Humanities desk
< February 20	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 22 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 21

No Winter Olympic boycott 1980-84

If the nations involved really cared, why didn't they boycott those games, or is it that the Winter Games came first in the years involved, or further, that the Winter Games aren't as big? Or was it more the location of the games that was relevant? Aaronite (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article Olympic boycotts, the rationale for boycotting the Moscow games in 1980 is stated as being in protest of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The next summer games, in 1984, were held in Atlanta in the U.S. The article says that the Soviet countries and their friends were boycotting on the grounds of general U.S. negativity towards them. There is also a good likelihood of "tit for tat" going on, too. (I suspect there are sources for such a conclusion, but without them, this last bit is WP:OR) In each case, the location for the games is the key. Bielle (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Just to note, the 1984 Olympics were in Los Angeles. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Yes. The U.S. boycotted the 1980 Moscow games, a direct slap at the Olympic spirit (just one more of Jimmy Carter's brilliant moves while President), and the Soviets in turn boycotted our 1984 games in L.A., thus practically ensuring a pile of gold for the Americans. The winter games will be in Russia next time, and figure skating scoring will be among many interesting topics, but hopefully there won't be a boycott. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note the replies so far refer to the Summer games. In 1984 the Winter Olympics were in Sarajevo, while the 1980 ones were in Lake Placid, USA. For the 1980 ones I guess the timing was important, while the 1984 games - why would the Russians boycott an Olympics which were being held in a place which at the time was part of the Communist bloc? --TammyMoet (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Sarajevo was then in Yugoslavia, which although it was communist, was emphatically not Soviet, though Washington found it hard to see the difference. Moscow on the other hand tended to view it as pro-Western. --ColinFine (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 1980 Winter Games would have taken place less than a couple of months after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, so presumably the US hadn't developed its stupid boycott policy and the USSR would have had no reason to boycott the games. In 1984, while Yugoslavia was a Communist country it was of an independent sort, certainly not part of the USSR's bloc, and maintained decent relationships with both superpowers so no need for a boycott. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carter was probably preoccupied with the Iran situation. And had the CCCP known they were going to lose that hockey game to Team USA, maybe they would have boycotted Lake Placid! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall Yugoslavia was definitely behind the Iron Curtain, which meant politically it was closer to the USSR. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell that to Stalin! AnonMoos (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslavia may have been behind the Iron Curtain when it descended in 1946, but Yugoslavia never signed the Warsaw Pact - Tito having begun to distance himself from Stalin in 1948. It was certainly a communist country but it had an independent foreign policy. Albania after 1961 was in the same position. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslavia began the Non-Aligned Movement, the idea of which was to not take sides in the cold war conflict. It was on speaking terms with both the USA and the Soviet union. Anecdotally, Yugoslav passports were a precious boon for counterfeiters because a Yugoslav passport was supposedly the only one that could get you to both the US and the SU without much hassle. TomorrowTime (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Tito might have disagreed, as well! Woogee (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Available poems of David Diop

David Diop, a Senegalese poet, who is also known for his contribution to the cause of Negritude, left only 17 poems after him (22 according to some sources) as most of his manuscripts were destroyed with him in an air crash in 1960. Does anyone knows which were they? Ganesh Dhamodkar (Talk) 06:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing over from one Indian state to another Indian state

Can a user please give me the answers to the following questions regarding crossing over from one Indian state to another Indian state (e.g. Rajasthan to Uttar Pradesh): 1) Is there a border check point? 2) Does one have to show, for an Indian national some internal Indian identification document, or for a foreigner a passport? 3) Does one have to pay to cross such a border? Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transport across states in India does not usually require identification details.

Passage is free. However, custom duties are to be paid for certain goods if they are transferred across states.

Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a foreigner, make sure you have some sort of ID (a international Driver's licence). Stuff like liquor or rice is sometimes cannot be transported across state lines because of different duty structures. For example you cannot bring liquor into or take rice out of Tamil Nadu.--Sodabottle (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 10:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indian defaultsort 1

How should this be set? V. Krishnaswamy Iyer. Text reads: Venkatarama Iyer Krishnaswamy Iyer - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. For south indian names, use with initials - V. Krishnaswamy Iyer. Most of the older south indian names used only initials and not surnames. But a lot of us now have shifted to using surnames, so for ones born after say the 80s surname,firstname can be used.

