Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 December 2

= December 2 =

Living former heads of government
I was gobsmacked to discover there are no less than 12 living former prime ministers of Japan.

Does any other country or polity have as many, or even more, living former heads of government? --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  06:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Italy have ten according to Prime Minister of Italy and Iraq 11 (not all would have been heads of government). Hack (talk) 06:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * List of Prime Ministers of Pakistan shows 10 living prime ministers. It would be 11 if Benazir Bhutto wasn't assassinated in 2007.  --Bowlhover (talk) 09:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Switzerland probably beats all on a technicality; Switzerland officially has no single head of state or government; their Federal Council serves collectively as head of state and government; there are always 7 members of the council, and there are likely dozens of living former members of the council. -- Jayron  32  10:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I just counted them, and got 16 living former Federal Councils of Switzerland. ---Sluzzelin talk  12:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And I miscounted them. There are 17. (I missed 90-year old Alphons Egli, currently the oldest living former Bundesrat). ---Sluzzelin talk  13:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In case people are wondering why there are "only" 17, despite the obvious Swiss advantage by numbers Jayron pointed out: It has to do with the long average tenure of Federal Councils (especially when compared to Italian Prime Ministers).
 * From our list of members of the Swiss Federal Council by date: "Once elected for a four-year-term, Federal Councillors can neither be voted out of office by a motion of no confidence nor can they be impeached. Re-election is possible for an indefinite number of terms. Parliament has decided not to re-elect a sitting Councillor only four times, and only twice (in 2003 and 2007) since the beginning of the 20th century. In practice, therefore, Councillors serve until they decide to resign and retire to private life, usually after three to five terms of office." I didn't calculate the averages, but three to five terms of office would mean about 12 to 20 years! (that does seem a bit long to qualify as "usually", but the point remains) ---Sluzzelin talk  13:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * All fascinating stuff. In a fair contest, I'm not sure whether Herr Egli and his cohorts would individually be considered "heads of government".  The technicality by which Jayron includes them in this comparison can also be seen as a technicality that excludes them from this comparison.  Is your glass half-full or half-empty?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair point, all I can say is that Herr Egli's glasses are wholly impressive. ---Sluzzelin talk  20:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * How many do you get if you count past Councils that have at least one living member? —Tamfang (talk) 08:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * it looks like Japan holds the current record. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  07:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the swirliy falcon thing?
What is the swirly falcoln thing thery use when using falcons? 49.224.159.47 (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The Creance? It's hard to follow what you are asking about.  Perhaps if you read the Wikipedia article titled falconry and followed links from there you could find out yourself.  -- Jayron  32  13:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Lure (falconry) ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes that's what it is, thank you! 49.224.159.47 (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Your help requested for humor in pedagogy
Hi all. I have a student here who's defending a thesis on using humor as a pedagogical tool. Can any of you provide a joke or witticism or two to liven up his discourse? My best joke was written by one of my daughters when she was 4, and it goes "how can a cat drive a car?" There is no punch line, so you can see I'm no help at all. Thanks in advance! Drmies (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Search for "chemistry cat" meme. Always a chuckle.  -- Jayron  32  15:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, done--that's funny, but too visual for this presentation. Thanks for the chuckles. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In any case, I recommend you stay away from this one if you value your job Nil Einne (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * How man pedagogues does it take to change a light bulb? ---Sluzzelin talk  15:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (Rats, I can't manage the "hidden" template, so I'm giving the answer in white font Only one, but the light bulb needs to want to change. ---Sluzzelin talk  16:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC))
 * Humor about using humor as a pedagogical tool? There was this teacher who was always preparing lots of jokes for use in the classroom. One day his dog ate his jokes. He could do nothing else but come in front of the class and tell his students: "I'm sorry but today there will be no jokes. My dog ate my jokes." There was an explosion of laughter: "It's a good one, but we've heard it before." The teacher said: "No. It's true". The class laughed even harder. And so he spent the whole period trying to convince his students this was no joke. But the more he tried the more they laughed. The end. Contact Basemetal   here  16:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you hear about the teacher who told hilarious jokes? No. Neither did I. --Dweller (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you all! I like Sluzzelin's best. Basemetal, Dweller, please don't make me sad. My paycheck is sad enough already. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you be a bit more specific about what you're looking for? I got the sense you were looking for jokes about pedagogy, but some of the replies above seem to have interpreted it as being a request for academic jokes (as with the chemistry cat). Matt Deres (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, both would work. What the student could use is jokes about jokes, jokes about pedagogy, jokes about teachers--I'll let them pick. I haven't looked for the chemistry cat yet. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, another one, this time really lame, but it might apply to didactics (perhaps more than to pedagogy) in that I'm giving its translated version as well:
 * Two tomatoes were crossing a road, one was suddenly run over by a car, to which the other replied; "Come on ketchup!" (rrrrrrwhack boom ching!)
 * (en français): Deux pommes de terre traversent la rue. L'une se fait écraser et l'autre dit : "Oh... purée !" (rrrrrrac, boum, tching!)
 * :-| ---Sluzzelin talk  21:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Universal translation. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The original post already made me laugh. How about "I wanted to start off my defense of "humor as a pedagogical tool" with a joke, but I don't actually know any jokes."?--Wikimedes (talk) 11:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes Night
Is there evidence of official Catholic protest against the celebration of Guy Fawkes Night? Have any Popes spoken out against it? In the modern world, is there evidence of offense taken by organised Catholicism against the celebrations? Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It just makes me feel embarrassed for the celebrants, but maybe they see it more like Halloween than dressing up as Lee Harvey Oswald? It certainly seems more patriotic/traditional than sectarian.  Catholic Emancipation in Britain was largely accomplished by classical liberalism in the 1800's, and what vestiges are slowly disappearing are rather odd, for example, that an heir to the throne might marry a Muslim, but not a "papist". At one point the entire kingdom was under interdict.  For the last century you'll find a heck of a lot more converts to Catholicism in Britain than the other way around. μηδείς (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No-one is right in this case; there is a huge amount of tradition involved and almost no sectarianism at all. In fact I would say that the average UK celebrant pays attention to the original "reason for the season" even less than they pay attention to the original significance of Christmas. As children we are, at some point, taught the historical background, but the general reaction is "oh OK", not a perception of hostility towards the Catholic school down the road. Much as we don't put much emotional or sectarian value in any other sectarian conflicts from roughly half a millennium ago (or even more recently).


