Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 January 30

= January 30 =

How to find how many translations a book has?
I am currently working on improving Marion Zimmer Bradley's 1987 novel The Firebrand. I was wondering if there is a good source that monitors how many translations a book has received (perhaps a database of some kind?) I know this particular novel has at least five, but I suspect it is a lot higher. Any help would be much appreciated.  Ruby  2010/  2013  04:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Apologies if this is too obvious and you've already tried it, but have you contacted The Trustee at the first external reference at the bottom of our article on MZB? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I hadn't considered that! Thanks for the idea. I'll email her, though my concern will be that I won't be able to use her as a reliable source to verify the information...  Ruby  2010/  2013  16:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Index Translationum.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Thanks so much!  Ruby  2010/  2013  14:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Modern-day descendants of Julius Caesar
are the modern-day descendants of Julius Caesar/ Augustus (if any exist) known? And if not, when did they lose track of them? During the fall of Rome? Who was the last known descendant? Venustar84 (talk) 06:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any European ancestry yourself, look in the mirror. You're likely a living descendant of either man.  The Most recent common ancestor for all humans may be as recent as 2000 years ago, for European ancestry this is usually quoted to an even later time, say around the time of Charlemagne.  That's because Charlemagne lived 1200 years ago; counting 4 generations per century or so, that's 48 generations.  2^48 (because we all have 2 parents) gives about 281,000,000,000,000.  That's more people than have ever lived since the first anatomically modern humans.  So, if Augustus Caesar does have any living descendants, you're very likely one of them. -- Jayron  32  07:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess the OP is interested in people whose descent from "big Julie" is documented, rather than simply deduced. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  07:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd rather claim Sky Masterson as an ancestor, but maybe that's just me. --Trovatore (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ... and, of course, Jayron's arithmetic is based on a false model that ignores inbreeding. Anyone who has constructed a large family tree will know that most of the "millions" of ancestors turn out to be the same people.    D b f i r s   07:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, for people who lived two thousand years ago, unless they lived in an extremely isolated region (e.g. Tasmania), then if they have any current living descendants at all, they're likely to have millions of descendants... AnonMoos (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That's true, but it doesn't follow that any particular person living now is descended from any particular person then. Until the advent of bicycles, trains and motor vehicles, most people married someone within walking distance (or a horse-ride if they were sufficiently affluent to own a horse).  It is only in the last century that gene pools are generally being mixed more widely.  Even invasions didn't always have a big input to the gene pool in some regions ( though they obviously did in the Americas! ).    D b f i r s   08:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What I'm finding in my own research is that the exponential growth by generation rapidly overwhelms any tendency not to move. While research shows that people in the UK often show the same DNA markers as people living in the same area 2000 or more years ago, this doesn't mean that all or even most of a modern Brit's ancestors lived in the same area. There are both localised drift factors (people marry people from 'the next village over', and over time a person's descendants may live many villages over indeed) and long-range migrations (my ancestors include French and Irish refugees, who moved to England when times were hard). If you have one such ancestor 160 years ago (at the time of the Great Irish Famine, say), then you can expect to have about 32 Irish ancestors (in a single generation) twice that long ago. A few examples: The Roman occupying army in Britain included Roman citizens from all around the Mediterranean basin, and auxiliaries from further afield in Africa and Asia - just one of these men deserting and marrying a local Celt might furnish every modern member of the BNP, the NF and the EDL with African ancestors much more recent than the general 'Out of Africa' descent common to us all. Or consider the semi-legendary story that when the Richard II married Anne of Bohemia, his standard-bearer married her cousin, giving many subsequent members of the Tyndall family and all their many descendants Polish ancestry long before modern Polish migration to the UK. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think also that people are drastically misunderstanding the scales of the numbers here. We're talking about the fact that 50 generations would represent over one quadrillion ancestors.  Yes, there is some level of pedigree collapse to be expected here; still even with that every generation is essentially guaranteed to have more numbers of ancestors than the previous.  But seriously: one quadrillion is a freaking HUGE number, and that number of generations doesn't even get us close to Caesar's time.  Between Caesar's time and today have been about 80 generations.  280 is more than 1.2 septillion.   1,200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.  By contrast, there have, since 50,000 BC, been an estimated 108 billion humans:  .  Thats 108,000,000,000.  In the past 2000 years, there have only been an estimated 60,000,000,000 people.  Even if millions of the slots in a person's ancestral tree are filled with the same individual holding multiple slots, the scales here are enormous.  These numbers aren't in the "well, it's kinda close, so it's possible".  The numbers are simply that overwhelming.  Now, in the such as the clean break between the populations of the hemispheres which occured many thousands of years before that; I wouldn't expect that any pre-Columbian American natives would have any decedents from Caesar.  But, the claim that any European alive today wouldn't have been descended from every European alive at Caesar's time, excepting those that demonstrably have no living decedents at all, is preposterous when you look at the numbers.  The type of isolation necessary to claim that simply doesn't hold water for a place as fairly contiguous as Europe, especially one that has experienced a fair degree of mobility in its population during that time period.  -- Jayron  32  20:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jayron that the enormous numbers provide a powerful argument, and his analysis is no doubt accurate for the Americas and other areas where mobility is the norm, but the numbers collapse very rapidly in areas where mobility was rare during most of the past few thousands of years. Perhaps my view is influenced by the fact that I live in such an area -- I expect that we had the odd member of the Roman army who bred near to here, and eventually the Normans would spread their genes this far north, and we definitely have Norse blood, but I cannot see any way that this model of genetics would guarantee that I was descended from one particular Roman.    D b f i r s   22:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I also think you are underestimating the mobility of European peoples over the past 2000 years. Since the time of Caesar there have been dozens of mass migrations with varying degrees of intermarriage between peoples.  You've got the Huns, the Rus, the Vikings, the Normans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Visigoths, Ostragoths, the various Islamic movements (Al-Andalus), all the Celtic peoples, the Jewish Diaspora, etc. etc, and that's just within the first 700-800 years or so after Caesar.  Every one of these provided ample opportunity for significant mixture of gene pools.  Europe of the past 2000 years has been a fantastically mobile population.  -- Jayron  32  06:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point. Unless an entire village or region experienced pedigree collapse on the scale of Carlos II of Spain, there would sooner or later be one ancestor from outside. That one ancestor brings with them their own exponential growth of ancestors. It only takes one late-Roman amber merchant in the Baltic to have a single productive one-night-stand with a local woman for everyone in Scandinavia at the time of the Battle of Stiklestad to be descended from every patrician living at the time of Caesar (who left any descendants at all). Just one. And there are plenty of documented examples of strange-seeming descents: for example, the present Marquess of Milford Haven, a cousin of the Duke of Edinburgh, is descended, through Pushkin, from Abram Petrovitch Gannibal, an African slave freed and ennobled by Peter the Great. It's entirely possible that the half-native-American 'Captain John West', who signed the Virginia-Indian Treaty of 1677/1680 (see Cockacoeske), was descended from the children of Mary Boleyn, possibly by Henry VIII. And so on. What if one of the Vinland vikings had had a child with one of the skraelings? Again, it only takes one person from any given community producing only one child who becomes a member of a different community for every member of the latter community to be their descendants after enough generations. And 'enough' is a much smaller number than you'd think, as Jayron's numbers demonstrate. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You're misunderstanding what a most recent common ancestor is. Every person alive today is a descendant of the MRCA, but that doesn't mean we're also descendants of the MRCA's contemporaries.  In fact, a random contemporary of the MRCA is almost certainly not a MRCA himself.  The identical ancestors point, estimated to be 5000-15000 years ago, is the time at which all people are either common ancestors of everyone today, or left no descendents alive today.  This means that even had Caesar lived 5000 years ago, and had children, it's possible that nobody today is his descendant.  --140.180.254.9 (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * JackofOz -- Any kind of documented "Descent from antiquity" at all is extremely rare or semi-non-existent in Europe... AnonMoos (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I know, thanks. I was just pointing out that documentary evidence was what the OP was after, assuming it exists, which it almost doesn't.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  10:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * (ec) I'd say entirely non-existent. There comes a point at which all documented European lines of descent merge into a general prosopography of the early Middle Ages. As a rule of thumb (which I just made up, if you have a documented ancestor who held an hereditary peerage at the beginning of the 18th century or earlier, the odds are good that you too have documented ancestry going back to the Dark Ages. I've been doing some family history research on a large and complex family recently; the peasantry parts of it can only be traced to about 1795, the bourgeois parts to about 1710, and the landed gentry parts to about 1490 (assuming the prior research I'm following up is reliable) - but the titled part includes Kings of England and of France, and the rulers of Kievan Rus. From those, one can work back to the early days of the Frankish Kingdom (with due skepticism, of course - records can just be wrong sometimes) - but no further. There just aren't reliable records of who the ancestors of the early Dark Ages warlords were. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Caesar's illegitimate son Ptolemy XV Philopator Philometor Caesar (son of Cleopatra VII Philopator) was his most recent descendent. He was executed on his step-brother Augustus's orders. Caesar's unnamed grandchild died a few days after their mother's death in childbirth. Sleigh (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So, if there is no documented descendant, it is possible that no one today is a descendant of Caesar. However, we of course cannot exclude that campaining across Gaul and other countries in his early years as a general may have led him to indulge in some of the victory prizes that were common in those days.--Lgriot (talk) 09:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably. Like my pet parakeet Onan, he may have spilled his seed in all manner of warm recesses in nether regions.  But none of that was ever documented, so we'll never know anything about it.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  10:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a joke, right? You seriously do not have a parakeet named after someone who is famous in the Bible for masturbating, right?  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  18:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't masturbating, it was coitus interruptus. 109.99.71.97 (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a practical difference? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It can be either; or both. Onanism is a euphemism for masturbation.  But I was alluding to Dorothy Parker's cute saying.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  21:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * (ec) Popular rumour had it at the time that the pleasures of Caesar's early career were somewhat different. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * He was thought to spread it around both ways, but seems to have preferred the ladies. This guy claimed to be the descended from one of his Gallic girlfriends. On the talk page of the JC article a while back someone appeared claiming to represent the 'House of Julius Caesar': Talk:Julius_Caesar/Archive_2. Paul B (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Suetonius reports that Caesar was referred to as "every woman's man, and every man's woman". Since we know he was fertile, and he did not lack opportunity, there is a good chance of several undocumented children. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me of the Suetonius quotation! I use Caesar in history talks as an example of a famous person whose behaviour could reasonably be classed as bisexual before the term existed. And I agree that he probably left little eagle-nosed bastards scattered across the Republic's provinces. We are probably all descended from him. But that statistical likelihood doesn't provide us with any firm evidence. Paul B, that's a hilarious thread! That's a royal pretence I've never seen before. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * One of the few people on the planet who could plausibly trace their pedigree back over 2000 years is Elizabeth II. And, sure enough, it can be shown (popup warning!) that she is descended from a sister of Caesar. However, care should be taken in drawing conclusions from this, since a) much of the research was done in the Middle Ages by kings specifically seeking to establish themselves as descendants of the great ancient leaders, and b) it can also be shown, in more or less dubious ways, that 'Er Madge is descended from Brian Boru, Gengis Kahn, Jesus, and Mohammed. As has been mentioned above, she (and I, and probably you) can legitimately claim descent from any similarly ancient person from Europe or the Near East. See Descent from antiquity. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to be absolutely clear: that's a wholly unreliable source. It cannot really be 'shown' that anything of the sort is the case. The existence of forged documents for political purposes has a long history - consider the Privilegium Maius or the Donation of Constantine. Quoting an obviously bad source proves nothing. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * While I hear what you say Alex, I was under the impression that people with hereditary peerages had to have their birth lines registered, and that the succession to the title was dependent on blood line. So I can prove, for example, that my 5x great grandfather married the 4th daughter of the then Earl of Hastings: her bloodline is a matter of public record back to the creation of that peerage (the Battle of Hastings) and hence I can trace my ancestry back 1000 years. So QE2, in order to establish her claim to the throne, has a bloodline traceable back to at least then and, as is also well known, back to the Anglo-Saxon monarchs. Beyond that is necessarily speculation, I'll grant you that. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I meant - see my discussion above about documented genealogies back to the Dark Ages. I was only taking issue specifically with Cucumber Mike's assertion that HMQ can 'plausibly trace her pedigree back over 2000 years'. No, she can't. As to hereditary peerages, a lot of the most ancient ones rest on medieval court cases and complicated re-creations and so on. It's not quite as simple as saying "I'm descended from the nth Earl, so I'm descended from the 1st Earl" - but nearly so. It always pays to check out the specific details. And as I mentioned, if you're related to an hereditary peer more than 300 years ago, you're probably descended from royalty too, and thus also have a documented genealogy back some 1400 years. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to point out, the most recent common ancestor assumes one single population of randomly mating individuals without regard to language, religion, distance, or geographical barriers, and the sexual selection tendency of people to chose mates that resemble themselves. A 2,000 year figure for Europe, let alone the world, is dubious in the extreme. μηδείς (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe the figure for Europe is more like 1000-1200 years, not 2000. You must remember that if even one immigrant comes into a gene pool and has at least one child, they have an 80% chance of being a universal ancestor of everyone several generations later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whichwayto (talk • contribs) 02:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I must remember nothing--you need to cite a study that addresses the effects of language, religious, political and geographical barriers, and doesn't just treat Europe as a monolithic gene pool with random mating and no internal barriers. μηδείς (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would think a zero chance was more accurate than the claimed 80% chance. Random mating just doesn't happen anywhere, even in modern society, and this model is even less valid for patterns of marriage in the past.  I don't have the knowledge or ability to set up an accurate mathematical model of gene spread, but the studies that I've read suggest that it was slow in the past and not "universal" in the sense that every gene spread everywhere.    D b f i r s   22:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's not confuse matters. Genetic drift guarantees that there are plenty of ancestors that you have no genes with in common at all. Indeed, as far back as the time of Caesar, you have far more ancestors than you have discrete genes, even allowing generously for pedigree collapse. As discussed above, it's not at all inconsistent for the vast majority of your ancestors at any given historical date to live in pretty much the same place, while still also having a numerically large number of ancestors from almost arbitrarily distant places. Your ancestors are not only the people you have inherited your genes from: they're all the people on whose existence yours logically depends. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fair comment, and thanks for the links. I still think it is unlikely that any specific person chosen from the world population today will be descended from a particular individual who lived 2000 years ago.  The probability will obviously vary by region and historic individual.  Identical ancestors point (mentioned above) seems to address this question, but doesn't give figures for particular populations.    D b f i r s   09:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Alleged proposed constitutional amendments
I'm looking for any and all information on the following alleged proposed constitutional amendments :


