Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 October 5

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.

October 5

Presidential debate myth

I have seen many references to the Kennedy and Nixon debate and the contrasting attitudes of the radio and television audiences. Yet, I recall seeing this conclusion described as a myth without foundation. Are there any proper studies that debunk this notion and if so, why does it continue to be propagated by mainstream press? Ankh.Morpork 00:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That's been conventional wisdom for decades. There's no question that JFK looked a lot better on camera that night than Nixon did. How they would know for sure what the radio audience thought is hard to say, but maybe they did some polling. Googling [jfk nixon debate radio] brings up many items that parrot the conventional wisdom, but some of them seem to be hedging, at best. For what it's worth, Nixon had a deeper voice and lacked any discernible regiona accent, so people unfamiliar with them might have thought Nixon sounded better than JFK did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually there were four separate televised debates in fall 1960 between Nixon and Kennedy so it does depend which one your speaking of, but after his presidency Nixon did state to the affect that "more then what you say it matters how you look on television". Also anyone know when and where the very very first non-televised JFK v Nixon debate was held. (hint: the fall of 1960 was debates 2,3,4 and 5 for them). Marketdiamond (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This is usually a reference to the first debate, when "Radio listeners polled after the debate generally thought that Nixon had bested Kennedy. But the story with television viewers was different, polling almost two-to-one in favor of Kennedy as the "victor" in the debate." The debates in general correlated with an improvement in Kennedy's poll ratings, cum hoc ergo propter hoc. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 16:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Gender neutral for John Doe and Jane Roe

Not asking for legal advice, just asking if there is a standard practice in a complaint or other legal document to make gender neutral the John Doe and Jane Roe examples when a subjects gender is in question (not known not going into the whole LGBT thing), and yes I understand it is very very rare, I have done some extensive googling nothing yet. Thanks. Marketdiamond (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I think such persons are refered to as "Doe" without first name, as in a Doe subpoena, which is filed against persons whose identity are unknown. This used to be very rare, but in the past 20 years because of the internet, Doe subpoenas are common, as a person can often be identified by their IP address and user agents (as Checkusers at Wikipedia do) so one could identify a particular perpetrator of a cyber crime uniquely by those means, but the gender of that person would be entirely unknown. --Jayron32 03:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

See also Dendrite International, Inc. v. Doe No. 3 where an unknown defendant was identified without a gendered first name; just as "Doe No. 3" --Jayron32 03:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, Doe is a deer - a female deer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

And a Ray is a drop of golden sun. --Jayron32 12:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Although the sun has set on their season. In a further irony, consider the Roe of a Ray. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok good to know, and yes funny at the end . . . at least I'm not like my 30 something cousin who has tons of opinions all about abortion but heard a talk show debate "Roe v Wade" and thought they were talking about something involving a "Mrs. Roe V.(middle initial) Wade" (who names their daughter Roe anyway?) lol. Marketdiamond (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's another angle on it:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Papa and Mama Yurbote? Blueboar (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Citation for Advance Directives

I would like to learn more about the topic by going to the original source but could not find it with this citation: Choice in Dying (now: Partnership in Caring). Choice in Dying: an historical perspective. CID 1035-30th Street, N.W. Washington, DC. 2007

Can someone help me find the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.59.158 (talk) 06:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Near as I can tell with several google searches, "Choice in Dying" was an organization that advocated for patients dealing with end-of-life care issues. It later merged with an organization called "Partnership for Caring", which is hard to find any information on (except the merger); though I think a few links lead me to believe that the the organization is now called "Caring Connections" and its home page is at http://www.caringinfo.org . Their history page is here, which shows the various permutations of the organization. Presumably the document titled "Choice in Dying: an historical perspective" was published a long time ago by the now several-times defunct organization "Choice in Dying", as the "Caring Connections" organization seems to be the modern successor to that, you would probably need to contact that organization to try to locate that document. Their website has a "contact us" page here. I hope that helps. --Jayron32 06:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Speaking English in America