 * In Northern Ireland it may be rather different(?), but they seem to focus their date-related social disturbances mostly on other historical events.


 * There has been an increasing fuss, reported on BBC News amongst other places, about whether effigies of living people (sometimes sectarian opponents, sometimes just political ones) are burned in the course of some celebration. Some of this has indeed been in Northern Ireland (where I think some kind of government funding is made available for bonfire celebrations with specific restrictions about the funded events not burning things that would cause damage either to the environment or to sectarian feelings).


 * Another aspect has been in an English town which has developed a "quaint" custom of building huge effigies of (living) politicians and other public figures and then parading them through the town. (Usually mildly insulting, e.g. depicted in their underwear or some similar Spitting Image type device.) Some authority insisted that they not burn one or more of the effigies this year, for reasons I don't quite follow, but perhaps were a sort of municipal WP:BLP policy. This stipulation was followed, and instead somehow one of the effigies was instead filled with fireworks and then blown to smithereens. I don't think it was a Roman Catholic though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently he's Church of Scotland, but as with most UK Mainland politicians his shade of religion (or lack of one) isn't of much public interest. I believe the request came from some "anti-Racist" Quango. I was amused that he described the perpetrators as "typical Tories" or words to that effect, since only a couple of years previously the burnt effigies included Messrs Cameron & Clegg (as a two-fer). On the occasion I attended, one effigy was of a local area television station (in the form of a TV camera). Anti-medianism? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "isn't of much public interest" absolutely perfectly summarises it. Most UK citizens basically just don't care about sectarianism of any sort. Blowing things up, on the other hand, sounds like good clean fun to everyone! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all. Does anyone have any answers to my questions? --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Our article implies that, by the late 19th century (and certainly in the 20th century, generally), Guy Fawkes Night celebrations became increasingly secular in character, at around the same time that Catholicism in England became more gradually tolerated and accepted.  But, it doesn't seem to suggest that one led to the other.  You could ask .  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there a way to search for whether any Pope has spoken about it? --Dweller (talk) 10:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Fawkes is not beatified, canonized, venerated or considered a martyr by the Catholic Church, and there is no encyclical written on him. Whether any pope ever spoke of him at all is likely, but not ex cathedra. μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The main focus of this debate in England (as opposed to the rest of the UK) is the small southern town of Lewes, which annually has the Lewes Bonfire where effigies are burned, not just of Guy Fawkes which is standard practice, but also of Pope Paul V, a tradition which was abandoned by the rest of us centuries ago. I found BBC News - "A Roman Catholic Priest in Lewes, in the county of Sussex in Southern England has attacked plans to burn Catholic effigies..." from 1997 and "Catholics to Attend Lewes Bonfire" from 2014. Alansplodge (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Alan. --Dweller (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Titles of Nobility Amendment: Cardinals
This is a purely hypothetical question. Had the Titles of Nobility Amendment been ratified, would it include Cardinals? The text says quite clearly: "any title of nobility or honour" and "any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power. Would each new Cardinal from the US have to seek Congress's consent?--94.65.173.211 (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, probably (but one cannot say for certain unless it is tested in a court of law; and there is not likely to be any test on an unpassed law...) Cardinal is a title of nobility conferred by a foreign, sovereign power (the Pope); the title Cardinal makes the holder formally a Prince of the Church.  -- Jayron  32  20:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Lawyers can litigate anything. While cardinal is certainly a title, I don't think it's abundantly clear that it's a title of nobility.  