candidate was elected. Surtsicna (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You can abstain from voting if you choose to. Telling others not to vote is not good. You can't say, "Don't blame me, I voted for nobody." Well, you can say it, but it's a cop-out. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Rojomoke, Medeis didn't say "Don't bother to vote," she said "Don't feel too bad if you can't." —Tamfang (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

See here. There is also some kind of executive order for NY allowing affected people to vote by affadavit from anywhere in the state. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Annexation of Rapa
Does anybody know how (in detail) Rapa Iti came under French control?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The sad history is recounted on pages 236-7 of Tahiti and French Polynesia. Essentially disease decimated the population (over 3/4 lost between 1824 and 1830), followed by Peruvian slave traders and a smallpox epidemic. Then the French annexed it to combat English influence. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know where I can find documents that proclaimed the protectorate over Rapa and annexed it to Tahiti similar to File:Procès-verbal de l'établissement du Protectorat de la France sur l'île Rurutu.jpg, File:Procès-verbal de l'établissement du Protectorat de la France sur l'île Rimatara et dépendances.jpg, {] and File:Procès-verbal de Prise de Possession de l'Ile Rurutu et Dépendances par la France.jpg. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Can the president of USA change his/her religion while in office?
Can the president of USA change his/her religion while in office? Will he/she loses his/her office if he/she does? 220.239.37.244 (talk) 08:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The Constitution of the United States does not prohibit the President from changing religion while in office. To my knowledge, it has never happened, but there's nothing necessitating a president to step down if they were to change their religion while in office. You might also be interested in the article "Religious affiliations of Presidents of the United States". Gabbe (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * More so, the Constitution prohibits any law that would concern itself with an office-holder's religion (see below). —Tamfang (talk) 09:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * See No Religious Test Clause --Trovatore (talk) 09:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Since the OP appears to be in Australia: Is there any law on analogous questions in Australia? —Tamfang (talk) 09:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Australian head of state cannot be a Catholic. I am not sure what would happen if she were to convert to Catholicism.  But AAUI this is not really a matter of Australian law, per se.  Maybe Jack can clarify. --Trovatore (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Although AFAIK there's no religious requirement for either the Governor-General of Australia otr the Prime Minister of Australia, who share the powers and duties vested in the President of the United States. Alansplodge (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The mapping of roles between the Westminster and American systems is really sort of unconvincing. In practice, both the Queen and the Governor-General seem to have only ceremonial roles, which really don't interest me; as far as I'm concerned all such ceremony could be dispensed with and it would make no particular difference.  In theory, they also have reserve powers, which interest me more, but they don't map to anything in the American system (for example, the US presidential veto, unlike the royal veto, is a normal political tool).  --Trovatore (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia establishes what is often called "freedom of religion", by forbidding the Commonwealth from making any law for the establishment of a religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the exercise of a religion, or religious discrimination for public office. This applies to the Governor-General and her ministers including the Prime Minister.  It does not apply to the Queen of Australia, because she occupies that office by virtue of the Statute of Westminster and a pile of UK laws, which do discriminate on the basis of religion, even though that would be totally illegal if it was anyone else.  Go figure.  --  Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus">[Talk]  11:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The monarch of Australia (and a bunch of other places) is ex officio head of the Anglican church. Roger (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Not nitpicking, but I think you mean the Church of England. She is not the head of the Anglican Church of Australia, for example.  The Church of England is the mother church, but still only one member, of the Anglican Communion, and the Queen's role is limited to the C of E, as I understand it.  --  <font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus">[Talk]  12:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The freedom of religion is limited: it applies only to the federal parliament, so did not restrict the ability of the states and (at the time the Constitution was made) the imperial parliament at Westminster to make laws applicable to Australia that discriminated on the basis of religion. As the royal succession is determined by laws not made by the Australian federal parliament, it doesn't apply to the monarch. Also, if I recall correctly the High Court has interpreted the clause in rather limited ways, for example it permits discrimination against non-religion. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In the USA, there is no law restricting a member of any faith, or for that matter a non-believer, from running for office or holding office. However, the people can vote for whoever they want to. We've only ever had Christians (actual or nominal) in the office of President, and only Protestants until 1960. No Jewish, no Muslim, no Buddhist, etc. The law cannot stop a federal official from switching his religion, nor can the people. But they can vote the guy out of office. The UK is different. The Queen cannot be Catholic, because it would be a conflict of interest - unless the C of E and its membership decided to rejoin the Catholic church. I doubt that's happening anytime soon. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You say the Queen cannot be Catholic &mdash; but obviously she can, if she wants to. She could contact a priest and convert.  They might cut off her head (the only criminal sanction, as far as I know, that has ever been applied to a British monarch), but they can't stop her from doing it.  So what happens?  I haven't been able to figure that out.  The Act of Settlement 1701 apparently removes a royal from the order of succession if he converts, but what happens to a reigning monarch does not seem to be explained, at least in our article. --Trovatore (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There's no precedent, but I think the UK government would deem her to have abdicated by virtue of having placed herself in direct conflict with both her Coronation Oath and at least the spirit of the Act of Settlement, and they would introduce a law to confirm said abdication. All 15 other Commonwealth realms would have to agree with this line, otherwise there'd be westminstrous chaos.  This is where the stupidity of parts of the Statute of Westminster would be shown up; the stupidity of people in Tuvalu and St Kitts-Nevis and Papua New Guinea etc having to unanimously decide whether or not it's ok for a nice lady in London to still head the Church of England if she's a member of a different church, when they themselves are probably not members of either, and even if they were, so what.  It's as insane as the appointments of bishops in the Church of England being a matter for the Prime Minister, when he or she may well be a member of a competing Christian denomination, or a non-Christian religion, or no religion at all.   --  <font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus">[Talk]  20:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So if the Queen becomes Catholic, and the various legislative bodies are unable to agree on what to do, then she would remain Queen and would also remain Catholic? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's safe to say something else would happen. But exactly what is the question.  It could be bloody revolution.  It could be mass expressions of fervent and passionate indifference.  As I said, there's no precedent that would help people decide what feelings they should have.  --  <font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus">[Talk]  20:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The great glory of the British Constitution is that we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Alansplodge (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. The probability of Queen Lizzie converting to Catholicism is about as likely as her willingly jumping out of an airplane. But it could come up in some future generation. The better question to ask than "would they convert?" is "why would they convert?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? Maybe because she sincerely came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church was the true representative of Christ on Earth, and the organism that could most effectively procure her salvation.  People always seem to assume that conversions are either political, in service to some Earthly goal (such as for marriage), or else to escape persecution.  But religious bodies make actual claims about the true state of affairs, and it is possible to come to the conclusion, for whatever reason, that the one closest to the truth is not the one you currently follow.  Why can't it be that? --Trovatore (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, in theory, it can be that. But would it?  I'm not aware of any earlier precedents where the Supreme Head of a church (leaving aside the complication that this particular supreme head is also the head of state and monarch of their own country and 15 others, and their tenure of those offices and crowns is indissolubly tied up with their headship of the church) converted to a different religion.  It would be like the Pope becoming a Muslim.  This queen is many things to many people, but all would agree she has always taken her vows and oaths extremely seriously, and her 21st(?) birthday pledge to devote "her entire life" to her people has never wavered.  All the talk of her abdicating to give Charles a decent go at the monarchy has come to nothing, and imo never will.  I've read that Queen Mary (the Queen's grandmother, consort of George V) converted to Catholicism on her deathbed, but even that has never been confirmed officially.  She died in 1953, almost 20 years after George V died, by which time her sons Edward VIII and George VI had come and gone and Elizabeth II was now on the throne.  Confirmation of this conversion - if it actually occurred, that is, which we'll likely never know for certain, either way - would have zero impact on the succession.  But even it is officially denied, because the ramifications would be colossal.  How much more so if the reigning monarch were to do this?  So, yes, theoretically possible, but practically and politically and theocratically impossible.  That's if she wanted to remain Queen.  Because one thing is certain: if she converted to not just Catholicism but any other religion at all, she could not continue to head her church and she could not continue to wear the crown. --  <font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus">[Talk]  22:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I personally think that Bugs's scenario (in the unlikely event of it coming to pass) is the most likely, that we would end up with a Catholic queen. After all, the only hurdle to be overcome is the Queen's relationship with the Church of England, who are themselves world leaders in the art of compromise (just look at the "Flying bishops" comedy). There could easily be some sort of fudge, and I'm sure we'll think of one if it ever happens. Alansplodge (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Does jumping out of a helicopter count? ;) 67.119.3.105 (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's perhaps also worth remembering even if it does come to pass the the Queen or some other future monarch wishes to convert and the law hasn't changed to make it clear it's okay or otherwise provide for such a conversion, there's a very good chance it isn't going to be something the monarch suddenly announces one day after the conversion. Far more likely the monarch will inform the respective governments before their intended conversion, the governments will then discuss among themselves and perhaps with key Church of England figures whether to allow it (perhaps with a law change to make it clear it's okay). If they decide it isn't okay, they may advise the monarch they don't think the conversion will wash and the monarch will voluntarily abdicate perhaps under some pressure but before the conversion, something similar to the Edward VIII abdication crisis. Even if the monarch doesn't inform the governments, it's fairly unlikely they will go about it in complete secret, particularly not when it becomes likely they will convert so the governments (at least the UK government) are likely to become aware of it and will go about advising the monarch as per above. Nil Einne (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Lamar Smith's approval ratings after SOPA
