Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 June 2

= June 2 =

German neutrality
Could any of the German states within the German Empire declared themselves neutral during World War I or joined the Allied Power? Were any of the states within the German Empire considering or debating on turning on Prussia in order to salvage their own independence like during the Napoleonic War.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, unlike earlier German confederations, which were merely alliances of independent states, the German Empire was a true federal state of its own; that is the constituent states, which retained some measure of internal autonomy (much like U.S. States) surrendered ultimate sovereignty to the Empire itself. Notably, the Constitution of the German Empire have the Emperor and the Bundesrat the sole power to declare war (the Emperor had the power to declare war in the case of Imperial defense, while the Bundesrat was required for the declaration of a "non-defensive" war).  Individual states may have not agreed with the participation of the Empire in WWI, but their objection was limited to the ability to vote against it in the Bundesrat.  Once the war was declared, however, the entire Empire did so as a single entity.  -- Jayron  32  05:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec)No, no more than Oregon could declare itself neutral during WW2. After unification, the constituent states of the German empire lost full sovereignty (and soon identity). By the time of WW1, more than 40 years later, German identity was much stronger than local identity, and people (and particularly the political elite), with few exceptions, felt "German", not "Saxon" or "Hessian". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What prevent any of the states from seceding itself like the southern states in the American Civil War? Obviously no real opposition to the war materialized during the time, but were there any objection or reluctance from any of the German states against the war or suggestion by ministers or politicians within the states that their state should not participate in the war.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 05:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We're talking in hypotheticals at this point, so the best we can say is what was preventing (legally) any putative peacenik German states from seceding was that they were signatories to the German Constitution, and in doing so gave up their independent sovereign rights. I suppose there was nothing to prevent them from saying "screw this noise" and taking up arms against the rest of the empire, excepting that would not have been seen as a legitimate act; as the secession of the southern states was ALSO not seen as a legitimate act.  The North treated the Confederacy as a region in revolt, not as a sovereign state in its own right.  -- Jayron  32  05:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didnt mean to really ask about hypotheticals. I meant to as who were the oppositional movements or voices within the different states against the war (suggesting neutrality, secession or alright opposition to Prussia are some suggestion that these oppositional voices may have suggested) or were there any at all. Example, South Carolina threatened to secede in the Tariff of 1828; even though it never materialized the hype was still there. --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * July Crisis seems to be some good reading to answer your questions here. It does not mention every German state individually, but does note a general and strong consensus to go to war against Serbia.  -- Jayron  32  06:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * History of Germany during World War I and Spirit of 1914 and Burgfrieden all also notes widespread political support for the War, including the cessation of inter-party animosity between political parties to get behind the war effort. Even the Social Democratic Party in the Reichstag, which usually stood in opposition to Imperial policy, unanimously supported the war effort from the very start.  It is noted in several of those articles that, on the individual citizen level, there was some sizable apprehension about getting involved in the war, but there does not seem to be any state that offered any direct or serious political opposition to it.  -- Jayron  32  06:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Tangential to the question, but I believe the study of previously ignored diplomatic archives of these states has been used by recent German historians to support theses of assigning more responsibility for the war to Germany.John Z (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Our article on the Kingdom of Bavaria says that " In 1918, the kingdom attempted to negotiate a separate peace with the allies but failed." If I recall correctly, the larger states retained at least nominal control of their armed forces, which operated as distinct corps within the Imperial army structure. Some of the smaller states, such as Brunswick, had already integrated their forces with the Prussian Army before Unification. Alansplodge (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The situation in 1918 was far different than the one before the war. The entire poltical and social structure of the Empire was coming apart.  The Emperor himself tried to dissolve the empire and return to the previous status quo where each German state was left to their own affairs, but the constitution did not allow the King of Prussia to abdicate the Imperial Throne without also abdicating the Prussian Throne, since the Imperial dignity was bestowed on the office of the King of Prussia and not the person holding the office.  There was a lot of disdain for the Emperor for even attempting such a move, Communist factions (which had not existed as such in 1914 in Germany) were taking over in places, it was a complete and utter mess.  Kaiser Wilhelm II, German Revolution of 1918–19, and Kiel mutiny provide some background as to what was going on in Germany at that time.  It isn't surprising that at that point the King of Bavaria tried to establish a separate peace, as the general feeling was "each man to himself" as the Empire was disintegrating.  The OP was asking for dissension within the Empire prior to the war; that is if any German states, as political entities, directly opposed going to war (the so-called "Blank check" in support of Austria and the Schlieffen Plan and all that).  The answer appears to have been no; that the empire in 1914 was fairly unified.  Four years later the situation had changed quite a bit.  -- Jayron  32  17:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No that does answer my second question. Did any other states try negotiating a separate peace or do anything to salvage their situation?--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Religion in Northumberland