 * 1916: all acts of war should be put to a national vote. Anyone voting yes had to register as a volunteer for service in the United States Army


 * 1933: an attempt to limit the personal wealth to $1 million


 * 1936: an attempt to allow the American people to vote on whether or not the United States should go to war

All the online sources I found so far were copied from one another and all have zero references to back up the claims. Dncsky (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The last one looks a lot like the Ludlow Amendment. The personal wealth amendment is referenced here as "proposed by Congressman Wesley Lloyd" with a reference to a 1992 work by Sam Pizzigati, "The Maximum Wage". &mdash; Lomn 14:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much!Dncsky (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I like the 1916 proposal. The problem was that those who decided to go to war, the President and Congress (the Senate formally and the House via allocation of funds) were not directly affected.  They were personally exempt from serving, and could also exempt anyone they cared about, by various means.  Also, many of those sent to war were too young to vote when those representatives were elected.  However, eliminating the draft was a significant step.  This meant that one group of elites could no longer decide to send another group to war, against their will.  StuRat (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was fascinated by the 1916 proposal as well. Reminds me of Starship Troopers and the Spartans. But alas the proposal is no longer feasible since US' last declaration of war was more than 70 years ago. Pity.Dncsky (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Will Rogers had a better idea: That a country shouldn't be allowed to go to war until it had paid all its debts incurred from the previous war. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to reconstruct a currently spoken language (grammar, vocabulary, phonology) given it's parent language and sister languages?
How to do that? Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Why would you want to? I suspect that you could make a reasonable attempt, but it wouldn't be wholly reliable, and you can always do better with a current language by going to talking to its actual speakers. But you'd be better off asking this on the Language Ref Desk. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * An attempt to predict modern English based solely on Old English and modern German would almost certainly be a miserable failure... AnonMoos (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status of WW2 propaganda poster
Re: File:Here are the the liberators-Italian WWII Poster - Statue of Liberty.jpg

There are 2 reasons given why this poster is PD

1. This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired. This applies to Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years,

2. This picture was issued by the government of the Italian Social Republic, a state now considered as illegal in Italy. Hence, no legal claims can be made on it.

Re 1. We donT have an author, so how does the expiration of copyright apply.

Re 2: Are all fascist government posters (such as the work of Gino Boccasile) PD because the Italian Social Republic is considered illegal in Italy? Would they also be PD outside of Italy? I have only found this reference to Boccasile http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Gino_Boccasile But it does not discuss the propaganda posters.

Thank you very much

reinhard schultz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilderwelt (talk • contribs) 12:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be better to raise the issue at commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright... -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with AnonMoos, but just to chime in briefly on your listed issues:
 * 1. Most countries also have a rule about expiration of copyright for works that have no authors or for which authorship is unknown, e.g. 70 years from publication
 * 2. The properties of the outlawed regime are likely to have been confiscated or inherited by the new government, so the copyright is likely to be held by the current Italian govenrment. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The copyright of Mein Kampf is owned by the state of Bavaria. --PlanetEditor (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Rechtsfähigkeit/権利能力 (Kenri Nōryoku)
This question was originally posted to the Lanugages reference desk, but someone there suggested, along with providing the assistance that they could, that I bring the question to another desk to see if they could be of more assistance.