I got told a story that in the early day of America, they (not sure if it was the whole population of the time or just the government) had a vote to decide what language to speak because alot of the early settlers where from different countries (ie France, Germany, Italy, etc) and English was supposed to have won the vote by a small margin. Is this true in any way ? --80.254.146.140 (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Without taking the time to look it up, I seem to remember that it was more of one colony, state or commonwealth (I think Pennsylvania) choosing English over German by the narrowest of margins. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Not English. German lost the vote to be the second official language of Congress.
Sleigh (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

See German language in the United States#German as the official US language myth and Muhlenberg legend. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Even nowadays the US still doesn't have a federal official language, only a de facto language. "I got told a story" says it all, BTW. It's just an urban legend. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Not in the US as a whole, but in several states. See Languages_of_the_United_States#Official_language_status. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about official status, but English and French were both used in many official documents in Louisiana, e.g. her 1861 Declaration of Secession from the United States. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Some say that in America they haven't used English for years. HiLo48 (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Whats it like to be a beautifull woman?

Yo refdeskers. Surely im not the only unnatractive, sexually and socially incompetent strait[ish] man who's wondered rather enviously what it's like to be a really hot chick? I mean they never have to chat-up anyone, they merely select from a long line of prospective suitors, and select the one who most meets their sexual, emotional or intellectual needs. Sounds a hell of a lot easier and more pleasant than being us, doesnt it guys? So what i'm looking for is a piece of high-quality, intelligent, "high-brow" writing on what its like to be a hot woman, presumably but not necessarily written by said woman, which is available online for free. When I say not necessarily, perhaps there is some academic writing on the subject, based on interviews or focus groups? Of course im aware that it probably isnt as utopian as i initially suggested, for instance constantly being stared at by all men, or having to fend off neanderthalls when on a night out, could be very tiresome or distressing. Theres a popular notion that average-looking women dislike really hot women out of jealousy; is this the case? Cos I would guess that other girls might actually want to be friends with the hot girl, as it would give them entry to the "popular"-clique, and give them access to the hot girl's rejected suitors. Are very attractive women happier than other people? Finally, whilst not wishing to set off the pedo-alarm*, im also interested in what its like for a girl when it first dawns on her that all men think shes really hot. Please remember that i'm not interested in your own personal views, i'm merely looking to be directed to the aforementioned online sources. And i guess these topics have been covered in fiction, but if possible could we avoid all that Mr Darcy, Crinoline stuff, unless it was written by a smoking-hot chick and is considered to be quasi-autobiographical
*If only one of these trusty devices had been fitted in Jimmy Saville's dressing room. Willy turner (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of questionable premises here. Aside from very famous, wealthy and/or powerful people (I imagine), is there really anyone who can "select from a long line of prospective suitors"? Attractiveness is subjective, so I doubt there are any girls for whom "all men think shes really hot", even if we limit it to straight and bi men. Also, what makes you think that the experiences of an extremely attractive woman would be very different from the experiences of an extremely attractive man? Anyway, you might be interested in body image: people who are considered attractive by others don't necessarily consider themselves to be attractive. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

See Samantha Brick Rojomoke (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Well it doesn't just go 1 way, it goes both ways. The question should be more like "what it likes to be an attractive person?" A good example of a boy who benefit A LOT from his good looking is Justin Bieber, even though his talent is at mediocre level compare to other singers. The only reason that made him so success is his good looking that attracted so many teenager girls, who acting crazy because of him. As you can see like 99% of his fans are girls, immature girls as some people may say. So as my conclusion: no matter of gender you are, attractive always work. However there are downsides for being hot, especially for women.65.128.190.136 (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

(Intercom) "Paging Rob Schneider . . . Rob Schneider To The Ref Desk" . . . see The Hot Chick.

• • • But seriously all, we should allow the OP to tell us what his girlfriend (fiancé?) has commented on this already. Didn't you know all women are the really beautiful ones! :-) P.S. I am waiting for the inevitable "I asked my mom this and she said that she . . . ." response lol.Marketdiamond (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Being an attractive woman can be a hindrance in a couple other ways not mentioned previously:

1) In jobs where being attractive isn't a pre-req (so not models, etc.), attractive women may not be taken seriously. Dressing conservatively can help.