The following comes from the Northumberland article, section "Demographics":"In the 2001 census, 81% of the population reported their religion as Christianity, 0.8% as 'other religion', and 12% as having no religion."That only makes 93.8%, too much for rounding errors; what happened to the other 6.2%? Christianity+other religion+no religion definitely seems to be all-encompassing. I looked through the source for this statement, but I couldn't find anything about religion and I couldn't find anything specifically about Northumberland. Nyttend (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Could the other 6.2% be "Didn't answer the question". That would make up the gap quite nicely, and it wouldn't be able to fit into any of the available categories.  -- Jayron  32  17:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The 2001 Census statistics for religion are available via . The raw figures are: All people 307,190. Christian 249,029, Muslim 663, Sikh 385, Buddhist 352, Hindu 258, Jewish 129, any other religion 596. No religion 36,156. Religion not stated 19,622. The question on religion is the only one which is voluntary in the Census of England and Wales. Incidentally it might be time to update the figures in the article to those for the 2011 Census. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why make it optional? Why not just include a "Decline to answer" option and require people to answer the question?  Thanks for the help; I didn't realise that not answering was an option.  Nyttend (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If someone answered "Decline to answer", the census computer might explode. Might get in some trouble for lying to the government, too. Not as useful an answer as "Hindu", but still an answer. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Political system that runs wikipedia
How does Wikipedia operate? Is it run as a democracy, with each user having one vote? Or is it a representative democracy, with those elected by the community chosen to make judgements over the general population? Or is it an anarchy with a lot of people screaming at each other about their desires and no coherent pattern? Or alternatively is it more like a feudal system with people being paid tithes by serfs, etc?

Also does this differ over different parts of wikipedia - the Reference Desk, for example? Is this run differently from other parts? How are decisions made?

Thank you

Horatio Snickers (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * None of the above. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where people add information to expand its scope.  -- Jayron  32  18:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but there must be a way that people come to decisions here. For example, to remove a question from the reference desk - is this something that any user can do? Or do you need specific powers to do so? Horatio Snickers (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, all decisions are arrived at by ad hoc discussions based on who shows up and expresses an opinion during the discussion. At Wikipedia this is called WP:CONSENSUS.  All decisions work this way.  There are no powers or privileges that you need to participate in these discussions, rather you just need to be able to argue effectively and have sound rationales for your stance.  Not everyone will agree, and not everyone will have the same rationales for their conclusions, but decisions get made by consensus, that is by having enough people show up with similar conclusions and sound rationales to justify those conclusions.  -- Jayron  32  18:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * (ec)WP:Concensus informed by WP:Policies which in turn were formulated (and are subject to amendment) by concensus. There are a few core policies imposed on us by law, most significantly - copyright, privacy and defamation - under the jurisdiction of the the state of Florida in the United States - because that is the WikiMedia Foundation's legal address. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The key ingredients to effective participation in this project are rational arguments supported by sources. Bus stop (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There's also a mild degree of oligarchy in the admins, editors who are granted extra technical powers, presumably by existing admins. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Admins are created after consensus is obtained at Requests for adminship which is a discussion that involves any editor that cares to take part. It's a Bureaucrats that judges the consensus and perform the technical change. Admins have no extra say in who becomes a new admin. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a mixture of nine parts direct democracy and one part dictatorship -- direct democracy in that most policies are formed by consensus of the entire community, dictatorship in that a few policies are imposed by fiat by the Wikimedia Foundation. Looie496 (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't forget bureaucracy. It's one of the things that repulses prospective new users. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * New users aren't even going to know anything about Wikipedia bureaucracy. And if they follow the rules and make well-sourced edits, they might never have to learn about it. It's when they run into bad-faith editors that they start to learn about Wikipedia's underbelly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * After almost 10 years, I still know next to nothing about WP's bureaucracy. I just don't go to those dark places voluntarily, and have never been dragged there kicking and screaming.  I had more than enuf bureacracy in my so-called working career.  But some others seem to gravitate there in Week 1 of their wiki-lives and then spend most of their time and energy there.  Horces for cources.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  22:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think Looie has done the most to hit the nail on the head. Consensus is the governing principle, but Jayron idealises this too much, imho. It's a principle that people try to apply, but edit wars come down to who has the most time and energy, in addition to the better principle of who can debate the most sensibly. The formal side of governance is that going too far will get you blocked. Blocking comes down to the decisions of admins, guided by the Wikimedia foundation and Jimbo. People seem to overstate the role of consensus, and understate the specific sanctions and governance structures. Most of these sanctions can be sidestepped, but that takes up your time, so in practice, they are reasonably strong. This question probably belongs on the helpdesk. IBE (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me note that it is important to distinguish between setting policy and enforcing policy. A democracy is defined in terms of the way policies are set, not the way they are enforced -- it is quite possible to have a democracy that is also a police state.  Wikipedia's bureaucracies play a major role in enforcing policy but (at least in principle) hardly any role in creating it. Looie496 (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It's mostly an anarchy. There are some general rules decided by community consensus, but there isn't anyone to enforce these rules unless the violations are extremely egregious. But even extremely egregious violations can be ignored, if the violator has powerful friends, and/or the accuser/victim doesn't. It's also a bit of a feudal system where some editors (admins) are more equal others (non-admins) although there are no rules that say such a thing, but just as in the real world, it's people with the guns that have the most power. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an experiment within political science, despite its disclaimer, which by its very nature is doomed to failure. Statistics show that rate of new article creation and the rate of new users joining has dropped since approximately the mid teens, and is continuing to do so. Unless, something is changed, it will eventually fizzle out and be relegated to the history books as just another fad. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ?? We're only in the first year of the teens now (2013). What are these "mid teens" of which you speak?  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  11:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Pardon, I meant 'naughties'. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In any case, it was always completely predictable that the rate of article creation would have dropped when most of the obvious topics had been progressively taken care of. There is still a vast amount of work to be done on existing articles and there are still a great many gaps to be filled.  And that's just on the obvious stuff, which as anyone who's been around here for a little while will realise, is not even the tip of the iceberg.  That work will never end, because new things are happening literally every day of the week, and people show no signs of losing interest in having extended debates about our treatment of existing topics, and hunting down new topics.  Wikipedia reached critical mass a long time ago. I've been hearing "It will never work" since before I became involved here in 2003.  We don't really need insiders to be singing from that songsheet.  I would never have bothered if I believed it was doomed to ultimate failure.  While the naysayers may rest complacently in their negativity while watching reruns of Ugly Betty and Happy Gilmore, there are plenty of people dedicated to making a difference here and making what could obviously never work, work.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  18:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I just try to make most of it, while it lasts. The source of my musing lie in articles such as is found in New Scientist, such as "Free for all? Lifting the lid on a Wikipedia crisis", and "A little knowledge…". Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Like other failed political systems, there is a lack of transparency in the operations of those with the most power, and the presence of an abuse of power. Were Wikipedia a nation, it would undergo a revolution like so many recent examples. However, there is little incentive to initiate such a revolution, since users are not bound by borders to Wikipedia - they are free to come and go as they please. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

There have been a few people who have described it as an adhocracy. It isn't an anarchy, as there are rules, but not strictly a democracy, as decision making isn't based on majority opinion. Piotr Koniecznya makes a case for this, if you are interested in his paper. . - Bilby (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Sikhism - the act of worship and the term for the location
I've been categorising some old photographs on Commons, and come across four (example, right) showing Sikh soldiers performing a religious service during WWI. Trying to decide how to categorise these brings up two questions:


 * 1) Is there a general Sikh term for "a religious service"? commons:Category:Religious rituals is notably silent on Sikhism, as is commons:Category:Prayer
 * 2) Is "gurdwara" used to refer only to a building formally intended for use as a place of worship, or is the term actively used to refer to improvised locations such as this?