Percentage of Americans who have been abroad

What percent of Americans have been outside the USA? What percent have been outside the USA, Canada, and Mexico? If I may say so - shoot me down in flames if you must - but my impression from reading things on the Reference desk is that Americans often find it very difficult to imagine how non-North Americans (even if English-speaking) will see the world from a different perspective, and have a different culture and conventions. 78.146.74.227 (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, only 22% have passports (Source), compared with 71% in the UK. Everyone has trouble imagining what living somewhere else is like, on the whole; I couldn't comment whether Americans have more of a problem with this than anyone else. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what proportion of those had them for military reasons? 89.243.197.22 (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose Americans are at a disadvantage because while we here in Europe are bombarded with non-stop saturation coverage of American cultural materials such as films, tv, books, products, there is little going in the other direction. 89.243.197.22 (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth bearing in mind that North Americans have to go a long way. We Brits can just hop on a train or a ferry and suddenly everyone is driving on the wrong side of the road and pretending not to understand when we ask for directions. And it's cheaper to fly from the UK to France than to Scotland...--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a generous excuse to make for Americans, but it doesn't hold when you consider that 60–70% of Australians have passports. Maedin\^talk 15:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stunned that I have to say this to someone living in England, but Scotland is part of the UK!

ALR (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comment is supposed to show it can be cheaper to travel abroad than within the UK, ie from England to Scotland or v.v.

In 2008, 30.8 million U.S. citizens traveled overseas. I believe this would include double-counting of people who traveled more than once. There are, I believe, about 280-285 million U.S. citizens (as opposed to 300m+ U.S. residents, legal and illegal). Keep in mind that overseas travel is not really realistic for many Americans. I knew a guy who was in his late 20s and had never been outside of Ohio or Pennsylvania. Not because he wasn't interested in the rest of the world (he had a degree in European History) but because he simply didn't have the time or money and was burdened with the responsibilities of home and family. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does that count include travel to Mexico, Canada and the Caribbean? Woogee (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't counting trips to Canada or Mexico (see the web link). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having a passport or not does not reflect the number of American military who served overseas. At least when I was in the military and served overseas, a passport was not required. Woogee (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to Maedin (and others), I want to say that it is understandable why Australians would be more likely to want to travel overseas than Americans. Australia is a thinly populated country, most of it desert, with just a handful of major cities, all on the coast. The United States has a great deal more regional variety, both in culture and in physical environment. Americans do not need to go to the trouble or expense of leaving the country to experience a very different setting. When I travel from Boston, in the northeastern United States, to California, I have the feeling of being in a foreign country. The feeling of foreignness for me in California is only slightly weaker than my feeling of foreignness in England, for example. And there are many such "foreign" parts of the United States for me. That said, I have a passion for travel and have made it a priority to visit countries very different from the United States. Not everyone has this passion for travel, and, as others have said, many Americans cannot afford to indulge such a passion if they have it. Finally, I want to disagree with the person who posted the question. I think that there are a number of Americans on the RefDesk who appreciate that people from other countries will have different experiences and perspectives. I like to think that I am one of these Americans. I would agree that travel has contributed to my openness. Marco polo (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't argue that specific Americans certainly do travel and have worked to gain an understanding and knowledge of cultures different from their own, but the percentage is extremely low. When travelling in the States, I am continually surprised by the number of people who don't know where the UK is, or what is is, and adults with (as far as I know) all of their mental faculties intact actually ask me, "Do they speak English in England?" Is this level of ignorance typical in any other Western country? Or any civilised country at all? Maedin\^talk 12:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I've realised that explains a lot is that, at least for Americans who write articles here, they believe that the culture, customs, and conventions in other english-speaking and Western countries are just the same as in the USA (apart from the obvious stuff like having a funny accent and driving on the 'wrong' side of the road). I've noticed some articles that demonstrate this, and now that I'm alerted to it I expect I will see a lot more. 89.242.101.23 (talk) 11:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Burma-Bangladesh border

The people on opposite sides generally look so different from each other. But there only seems to be a river separating them. How did the two sides manage to divide so well rather than mix?