This is a question about different legal systems. I am currently attempting to translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia on dōjin circles, and the original Japanese article leads off the Organization section (as I understand it) by mentioning that although dōjin circles have some protection under freedom of association, legally they are generally considered to be private organizations, with "private organization" then linking to a page entitled what translates roughly as "Groups without kenri nōryoku." When I go to the Japanese article directly on "kenri nōryoku," (which has no linked English Wikipedia equivalent) I find that it is a concept from German law (which a lot of the Japanese legal system is based on) that seems to be very similar to legal personality and legal capability. However, when I look at those two pages in the English Wikipedia, both of them have their own pages in the German Wikipedia that are completely separate (German legal personality page, German legal capability page) from the German page for what I have been calling kenri nōryoku (The German Wikipedia calls it "rechtsfähigkeit"). The Japanese Wikipedia, for its part, has a separate page on legal personality, but not legal capability. What is the difference between the concept of Rechtsfähigkeit/kenri nōryoku and legal personality and legal capacity? Is there an article on the English Wikipedia that is roughly equivalent? Do we have need of one? My Japanese isn't quite good enough to translate legal terms myself, but with a brief summary, I could put up a translation request, and then I'd have something to link to. Oh yes, and for the moment, I have the sentence in question translated as, "Freedom of association is protected in Japan, and thus dōjin circles have some legal protection. However, they generally are considered to be private associations devoid of legal personality under Japanese law." Reinana kyuu (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok if I've understood your question, legal personality and legal capacity are two different concepts. The first relates to whether an organisation or association of people can itself be treated as a participant by the law.  The second relates I think to the concept of capability - which is whether someone who is a person should be recognised as being capable of making decisions for themselves, usually in the case of the very young or those with mental incapacity of one sort of another (so if an old person with dementia decides to refuse treatment, then it must be decided by law whether their impairment is such as to render them legally 'incapable' of making such a decision, and thus do not have the recognised capacity).  I think the first concept is the one that is equivalent to the Japanese one - it is a basic concept within legal theory around the world - compare the example of partnerships, incorporated companies and unincorporated associations.  Under different legal systems incorporated companies are generally recognised as having a legal existence separate from that of their owners or shareholders, so a company can undertake a loan, that is not in the name of any individual, and when the company goes bankrupt you cannot chase the owners or shareholders to get your money back (unless in some specified special circumstances where the courts can 'look through' the separate legal personality of the company).  The example you mention is of an unincorporated association, and in the UK for example these do not generally have separate legal personality, so debts would personally be held against the members jointly and severally, see Voluntary_association.  A partnership however is a special type of association which under some circumstances is recognised as a person in its own right separate from the members, see Partnership.  Hope this makes sense, sorry if I misread your question  nonsense  ferret  15:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * and Capacity (law) is the other article you were looking for, as noted above, it is probably not the concept you are looking for nonsense  ferret  15:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. It answers part of the question, insofar as it gives me a roughly equivalent set of wiki links and allows me to continue translating the article. I'm still left wondering why kenri nouryoku and its German equivalent are listed separately from the Japanese and German wikis' equivalent of legal personality and trying to figure out what separates the two concepts there. Reinana kyuu (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad it helps at least a bit: to clarify my understanding, there are two concepts in german - Rechtsfähigkeit (this is the quality of being the subject of rights, which I read as legal personality - ie you are a person under the law) and handlungsfähigkeit (this is the quality of being able to act, which I read as legal capacity - whether a person can make valid actions under the law) - was there another term that you saw in german? nonsense  ferret  19:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I now understand that it was the relationship with "Juristische Person" that is confusing - I believe that a Juristische Person is one that is 'Rechtsfähigkeit', and will under the right circumstances be 'handlungsfähigkeit' - see particularly which is linked from the german legal person article - apologies for being slow, my german isn't very fast :)  nonsense  ferret  19:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC) and btw I believe 'Juristiche Person' (something that is deemed by law to be a person, ie association/company/partnership) is to contrast with 'natürliche Personen' (an actual real live human being), both types of person are 'Rechtsfähigkeit'  nonsense  ferret  23:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for all of your help. That was exactly what I needed. It sounds like most of the material is already covered in the English wiki under legal personality, so I won't create a new page. Now, I can continue my translation. Reinana kyuu (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Is a Governor General a commander or not?
I see that David Johnston has been removed from the article Northern Mali conflict (2012–present) and only Stephen Harper has been left as commander. Aren't Governor Generals commanders too? Kotjap (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Almost certainly not. As the representative of the Queen, his role will be almost completely ceremonial, with some very limited constitutional powers.  Control of the military will be completely in the hands of the elected government.  Rojomoke (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See Governor-general.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  22:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Harper is in the section called "Commanders and leaders". He and Barack Obama and Angela Merkel and the other heads of government are not "commanders" in the sense of being on the ground directing military operations.  That's the job of a senior military officer.  I'm not at all sure what value resides in listing the various heads of government, as it just serves to confuse readers, as perfectly demonstrated by this question.  Australia's Governor-General is also our Commander-in-Chief according to our Constitution, but nobody thinks of her when discussing who's commanding our troops in Afghanistan or the Solomons or wherever.  