2) Potentially good mates may find attractive women "out of their league" and not approach them. This leaves confident men, and perhaps brash, overly confident mean. StuRat (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Since all that answers are supositions (except the Samantha Brick bit), either there are not beautiful female wikipedians reading the reference desk or they are all very modest.--90.165.121.56 (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're an attractive women, you experience more general harrassment from men in your day to day life, although being "unattractive" doesn't keep you actually safe from that. Attractive women are propositioned by random, aggressive men with no respect for their wishes and privacy on a regular basis, and generally insulted when they are neither flattered nor receptive. It becomes difficult to do basic things like read a book on a bus, because various men assume that you should be paying attention to them rather than the book you want to read. The thing about men seeing them as "out of their league" and leaving them alone basically never happens: men pretty much always ask out the women who are out of their league. Perhaps this is because too many men do not know what their league is?

More attractive women also tend to get called sluts more often, and so on. I've been more and less attractive over my life: looking less attractive makes many aspects of my life easier, makes for fewer threatening experiences from random men and less curb crawling, but also means people listen to you less than when you are more attractive. 86.159.77.170 (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

How do you know the "out of their league" thing never happens ? Certainly every man you meet doesn't come on to you, so, for those who don't, that may be the reason for many. StuRat (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a fairly attractive woman in her late 20s; I'm also intelligent, and dress well, and look after my body. But I'm also a nerd and a little shy and never go out to do the "dancing and clubbing" thing, which is where a lot of attractive young ladies meet both their one-night stands and their longer-term mates. The result? I've been single for a long time, ever since university basically, because the majority of men who are of interest to me (good-natured, good-humoured, intelligent, and geeky), don't even dare to approach me. For one thing, they think they're out of my league, but the major reason is that they assume, wrongly, that I simply must already be attached. I work in a fairly isolated laboratory so I have to rely on things like the library, the gym, and wikimeets, in order to meet people, and it's not a very successful strategy for aforementioned reasons. When I join dating sites and put up honest pictures of myself, I get messages like, "what are you doing on here, why are you single, I bet you're psycho" and "damn u hot gurl wanna chat xx" which I instantly delete, of course, and eventually get fed up and leave said dating sites. So being attractive isn't all it's cracked up to be. I get random whistles, rude comments, intense stares, and most recently, a group of men while stopped at traffic lights shouted from their car, "show us yer arse, luv!", while ogling. On the rare occasions that I do go out on the dancing and drinking scene, I get the usual invitations from louts who think women worship them, and they're just not my type. Being beautiful and smart works out for some lucky women but it's not working for me. (from an experienced Wikipedian using a different account) Ma moitié (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried dressing down ? StuRat (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

By dressing well, I meant that I'm neat and presentable, but I'm usually a fairly casual, one might even say unadventurous, dresser, and I value comfort over style. So no, I don't do the high heels and short skirts thing! Sorry if that's the impression I gave. I only mentioned the dressing in order to exclude the possibility that I don't get approached because I wear sweatpants and baggy t-shirts or something; I look like a young woman with a professional job, not a street urchin or a frequenter of nightclubs. Ma moitié (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

There are ways to dress down which obscure your form without making you look like a bag lady. Loose turtle-neck sweaters, for example, and pant-suits instead of dresses (I doubt if Hillary Clinton get's much unwanted romantic attention). StuRat (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Granted, but I think it's more about the face first. There are solutions to that, as well. Bag over my head comes to mind. Ma moitié (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

How about glasses (preferably horned rim with chains), no makeup, and your hair in a bun ? Only men hot for librarians will bother you then. StuRat (talk) 08:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