Well SOPA's pretty much dead in the water now. But anyway, were Lamar S. Smith's approval ratings severely affected by SOPA? And how are his current approval ratings doing? I tried a search but I couldn't find anything relevant. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Presumably neither Ron-Paul-style libertarian Republicans nor progressive Democrats have ever liked him very much. I'm not sure the issue has a lot of resonance among many of the local conservative Republicans who cast most of the votes which elected him... AnonMoos (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * SOPA isn't dead, it's just resting. Few enough people care about it to affect any politician's electoral prospects one way or the other.  67.119.3.105 (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Smith is a long-serving Republican incumbent in a fairly strongly Republican district, so most pollsters would find tracking his individual approval ratings a waste of time. Unless he became involved in a competitive election, you're unlikely to see such specific figures. --BDD (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Easter - Passover
Hello,

I wonder why do Germans and English still call the Christian feast Easter Easter. Are those the only countries which equate a pagan feast with the Christian feast? And why wasn't it changed to date? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Because they're Germanic languages, and that's their word for it? What would cause them to change it? Yes, Bede claimed it was derived from the name of a goddess, Eastre, but it's just as likely to correspond to "East". And the substitution of Christian holidays for pagan holidays is the rule, not the exception, with Christmas = Saturnalia, Halloween = Samhain ; May Day = Walpurgisnacht =Beltane, etc. - Nunh-huh 13:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * However, there are Germanic countries which use derived versions from the Hebrew word "Pesach". Regards.--Tomcat (7) 14:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But like all etymologies, these are based on happenstance and history; they're contingencies, not logical or doctrinal decisions. - Nunh-huh 15:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, as I understand it (and I understand Koine Greek hardly at all, so take this as you will), Pascha (the word commonly used in Greek Rite churches for the Resurrection feast) is actually derived from the same Greek word whence comes Passion (a reference to the crucifixion) and only coincidentally sounds like פסח. (This guy told me that.) On that note, does anyone know how the Septuaint translates פסח? I imagine that would have some bearing on this discussion.  Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 13:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's correct. There is a highly-suppletive ancient Greek verb πασχω - πεισομαι - επαθον - πεπονθα, meaning "to be affected (by something), to suffer", but the other words connected with this verb generally begin with ΠΑΘ- ("pathos" etc.).  Also το Πασχα as neuter indeclinable doesn't seem like an ordinary Greek-internal kind of word derivation.  Anyway, Liddell and Scott say it's a "Hebrew word" (meaning Passover or the lamb eaten at passover during the chronological period that Liddell and Scott is mainly concerned with). AnonMoos (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * is a French paper which goes in depth on the etymology of the Greek pascha. Chantraine cites this paper.  Note that the author and reviewer agree that it is from Aramaic.  LSJ says that pascha is from pāsaḥ, which certainly is Hebrew, but is it also Aramaic? I don't know these things.  I think LSJ just may be wrong here. -- Atethnekos <font face="georgia" size="1">(Discussion, Contributions) 23:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hebrew and Aramaic seem much the same to Greeks and scholars of Greek... In any case, if it was borrowed from Aramaic into Greek, it came from Jewish Aramaic influenced by Hebrew. Pelletier thinks that the ending of Greek Πασχα reflects the Aramaic definite article suffix... AnonMoos (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Easter" is a convenient nickname, but aware Christians call it "Resurrection Day". Variations on "Pesach", which means "Passover", are also used - but Passover is not Resurrection Day. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * So anyone who calls it Easter and not Resurrection Day is somehow "unaware"? Unaware of what?  --  <font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus">[Talk]  19:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Unaware that Easter is pagan and Resurrection Day is Christian. The point being that the OP is making some unwarranted assumptions and generalities. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never even heard the term 'Resurrection Day', and my family is Irish catholic. Is this a made-up American thing? <font face="MV Boli" color="blue">KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * An editor with a Japanese-sounding username that even includes a Japanese glyph, but who lives in Hungary and claims to be Irish Catholic, is the best cross-cultural thing I've seen in a while. Top o' the mornin' to ye, O'Torä.  :)  --  <font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus">[Talk]  01:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I said my family was Irish catholic. I didn't say I was, Jack, but cheers for the greeting. Same to you, too. <font face="MV Boli" color="blue">KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Speaking of generalities, I think vast numbers of educated Christians know all about the pagan origins of many of their current feast days, but still choose to use the word "Easter" because it is the accepted terminology. This choice does not make them unaware. --  <font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus">[Talk]  20:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Then that's the answer to the OP's question: Those who call it Easter call it Easter because they've always called it Easter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just like having a day of the week called Wednesday doesn't mean that you're a worshipper of Wōden. Alansplodge (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What about wearing a necktie? —Tamfang (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you've lost me there. Alansplodge (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Tamfang has become a little prone to making enigmatic utterances that do not yield to questioning. Isn't that right, Tamfang? --  <font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus">[Talk]  18:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of my enigmata yield readily to questioning if anyone should bother to question. That one also yields to a glance at my personal website. —Tamfang (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Necktie = noose, something associated with Oðin. —Tamfang (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahh, you're referring to the Hávamál, verses 138 to 139. Of course - silly me. Alansplodge (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Christmas is also called Yule and Halloween Samhain. That don't befront Jesus. μηδείς (talk) 03:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

British Empire
Why was Britain able to conquer so much of the world? --168.7.230.131 (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Our article British Empire has a lot of information about its origins. You may want to look at that and come back if you have anything more specific to ask. <font face="MV Boli" color="blue">KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ultra brief answer -- reasonably consistently a strong navy on the seas and a strong economy at home; never went into an absolute decline (though obviously the UK went into a relative decline starting in the late 19th century, when a number of other countries began to catch up in industrial capacity)... AnonMoos (talk)


 * You might want to look at a few other modern empires, for comparison: the Mongol Empire, Byzantium, Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Alexander the Great, Ottoman Empire, Napoleonic wars, Third Reich, Empire of Japan, Empire of Brazil, Sardonic Wrath, Spanish Inquisition, Islamic Caliphate, human culture and globalization, for starters. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 06:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sardonic Wrath?? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Spanish Inquisition? Did you mean Spanish Empire? Spanish Inquisition? I didn't expect that. --Dweller (talk) 06:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think being a large island on the edge of Europe is the most important part. Once they developed a substantial navy, this made them relatively safe at home, and thus able to devote their energies to colonization.  They had the advantages of being in Europe, like access to technology, without the negatives, like constant invasions. StuRat (talk) 06:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Navigational skills played a part. Some charts prepared by James Cook and Matthew Flinders were still in use well into last century. HiLo48 (talk) 10:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * A really crucial factor was Britain's early start and lasting pre-eminence as an industrial power, which gave it the world's strongest economy from the late 18th through the late 19th century. That economic power was what paid for Britain's naval power. Another factor, after the mid-19th century, was Britain's ample supply of coal, which gave it "energy independence" and fuel for its mercantile and naval fleets. The empire reached its greatest extent around 1900, just as Britain's economy began to be eclipsed by the economies of Germany and the United States.  Britain's aging industries faced a crisis of competitiveness during the early 20th century, aggravated by two very costly conflicts with Germany, and Britain's ability to finance its imperial project suffered as a result, forcing its retreat after World War II.  Marco polo (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I just want to tip another hat into the intertwined financial innovations and navigational expertise. The latter is often over-emphasized though it was dependent on the former — without doing a number of very clever things with state financing (really making good use of such things as national banking, credit, stock markets, bonds, and so forth) the British empire would be limited to one particularly small, cold island. Instead, they managed to invade 9 out of 10 countries over the course of world history. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The brief personal union with the Netherlands was also pivotal in allowing Britain to develop its maritime stature so as to eclipse the Dutch. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Highlanders
Is the same as Francis Mackenzie, 1st Baron Seaforth ? Kittybrewster <font color="0000FF">&#9742;  19:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No, that would be Hugh Montgomerie, 12th Earl of Eglinton. For future reference I found this using Tineye. A8875 (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec)That's a portrait of Hugh Montgomerie, 12th Earl of Eglinton by John Singleton Copley, found in the collection of the Scottish National Gallery (link). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Who is the chap in armour please? Kittybrewster <font color="0000FF">&#9742;  11:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Where's the chap in armour? I suppose the scene bottom left in your link does look like an armoured guy in a big metal helmet, but the Scottish National Gallery version linked above is higher resolution and reveals it to be two non-armoured Scottish soldiers.  Or am I looking in the wrong place? -  Ka renjc 11:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean the man in the picture next to the Copley. Kittybrewster <font color="0000FF">&#9742;  17:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You'll have to follow Finlay's link and flick through all the paintings - I had a quick look but no joy. There's an awful lot of them. Alansplodge (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)