Cdg1 (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People generally would not mix because of differences in languages and religions, no matter how close they live. However there would be a small percentage of people who would intermix. 174.114.236.41 (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree that people on either side of the border look so different. Here is a photo of Bangla boys in Chittagong with a puppy. Here is a photo of Rakhine boys, across the border in Burma, with a chicken. Do the two groups of boys look so different? Is there at least one boy in each photo who would not look out of place in the other photo? Then there are the Marma people, who live in Bangladesh but are closely related to the Rakhine across the border in Burma. Here is a photo of Marma and Bangla people in Bangladesh. Do you feel sure that you can distinguish the Bangla men in this picture from the Marma men? The man with the beard is probably Bangla, but what about the men behind him? Is it so easy to tell who's who? The fact is that people along this border have been mixing for thousands of years. You will find people in Bangladesh who look very much like people in Burma, and vice versa. You will also find people who look like they could belong to either group. Marco polo (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might look at a map, and identify the Naga Hills, which are a fairly significant barrier between the two countries. I'm not sure what part is separated by "only a river," but it isn't the major border feature. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty of crossing the border caused no end of problems at the start of the Burma Campaign in WWII since there were only mountainous jungle tracks connecting Burma to India, as it was then. Alansplodge (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally different tribes don't mix. Some people look like they belong in a different group because of war rape in the past. Recessive traits could reappear after many generations later. 174.114.236.41 (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which Christian theologian said "there are infants a span long in hell?"

Which Christian theologian said "there are infants a span long in hell," and in which of their writings is this statement found? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgertutt (talk • contribs) 13:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search suggests that John Calvin said "there are babies a span long in hell" but I haven't discovered the source. 58.147.58.28 (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And this website suggests that it is a false attribution. 58.147.58.28 (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Calvin believed that the efficacy of the "irresistable grace" of Christ's atonement is limited to only God's "unconditionally elected" ones, does it not follow that he did believe that non-elect infants who die as infants will go to hell, whether or not such a quote by him can be found in literature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgertutt (talk • contribs) 15:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know where his notion of "the elect" came from. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, it derives from the book of revelations which (under some interpretations) seems to claim that only 144,000 people will actually be 'saved' at the end of days. This lead to all sorts of speculations about who those 144,000 were and what happened to the rest of humanity (keep in mind that 144,000 would have been a fairly large number of people in those times - estimates of the population of Jerusalem at the time of Christ suggest 80,000 permanent residents with influxes of during pilgrimage times to maybe 200,000, and Jerusalem was likely the largest city in the middle east at the time. --Ludwigs2 17:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Seems to me the JW's used to cite that number also, and had to revise their thinking when their total membership exceeded that figure. The risk of trying to read a highly symbolic book literally. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

actually, I think this issue was resolved back in the '90s, with the formulation of the principle of Theological Inflation: 144,000 'year 0010' humans translates to 281,362,439.76 'year 2010' humans (±34,631.8, and adjusting for intervening plague years and other 'bust' markets). Most theoconomists find a certain amount of Theological Inflation acceptable as a spiritual stimulus, so long as it is not accompanied by any significant devaluation of the soul (a point which Marxist Theosophy denounces as paternalistic and unrealistic). just an FYI...

--Ludwigs2 18:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some info that was a big help to me on this subject. "A great introductory series to ultimate reconciliation. J. Preston Eby does a thorough job covering many aspects of the topic. Fundamental reading for any person interested in studying universalism from a solid biblical perspective. Highly Recommended!" http://www.godfire.net/eby/saviour_of_the_world.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgertutt (talk • contribs) 17:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if Calvin believed it or not (as it is somewhat of a Catholic belief), but those who believe in Limbo, specifically Limbo of Infants, would hold that *all* people who die as infants prior to baptism would go to hell. -- 174.21.254.47 (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question left unanswered is "what is a Span (length)?" and the answer is "about 9 inches". If it seems cruel that God would send babies to Hell, keep in mind that Calvin (or somebody) made this stuff up. It's not fair to blame God for the stupid ideas people come up with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was off-topic, and so is my response: it's unfair to blame God for anything, because whatever you blame him for, you'll ultimately find out that somebody made the stuff up. The same applies to thanking him, though. :) --91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not off-topic. The fact that some so-called theologian made such a horrific statement doesn't mean that it has anything to do with the way God actually works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is off-topic. The OP only asked which theologian had made a certain statement about how God worked, not whether you personally believed it was true that God worked that way, or if you believed that it was just something "made up". If we are going to make statements of faith here and argue about which religion or religious doctrine is "true", this will turn into a religious war theatre and not a reference desk.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be stuck in a box, that's your choice. I choose not to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming She even exists, which I sincerely hope is the case if for no other reason than the concept of theoconomists coined by Ludwigs2 above. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the first chapters of the The Antislavery Impulse: 1830-1844, Barnes mentions a calvinist preacher who said that the paths of hell are filled with one-year old infants, however, he argues that such extreme position is adopted by a very small minority. 78.108.169.10 (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1984 (Orwell's book)