The fact that they are also called by another title that sounds "noble" wouldn't prevent a lawyer from arguing that it's a title that [1] goes with an actual office, thus is based on performing a job rather than being noble, or that the title is conferred by the pope in his religious capacity rather than as a foreign power. or that [2] Prince of the Church is a historical honorific rather than an actual principate, a soubriquet rather than a title.  Fortunately, we won't have to wrestle with such sophistry unless we're foolish enough to ratify that useless amendment, and we're not.... - Nunh-huh 04:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if it is not actual nobility, does it not fall under "any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever"?--94.65.173.211 (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The US Constitution forbids the government from bestowing titles of nobility: Title of Nobility Clause. Presumably, this was to pre-empt the kind of social structure that exists in the UK. In the US, all are equal under the law (theoretically). Americans have all manner of titles. Cardinal is one of them. But it means nothing legally, i.e. it confers no special status on its holder - other than whatever is protected by "freedom of religion". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * However, the constitution does not currently forbid U.S. citizens from accepting those titles, nor does it incur any penalty against those that do. The U.S. does not formally recognize any rights and privileges associated with a title, but it also doesn't forbid them.  It just treats them as though they don't exist one way or the other.  The proposed amendment noted above would have expressly forbid U.S. citizens from accepting such titles, and would have imposed stiff penalties for doing so.  That would be different from the current situation.  -- Jayron  32  14:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So, Caspar Weinberger would have been prosecuted for high treason after becoming an honorary GBE...--94.65.173.211 (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, he would not have. Under the proposed amendment, he would have had his citizenship revoked.  -- Jayron  32  15:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My comment was actually sarcastic, but still, this would be very dishonouring for an ex-Defense Secretary. Also, he would most likely have secured the consent of Congress.--94.65.173.211 (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to mention Presidents Eisenhower, Reagan and Bush Sr. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are aware these are all as honorary as is Winston Churchill's American citizenship, Jack? μηδείς (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Am I aware that a list called List of honorary British knights and dames is about honorary knights and dames? I'll let you work that one out.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  02:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean by "work that one out". μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are we having this - or any - conversation? You recently reminded me that earlier this year I initiated a no-contact policy between us. That policy stands as far as I'm concerned. My only exception is where I'm being attacked or targetted or whiteanted, because I will not let misinformation or disinformation about me stand unchallenged. This is not such a case.
 * Out. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  06:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologize, Jack, for having used your name. In any case, my sole act was to point out that like Churchill's citizenship, the titles granted the presidents you mentioned were honorary.  It was only after that that you brought up the list and suggested I "work that one out".  Brining something up post facto and talking to me like a school marm seemed odd, hence my expressed lack of understanding.  You are as free to hold whatever grudge you like as I am free not to, I appreciate your contributions here. μηδείς (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sheesh. No, it was NOT "only after that that [I] brought up the list". I linked the list in my earlier post mentioning Eisenhower, Reagan and Bush, as hovering over the link would have revealed in a split second. Out, irrevocably.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You being "out" I am not sure if I should read your comment or not, but I still largely enjoy you, big fella. μηδείς (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Inger Eriksdatter
Was Cæcilia Knudsdatter the mother of Inger Eriksdatter, the wife of Asser Rig and mother of Archibishop Absalon? I am seeing a lot of genealogy sites and Wikipedia articles but am not sure if there is a confusion between Inger Eriksdatter's father on being Eric IX of Sweden or Erik Jarl of Falster since both are referred to as Erik Jedvardssom. Also did any descendant of Asser Rig marry into the Danish Royal family later in history --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)