Neither do they think of our Prime Minister.  They think of a serving soldier.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  22:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not totally sure, but as I recall the last American president to actively participate in combat was James Madison, during the War of 1812. Lincoln also paid frequent trips to battlefields, but I don't think he was issuing orders. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The U.S. president, however, is an active commander. It is the president, for example, who would give the order for nuclear weapons to be fired.  He or she also makes the ultimate decision, based partly on advice from the military command, whether to commit troops to a given campaign.  The title commander in chief is not an empty one in the United States. Presumably heads of government in countries with a Westminster system perform a similar role.  I would think that they, too, observe the principle of a military subordinated to civilian control.  Marco polo (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would hope that the question of using nuclear weapons in a war context (or any other context) has become even less than hypothetical. I can't even imagine why you'd mention that, Marco.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  01:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nukes are just an example. The point is that the ultimate command responsibility in the US military really does lie with the president.  He will have senior military officers who will tell him what they think he should do, but it's his call. --Trovatore (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, just an example, but one that one hopes is very far from being a realistic example. Not one that's the first thing that pops into people's minds when thinking of presidential options.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  02:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the president does still always have access to the football, so realistic or not, the forms are followed. But I think you're getting distracted here.  You appeared to suggest an equivalency between the C-in-C-ness of the US president with that of the Australian GG.  There is no such equivalency.  The US president really is C-in-C, in a meaningful way.  It's true that he rarely if ever directs the details of battle on the ground, but he absolutely does decide what campaigns are to be fought.  (Congress, however, is the only body that can declare war.) --Trovatore (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I'll just depart with the thought that, in general, a Commander-in-Chief is not any sort of commander (which is what the OP asked about), despite the word appearing in their title.  Your country, as in so many other ways, provides an exception.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  02:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I really didn't mean to upset anyone by mentioning nuclear weapons. Of course they are unspeakably horrific, and I personally think that they should be abolished and certainly never used.  However, the fact is that they do exist, so there is a real chance that they might be used (all the more reason to abolish them), and it is the U.S. president, in his or her role as commander in chief, who makes the decision whether or not to use them.  I'm less certain about this, but I think that the president also has the power to eliminate the nuclear arsenal.  Marco polo (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess my concern is that, if you wanted to make the point that "The U.S. president is an active commander", there would have been many less extreme examples you could have chosen. Pandora's Box was opened in 1945 and there's no going back, but let us hope nuclear weapons remain supremely irrelevant to human discourse in all its forms.  I share your concern and horror about these devices, but mentioning them at the drop of a hat only serves to keep them front and centre.  There have been far more axe murders than countries nuclearly attacking other countries (1), but we don't ever spend time discussing how we hope we're not chopped to bits by axe murderers.  Mentioning the nuclear option, when there were so many other things you could have mentioned, tells me there's something on your mind.  That bothers me.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  20:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose that for countries that posess them, it's the ultimate exercise of military power. In the UK, the Prime Minister is the one with his finger on the button, although he (or she) doesn't have any military titles at all. The Queen is the Commander-in-chief of the British Armed Forces and to quote from our article; "Long-standing constitutional convention, however, has vested de facto executive authority, by the exercise of Royal Prerogative powers, in the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence, and the Prime Minister (acting with the support of the Cabinet) makes the key decisions on the use of the armed forces. The Queen, however, remains the 'ultimate authority' of the military, with officers and personnel swearing allegiance only to the monarch, and retains the power to prevent unconstitutional use of the armed forces, including its nuclear weapons."
 * In the Commonwealth Realms, this function is, I believe, devolved to the Governor-General, who thus only has any real military power if the whole democratic process goes horribly wrong. In the UK, when and how a decision is made that that point has been reached, isn't clear, but we can worry about that if it ever actually happens. Australia has a written constitution, so somebody may have thought of that in advance. Alansplodge (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To come back to the U.S. for a bit, the role of the U.S. President as Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces does come into play in ways other than the nuclear example Jack objects to above. He does often make strategic decisions with regard to the deployment of troops on a global scale.  Now, just as a General doesn't concern himself with the micromanagement of every squad and fireteam under his command, and instead relies on the proper chain of command to see that his strategic leadership is carried out on a tactical and individual level, the President holds a similar role one step higher: He does have a say in deciding broad military policy and strategy, both in the abstract and in the specific, such as deciding where and when to deploy troops, etc.  Most recently this has played out during the 2009 troop surge in Afghanistan, as well as the prior 2007 surge in Iraq, both of which were initiated by orders from the President himself (Bush Jr. in 2007, Obama in 2009).  The military role of the President are not symbolic or empty: they represent a real, usable, and concrete role.  Presidents may be prudent about its use sometimes, but that doesn't mean that they don't have it.  -- Jayron  32  21:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Divorce rates in places and times
Hi, how is it that divorcing has become so much easier in the present than the past? What did we have before that we don't have now, and what do we have now that we didn't have before, that contributed to or curtailed divorce?