The article says that global atomic war occurred before the Party's ascent to power, but it doesn't mention where America's annexation of England fits into that history. When did it occur, before the global nuclear war, before the Party gained power, or after both? --J4\/4 <talk> 14:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to chapter 3 of Goldstein's Book, it was in the mid to late 1950's that "some hundreds of bombs were dropped on industrial centers, chiefly in European Russia, Europe, and North America". The 1950s seem to have been extremely turbulent in the 1984-verse, with lots of revolutions, wars, struggles between opposing revolutionary factions, etc., but we're not really told the specifics... AnonMoos (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to nail down the chronology as far as can be done from the book, in the year 1984 Oceania is in its "ninth three-year plan", so it would seem that the regime claims continuity going back to at least 1960, and 1960 also would have been around the time of the end of the "decade of national wars, civil wars, revolutions, and counterrevolutions in all parts of the world" mentioned in Chapter 1 of Goldstein's book... AnonMoos (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be of interest that during WWII there were a very large number of American airfields and American personnel in the eastern parts of the UK, and similarly in the Cold War. Even before 1948 when Orwell wrote it, a lot of American films were shown. So it was not a great leap of imaginination to imagine that this process would continue to its conclusion. 89.243.197.22 (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But which happened first, the Party's rise to power or America's annexation of England? --J4\/4 <talk> 15:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to give the phrase and find an outlink to it, but whaddayano, we even have an article: Unsinkable aircraft carrier. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, where in 1984 is the composition of Oceania's military mentioned? --J4\/4 <talk> 15:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will find the answers by reading the book, if you can find them anywhere. It's not very long. 89.243.197.22 (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the book and couldn't find them. --J4\/4 <talk> 15:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then nobody knows, and even Orwell himself may not have thought about that not even in his imagination. The name of the article, which took me a while to find, is Nineteen Eighty-Four. If you are in a country where it is out of copyright you could try getting an online copy of the text and search through that, but probably you won't find anything else. The last resort would be trying to find any draft copies or writer's notes where it might be mentioned. 89.243.197.22 (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves, the book doesn't give a real historical account, just the "official" story. There is no way to know how much, if at all, the official story matches reality. --Tango (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the book was intended to be a satire of sorts. Trying to apply a fine-tooth comb to the continuity of its specific details was probably not the point Orwell was trying to make. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - the book is more a critique of Britain in 1948 (just transpose the last two figures) than an attempt to predict the future. For example the "Ministry of Truth" represents the Ministry of Information, whose role was to stop people getting information. Central government in the UK had taken on a huge amount of extra powers during WWII and (Orwell suggests) used the Cold War as an excuse to retain them in peace time. Alansplodge (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Goldstein's Book gives info which goes a long way beyond official Oceania propaganda -- but of course, it was written by the Thought Police. And 1984 is quite a bit more than a roman à clef satire of 1948 Britain... AnonMoos (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was written by the Thought Police, I consider it official propaganda, just of a very subtle variety. My point about not knowing how true it is still holds. --Tango (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you write a Prequel, OP, and then you can decide what happened. 89.243.87.3 (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need some specific help regarding a short story by Haruki Murakami

Hello refdesk. Does anyone have Murakami's The Elephant Vanishes collection of stories at hand? I need some help - in the story The Dancing Dwarf, there is a passing mention of an alcoholic beverage called メカトール酒 (let's say something like "mekator vine" or something similar) I didn't find it in any dictionaries, and as I suspected, Google only gives hits related to Murakami, so I'm assuming it's a made up drink. How was this rendered in the English translation? It's mentioned as the drink the old man in the bar drinks. Any help would be appreciated. TomorrowTime (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inequalities of "equal" primogeniture

The engagement of the Crown Princess of Sweden made me think about the future of the House of Bernadotte. Daniel will not be Crown Prince of Sweden and I can partially understand that (though wives of heirs apparent share their spouse's title), but how is that justified? Daniel will probably not be king either (though wives of kings are queens and Carl XVI Gustaf's wife is queen). That's why I don't like equal primogeniture - it's not equal. Husbands of queens regnant are not styled as kings because it is presumed that the masculine title of king outranks the feminine title of queen. Is that gender equality? Is this inequality somehow justified in Sweden?

Also, the Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland's future husband won't be prince of Sweden. On the other hand, it wouldn't make sense for her brother's wife not to be princess (assuming her brother marries with the consent). However, if the future Duchess of Värmland is made a princess, the issue of inequality will (or should) definitely arise.