This seems like an incredibly basic question, but I'm at a bit of a loss, and our articles aren't incredibly helpful! Andrew Gray (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a Sikh myself, so please seek advice from those that are, but the Wikipedia article on Gurdwara states: "Any place where the Guru Granth Sahib is installed and treated with due respect according to Sikh Rehat Maryada (the Sikh code of conduct and convention) can be referred to as a gurdwara, whether it is a room in one's own house or a separate building." The article on Guru Granth Sahib explains what that is, but it seems that one can have an improvised Gurdwara so long as it is properly "consecrated" (not sure of the Sikh word for this, so please excuse me if I have misspoken) with the Guru Granth Sahib.  The practice of Kirtan appears to be a part of the services, but I'm not reading that the entire service is known by a specific name.  -- Jayron  32  19:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also maybe Sangat (term), which appears to refer to the Sikh congregation gathered for worship. I'm not certain if this refers to the service itself, or just the participants in it.  -- Jayron  32  19:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd just found Kirtan, which is probably what's shown in these images. That said, it's notable that the first image on that article is solely categorised under Bhajan, which Commons treats as a subset of Hindu worship. I think I may have inadvertently found a lot of work needing done! Andrew Gray (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't have a lot of deep knowledge in this area, but it would be unsurprising to find similar terms in both Sikh and Hindu religious practices, given the geography involved. IIRC, Sikhism started as a reaction to (and thus would be influenced by) both Islam and Hinduism as practiced in the Punjab area of Pakistan/India.  -- Jayron  32  19:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You can ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sikhism.—Wavelength (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

How did American conservatism become associated with the Republican party?
In the past, the Republican party espoused very liberal ideologies, and seemed to be the de facto political party for the North. For some reason, this changed slowly after the American Civil War, and the South embraced the Republican party, but changed its ideologies to reflect the same conservative ideologies that they always possessed. How and why did this happen? Was it kind of like a bait and switch strategy? How do I put this... like did Southerners join the Republican party as a deliberate form of subterfuge? It seems to me that after the American Civil War, Americans would be distrustful of Southerners gaining power again, but Southerners used legal loop holes, and usurped the Republican party as a method of gaining power. Am I on the right track or completely wrong here? ScienceApe (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems to me this was raised here some weeks back. There are a number of angles on this. The south was solidly Democratic (i.e. anti-Republican) until the 1960s, when the Democrats in large part embraced civil rights legislation and Republicans opposed it. At that point, the south as a whole switched to the Republicans. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Which is of course, utter bullshit, as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed with 80%+ majorities among Republicans in all votes in both Houses, outnumbering Democrat percentage support in every single case, and making passage of the bill possible. The South switched away from the Democrat party when the later became the party of the New Left. μηδείς (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe not "as a whole". I don't think many blacks did. HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ironically, once they got the chance to vote routinely, they were outnumbered by the whites who had switched to the GOP. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm focusing on the south. But the Republicans were the "conservative" party nationally (outside the south) long before that. Generations earlier, even. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * DemocratIC Party. "Democrat Party" is used only by Republicans trying to get at Democrats who object to the term.  RNealK (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * What happened was that in the period after the Civil War the Republicans became the preferred party of big business. That made them the party of fiscal conservatism.  