Also, what country has the lowest divorce rate? What's their solution to such a low rate? What do they have and not have that we don't and do? Likewise, same questions about the country with the highest divorce rate?

Thanks. --129.130.238.17 (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What we had before, at least in the US, is that divorces could only be granted for "cause": adultery, neglect, abuse, etc. "Amicable" divorces were generally not allowed. Also, they tended to be expensive, and women typically were not in position to do anything. So the divorce rate was artificially low. As Alan King once said, "In the old days, divorce was a luxury that few could afford." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, there was great shame associated with a divorce then. A high divorce rate isn't all bad.  Many marriages are bad, and can't be made better, so divorce is the best option.


 * Another factor is that women can now file for divorce in relative safety, whereas in "the good old days", their husbands could beat them mercilessly, and the law would not protect them. StuRat (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Men were expected to provide financial support for the family, and their failure to do so could be a successful argument for divorce by the woman. I can vouch for this in my own extended family tree, and with the observation that divorces were more common in the old days than people suppose. Of course, they didn't necessarily go around advertising it. As more public figures got divorces, it might have made the subject more common, though still a novelty, so to speak. I do recall a Will Rogers-ism, about some good thing that happened with him, and how he was "as happy as a Hollywood act-or with a new divorce!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Before the institution of civil marriage, which in many countries didn't happend until a few dozen years ago, you could only get wed in the religious community you belonged and your chance for divorce then depended on what religion it was. Divorce is impossible in the Catholic Church, for example (annulment is, but it's only granted in special cases). — Kpalion(talk) 22:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know, so I have to ask: If one of the parties were found to be guilty of adultery, wouldn't that be grounds for divorce within the RCC? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If i understood your question, no divorce is possible in Roman Catholic Church, under any circumstances. The annulment mentioned is the same sort of thing as a civil annulment which is basically a declaration that there never was a valid marriage there in the first place due to some failure in the conditions required.  There are strict canon law grounds under which such an annulment should be given, but some might say in practice the rules are sometimes interepreted generously.  nonsense  ferret  23:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As nonsenseferret said. Plus, if you get a civil and a Catholic Church marriage, and then you get get a civil divorce and remarry, but do not have your Church marriage nullified, and you have sex with your new wife, you're committing adultery in the eyes of the Church, becuase from their perspective you're still married to your previous wife. — Kpalion(talk) 00:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm just surprised that they don't allow divorce for "immorality", as per Jesus, and as per the Matthew scripture cited by wavelength below. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised you've come this far in your life but still don't know about the world-famous (or notorious, take your pick) utter rigidity the RCC has about the question of marriage. Annulment means they're saying it was never a proper marriage to begin with, despite appearances.  Other than that, Catholic marriage is indissoluble, period ("What God has joined together, let no man put asunder"), except by the death of one party.  Did you never read about how divorce was not possible in deeply Catholic Ireland or Italy - at all - until very recently?  See Italian divorce referendum, 1974 and Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  01:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to ignore the Catholic Church, except when they try to interpose their perversions on American society. I'm surprised they blatantly ignore the words of Jesus in Matthew, though I shouldn't be. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe you ought to bone up on what they actually do teach, rather than express surprise it's not whatever you think it ought to be. This is not actually a forum for discussing the perceived failings of religions.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  02:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I know more than enough about what they try to impose on the general public. How they handle marriage or other matters within their church, aside from their record on the child-molesting issue I don't much care, as anyone who doesn't agree with the church is free to leave the church. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Learn the teachings of the RCC? Jack, are you serious? Why would we want  to learn anything from them, while there is so much more accurate things to fill our brains with? --Lgriot (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I know about all that shit, which is why I left the RCC before most people here were even born. I'm making the point to Bugs that:
 * (a) this isn't the place for a general hate session about the RCC or any other religious organisation, even if it had anything to do with the OP's question, which it doesn't. When it comes to the RCC, I reckon I can out-hate anyone here, but this is just not the place for that;
 * (b) but if you're gonna do that, you can't on the one hand say "I tend to ignore the Catholic Church" and on the other hand pick holes in their theology which you've just admitted you've never studied. At the very least, read Catholic Church and learn about what they do actually preach, their actual dogma, and then you might have some basis on which to compare their teachings with the behaviour of some of their members.  Otherwise, what we have here is one huge theo-wank that even 16-year-olds would be embarrassed to engage in.  But if you are thinking of doing option (b), please read option (a) first.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  11:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What does their tolerance for child-molesting have to do with theology? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What does child-molesting have to do with their rules about marriage and divorce? This thread is about D-I-V-O-R-C-E, nothing else.  What would it take for you to understand that?  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  13:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In your learned opinion, has the OP's question been adquately answered, somewhere within this section? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, grow up, 007. You'd have to ask the OP whether he thinks he has the answer he came here for.  But if you're asking about the Catholic Church's position on divorce (or, rather, non-position, as they simply do not acknowledge any such thing exists in the religious aspect of marriage), then yes, it has been answered: by Kpalion, confirmed by nonsenseferret, confirmed by Kpalion again, and reiterated by me.  And all in the face of your unlearned protestations that it shouldn't be that way.  Take it up with the Pope, is all I can say.  His telephone number is VAT69.--   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  22:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "007"??? I raised a question about the church's position on divorce, and it was answered. I asked a question about their casual attitude on child-molesting, and it was not answered. But it doesn't matter, as the one has a lot to do with the other. FYI, asking the OP anything is impossible, as he's a drive-by. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * . You've made some comments about child molesting but I've looked in vain for any questions from you about that subject.  What was your question, again?  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  07:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You attacked my viewpoint on the "theology" of the church, and as Catholics often do, accuse anyone who raises questions about the folks who run the church of being against the church itself. So my question was, "What has tolerance of child-molesting got to do with theology?" Then you started talking about James Bond for some reason. It's interesting, though, to see you implicitly defending the church you rejected. Regardless, I'd like to know why they defy Jesus' words in the Matthew citation. What's their theological basis for that? And don't send me to some wall of text. Tell me, in one sentence, why they don't go along with what Jesus said. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I rejected your question as I understood it to be a continuation of your off-topic tangent about child molestation in a thread that was solely about divorce, and my response made it clear it was definitely off-topic. I had previously made it very clear this isn't the place for such a discussion.  My reference to a "hate-session" was a direct response to Lgriot's raising of no less than six (6) issues, every single one of which was totally irrelevant to this thread.  You cannot make that mean that I "accuse anyone who raises questions about the folks who run the church of being against the church itself".  Not everything I post here is about you, Bugs.  That may surprise you, but there it is.