This equal primogeniture thing simply doesn't make the monarchy gender-equal, let alone the fact that monarchy is all about inequality among people. If they keep going towards "equal" monarchies, they'll all end up living in elective monarchies - especially when they start wondering about age discrimination and what makes an older sibling more fit to rule than a younger sibling. Surtsicna (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And have you got a question for the reference desk, or did you just want to make a speech? --ColinFine (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you're missing is that the way royal titles are given out, i.e. who gets to be called a Prince, Princess, Duke etc. is not governed by the Swedish Act of Succession, nor by the "equal primogeniture" of Sweden. All that law and that principle decide is who becomes head of state. The royal, princely and noble titles are still handed out according to old, unequal and male-preference rules. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question for the reference desk is (as already written above): is this inequality somehow justified in Sweden? Is it justified in any country? Has any country decided to be "equal" all the way and forget the queen-is-lesser-than-king notion?

Regarding the old, unequal and male-preference rules that govern titles, isn't changing such (perhaps even unwritten) rules far easier than changing a constitution? Surtsicna (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These cases are the same in UK, not just in Sweden. Husband of Queen Elizabeth II is not a king but a prince consort. Husband of the Princess Royal is not a prince either. Both husbands of Princess Anne had declined taking on a title). You cannot talk about equality when talking about monarchy. Monarchy is an institution based on birthright and governed by traditions. It's all about inequality and privileges.

You have to keep in mind that when a queen succeeds the throne in her own right, the country is allowing a change of dynasty, or house. In most cultures the children still follow the surname of their father. It is no exemption when a male would marry into a royal house and produce heirs. This practice had been frowned upon because most royal houses wanted to keep its succession in the male direct line, and most of all maintain sovereign. This was how some of the royal dynasties got absorbed into others either intentionally or by fate.

Imagine in this modern day the Crown Princess of Sweden got engaged with Prince William of the UK (ignoring parliamentary disapprovals), and allowing Prince William to be called King once Queen Victoria ascends the throne. Wouldn't that make William king of Sweden? I'm sure that won't go over too well with the Swedes. --Kvasir (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Philip II of Spain for one such case. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, his marriage with Mary I of England was entirely political and his reign over England ended with her death. There was no issue from that union. --Kvasir (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to User:Surtsicna: No, I would not say so. Constitutions can be changed by democratic process, by the will of the people, and in a structured way. Changing the traditions of the royal and/or noble is nigh on impossible despite the desire of everybody else. Since 2003, all official privileges of the Swedish nobility are gone. In essence, the house of nobility operates like any other private club or organisation, and can not really be forced to change its rules regarding titles through any outside process. While royal titles are not the same as noble ones, they are if possible even more difficult to affect, since their rules seem to only exist within the traditions of the royal court. With the monarch having no official political power in Sweden any more, among the few powers retained in that office are the right to control of its own traditions and the internal workings of the court. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dante Alighieri translation

Hi. I was wondering if someone might help me find the orinal Italian for the Dante quotation "beauty awakens the soul to act". Many thanks! Flaming Ferrari (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no original Italian. That quote appears nowhere in Dante. (You can verify this by noting that whenever the quote is attributed, no one cites the specific Canto and line.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.17.88.122 (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be from Gilbert Imlay's work The Emigrants "Beauty awakes, expands the glowing heart / And prompts the soul to act its noblest part" meltBanana 04:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the author is quoting a poem there, so it might still be by someone else.--Cam (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ascription to Dante might be based upon a pithy simplification of La Vita Nuova as the sentiment is kind of what the whole work is about but specifically these lines from chapter XX:

"Beauty may appear, in a wise lady, / so pleasant to the eyes, that in the heart, / is born a desire for pleasant things: / which stays so long a time in that place, / that it makes the spirit of Love wake. / And likewise in a lady works a worthy man."

original:

"Bieltate appare in saggia donna pui, /che piace a gli occhi sì, che dentro al core / nasce un disio de la cosa piacente; / e tanto dura talora in costui, / che fa svegliar lo spirito d'Amore. / E simil face in donna omo valente."

meltBanana 15:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Times article this weekend

There was a full-page front-page article in one of the sections of the Financial Times British edition this weekend, the 20/21st February. The title was something like "Show/Get/Find Me The Oscars/Money". Does anyone know what it was, or where I could read it online? I meant to buy it but forgot. I've looked at the ft com site, have not been able to see it. 92.28.224.34 (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article in your mind was "Show them the money!" by Matthew Garrahan. The article title changed on the online version but the link to it is here. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]