Their tight association with social conservatism developed much later. Looie496 (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * See Solid South and southern strategy. "Beginning in about 1948, the national Democratic Party's support of the civil rights movement significantly reduced Southern support for the Democratic Party and allowed the Republican Party to make gains in the South. In 1968, President Nixon's 'Southern strategy' is credited with allowing either the Republicans or Democrat George Wallace's independent campaign to keep much of the South out of the Democratic column at the presidential level. The South continued to send an overwhelmingly Democratic delegation to Congress until the Republican Revolution of 1994."  --Bowlhover (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It took a long time for the party system to switch up. Under the post-civil war system, the Republican party mainly represented northern business interests, while it had been the part of Lincoln and of emancipation of slaves, the period from the 1870s - 1880s saw a series of weak Republican presidents who abandoned the south to the Democrats.  The Republicans really stopped supporting civil rights following the Compromise of 1877, and the mantle of civil rights for southern blacks was not really picked up in a significant way until the New Deal, which encouraged Federal intervention into the economy of the country, caused the Dixiecrats to split from the Democratic party.  Prior to the Dixiecrats bolting from the Democratic party, neither party had any widespread support for civil rights: the Republican party saw it as bad for business, and the Democratic party didn't want to alienate its power base in the Solid South.  By the 1960s, a combination of Nixon's Southern strategy and the carrying of the mantle of civil rights expressly by northern Democrats (such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964), further drove former Southern Democrats into the Republican party.  The party transition wasn't complete until the 1980s, as northern labor interests, which tended to be socially conservative but still maintained strong ties to the Democratic party because of its perceived support for them, abandoned the Democratic party to become what was known as the Reagan Democrats; these Reagan Democrats are all basically Republicans today.  There was not really a time prior to the last 3-4 decades when either party was, strictly speaking, "conservative" or "liberal" (in the American idiom) either socially or economically.  There were socially and fiscally conservative and socially and fiscally liberal factions within each party probably until the 1980s, when the the final shakedown created a more polar party structure which has only continued to polarize until today.  -- Jayron  32  01:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Let’s not confuse Republicans with fiscal conservatives. The post-WWII record shows that when the GOP controlled the White House and either one or both houses of congress the budget balance dramatically worsened.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the change was really a bit later, with Carter and Reagan. The Republicans were the big spenders after the Civil War until FDR or a bit earlier, when the parties changed positions. And then changed back in the 70s-80s.John Z (talk) 08:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Visigothic families in Iberia
Are or were there ever any ancient Visigothic families in Iberia that could trace their family line prior to the Umayyad conquest of Hispania? Basically the Spanish and Portuguese equivalent of the House of Rochechouart in France.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Kingdom of the Visigoths was a direct predecessor to the Kingdom of Asturias which was a direct predecessor to the Kingdom of León which became joined to the Kingdom of Castile which joined with the Kingdom of Aragon to become the Kingdom of Spain. I'm pretty sure there is some sort of known genealogy that can be traced through every one of those such that Juan Carlos I of Spain himself can be said to be directly tied to a Visigoth.  However, it should be noted that mathematically, it would be very unlikely that anyone with any European ancestry alive today is not a descendant of someone from the Visigothic Kingdom; not everyone may be able to trace that line back, but given the number of generations involved, it would be hard to argue that there isn't.  I'll do some digging to see about tracing the direct lines.  -- Jayron  32  01:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Pelagius of Asturias founded the Kingdom of Asturias, he's unequivocally a Visigoth. Direct familial relations exist between all kings of Asturias, such that the last such king, Fruela II of Asturias can trace decent back to Pelagius.  The Kings of Leon all descend from Ordoño I of Asturias, who himself is decended from the Visigoths (see above).  I can trace forward through all the Kings of Leon through the Beni Alfons dynasty until Ferdinand I of León and Castile, who conquered Leon and became the king of both countries.  Ferdinand was of the Navarrese (Basque) House of Jimenez, so we may have run into a dead end unless we can find a way to tie Ferdinand back to either the Beni Alfons family or another family which can trace its ancestry to the Visigoths.  Will dig some more.  -- Jayron  32  01:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * One can trace a father-son ancestry back from Ferdinand to Gonzalo Fernández of Castile, where the article states that Gonzalo Fernández's wife Muniadona was a member of the Asturian Royal Family. Since all the members of that family descend from Pelagius, and Pelagius was a Visigoth, that means that through Muniadona, all descendants of her descendant Ferdinand I of Castile and Leon are themselves descendents of the Visigoths.  All kings of Spain can claim descent from Ferdinand I of Castile, I'm confident of that (though there are some women in the line and at least one bastard, Henry II of Castile).  From there, you can also safely assume that every living royal in Europe can trace a line back to the Visigoths as well, given the level of intermarriage in that society.  -- Jayron  32  01:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Juan Carlos can be traced back to Peter of Cantabria (through Fruela (no article), Bermudo I of Asturias, Ramiro I of Asturias, Ordoño I of Asturias, Alfonso III of Asturias, Ordono II of Leon, Ramiro II of Leon, Ordono III of Leon, Bermudo II of Leon, Alfonso V of Leon, Sancha of Leon, Alfonso VI of Leon and Castile, Urraca of Leon and Castile, Alfonso VII of Leon and Castile, Ferdinand II of Leon, Alfonso IX of Leon, Ferdinand III of Castile, Alfonso X of Castile, Sancho IV of Castile, Ferdinand IV of Castile, Alfonso XI of Castile, Henry II of Castile, John I of Castile, Ferdinand I of Aragon, John II of Aragon, Ferdinand II of Aragon, Joanna of Castile, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, Philip II of Spain, Philip III of Spain, Philip IV of Spain, Maria Theresa of Austria, Louis, Le Grand Dauphin, Philip V of Spain, Charles III of Spain, Charles IV of Spain, Infante Francisco de Paula of Spain, Infante Francis, Duke of Cadiz, Alfonso XII of Spain, Alfonso XIII of Spain, Infante Juan of Spain, Count of Barcelona, to Juan Carlos). Probably any Spanish aristocratic family can be traced back to the Visigoths. The Umayyads never conquered all of Iberia and the Visigoths never went anywhere. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And that's a second line different from mine. Good one.  -- Jayron  32  02:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I was aware of the descent of the Spanish Royal Family from Peter of Cantabria and Pelagius of Asturias. I was looking for the oldest families in Iberia other than the Royal Family like the French House of Rochechouart or the Anglo-Saxon Swintons, Berkeleys, and Ardens who were not part of the royal lines of their respective countries.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Love Canal
Have the people involved in the Love Canal controversy ever received the moneys owed them from the lawsuits generated by this incident? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dse1947 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article titled Love Canal seems to imply that they did. One sentence there says "Eventually, the government relocated more than 800 families and reimbursed them for their homes," and later another says "Residents' lawsuits were also settled in the years following the Love Canal disaster."  -- Jayron  32  00:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't help thinking about something else when I hear "love canal". --  Jack of Oz   [Talk]  01:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You'd not be the only one. It is an unfortunate name... -- Jayron  32  01:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Depends on which of the two words gets emphasized. Meanwhile, I'm trying to recall which movie featured somebody's attempt to write a supposedly romantic play about returning to Love Canal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Aha, I thought so: Tootsie. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)