 * You're demanding answers from me, of all people. I made it very clear that I left the Catholic Church a very long time ago.  I am not their spokesman.  Having been raised in that faith (a matter over which I had no say), I could not fail to be aware of most of their teachings.  But I left the Church in my teens, and I have never defended it.  Not that I disagree with all of their teachings; but then, I don't disagree with all of Islam or Hinduism or Judaism either.  Nothing I said in this thread or anywhere else has ever been about defending what the Catholic Church teaches.


 * I particularly make the point that nothing I said in this thread or anywhere else has ever been about defending child-molesters, whether they be in the Catholic Church or anywhere else. And you cannot make any of my words mean that.  Your snide comment is despicable, unworthy even of you, Bugs.


 * Your viewpoint on the theology of the Church? You said "I tend to ignore the Catholic Church", and you said "How they handle marriage or other matters within their church, aside from their record on the child-molesting issue I don't much care, as anyone who doesn't agree with the church is free to leave the church".  That doesn't sound like much of a viewpoint to me, more a total indifference.  Not much to attack there.  But what's all this talk of "attacking"?  I hear a lot of this talk lately.  Any time anyone offers an alternative point of view, they’re supposedly "attacking" someone else.  That's a pretty childish and defensive and insecure and "cowboys and Indians" standpoint.  We’re slightly above that level of discourse here.


 * Anyway, this is a reference desk, so you might try Matthew 5:32 for starters. It's not the single sentence you so high-and-mightily demand, but it’s the best you’re getting from me.  You could have found it in 5 seconds flat, as I did. You're supposedly a Ref Desk Regular, so you might for a change try doing some of the work you're paid for, rather than taking the lazy way and making others do your research for you.  (As an aside, if you want complex theological exegeses to be reduced to single sentences, then I don’t know what to tell you except "best of luck", or "be prepared for some interminably long and utterly incomprehensible sentences".)  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  21:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * For the first part of your second question, we had more people applying the counsel at Matthew 19:3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * For the second part of your second question, please see this article.
 * "Collapse of the World's Fundamental Social Unit: Mass Media's Tremendous Impact on Families"
 * —Wavelength (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That kind of propaganda is probably what the OP was hoping for. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "...what do we have now that we didn't have before, that contributed to or curtailed divorce?"
 * In one word: freedom. As others noted above, in modern Western countries, you have the legal and social freedom to escape from abusive or otherwise unsatisfactory marriages without being judged, beaten, disowned by family, or worse.
 * "What did we have before that we don't have now..."
 * We had religious oppression from the Church, which, as noted above, restricted (and continues to restrict) people's right to spend their lives with partners of their own choosing. This ties in with my next answer:
 * "Also, what country has the lowest divorce rate?"
 * See divorce demography. The countries with the lowest divorce rates tend to be poor authoritarian countries, or countries where divorce was only recently legalized due to religious opposition.  Chile, for example, only legalized divorce in 2004: .  --140.180.254.9 (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly. In contrast to the propaganda cited by wavelength, the truth is that in the old days women sat there and "took it", and nowadays they are no longer willing to. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hesitant though I am to become embroiled, I feel impelled in the interests of balance to point out that it's not all one-way: not all women are perfectly behaved and a significant proportion of modern-era divorces involve the husband divorcing the wife for 'just cause' - (no axe to grind as I'm a lifelong batchelor) . {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.21.143.150 (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)