And then I wonder at which point I should tell the newly attracted guy that I'm actually a jeans, jumper, and ponytail kind of girl, and that I only changed my style to attract men. It's always a tricky affair to be someone you're not, no matter how well-intentioned, and I'm just not that desperate.  :) And I don't wear makeup anyway, except for special occasions. Thank you for the advice though! Ma moitié (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Ma moitié has these predicaments because she lives as she wikis [2], when I imagine CIA spooks they aren't this covert, and then the complaint about "intimidated", there are ghosts and then there are ghosts. Just sayin :-). Marketdiamond (talk) 07:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd be the laughing stock of Wikipedia and forever considered conceited if I showed up here with my admin account and 10000+ edits and said, "oooh oooh I'm a single, beautiful woman! *flutter eyelashes*" And actually, I'd probably be blocked on the assumption that my account had been hijacked by a joker, as to most Wikipedians, it would seem fundamentally unlikely to be truth.  ;) I think the secrecy is warranted. Ma moitié (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Did read your first post to its final brilliant conclusion so apologies (didn't realize your explained that yes you were being more private than usual) Just perplexed that finding your "type" and lamenting that your not one of the "lucky women" with the need to shield that probably on the one forum you might find that type. Funny that wikipedia has evolved to such a degree that we need to be private from our "private" usernames, not knocking you for that since on a few ethical non-talk page or admin board occasions I too have used that. Just something about your post struck a nerve with me since I get tired of the status of modern dating and matching, and yet your very valid complaint of your experiences on dating sites and the street and not having your "type" "approach" but then displaying that same hesitation on wikipedia, not saying your wrong for it, sounds like you have some very valid points. Thought about adding this earlier and it is to your point that all the wrong guys are coming at you and all of your "type" (which I am making the educated guess are stable responsible long range types) this may be super instructive. You make me curious. Marketdiamond (talk) 07:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• P.S. I doubt any editor who actually wants to contribute to wikipedia over the long range would laugh at a sincere RefDesk answer, banned b/c you answered a direct RefDesk question directly I think all of us regulars on here would fight that, but I can appreciate you feeling cautious about a personal subject. Marketdiamond (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

One has to be careful not to undermine one's hard work; as I primarily am a writer on WP, the last thing I want is to attract the negative attention of peers by appearing to use WP as a dating site or by being unprofessionally flirtatious. Which is why, although my account is obviously 'female', I don't state that I'm single and never would. I never solicit it but of course I'm open to being approached privately if my Wikipedia work rouses curiosity; actually that would be cool, because I have the problem of suspecting that most people who show an interest (dating sites or otherwise) are doing so because I'm physically attractive, at the expense of caring for/about the hobbies, interests, books, intellect that drives me. Anyway, I didn't mean to hijack this thread and I also didn't quite intend all of the pathos in my original post. I'm fairly happy alone as I'm never bored and relationships take time that I instead spend on (mostly ^^) meaningful pursuits. So one needn't call it a 'predicament'! Maybe when I'm mid-thirties I'll start panicking. :) Ma moitié (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

left-wing party ideologies

Which political ideologies are mostly fall on the left of the political spectrum? So far, I know that Social Democracy is a left-wing ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.153 (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That depends on where you set the center. In Europe, Social Democracy is centrist, and typically embraced not only by "Social Democratic" parties, but also by most moderate conservative parties. Have you read Left–right politics? Originally, of course, "The Right" supported the right of the Bourbon kings to run France into the ground at the expense of the Third estate, while "The Left" was happy to call the King "citoyen Capet" and to leave the aristocracy separated from their heads. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

left-wing parties Europe

I remember that there was a question about Liberal Party of Canada counterparts in Europe. My question is quite similar. My question is that in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Italy, Spain and Portugal, is there any political parties that are left wing and not communism? and I don't want to know green politics in those nations.--174.89.43.153 (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.153 (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Liberal is an odd word, and it doesn't fit neatly into the "left-right" political spectrum consistently across all political systems. Classical liberalism is an ideology that began as a progressive reaction to oppressive monarchies in Europe, so being progressive and forward looking in that context it could be looked at as a "leftist" ideology. If a political system uses "liberal" to mean "forward looking and progressive" then the term in that context refers to leftist political ideals. In some political systems, the ideals of classical liberalism (limited government, strict rule-of-law) are traditionalist and strongly connected with nationalism; in those systems the word "liberal" is often is associated with traditionalist/right wing politics. In the U.S., the word is a synonym of "progressive" or "leftist". In Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada is the center-left party. In Australia, the Liberal Party of Australia is a center-right party, whereas the main left-leaning opposition is the Australian Labor Party. Even concepts like "leftist" and "rightist" are contextual: policies considered "leftist" in one political context (being, for that system, forward thinking and radical) would be considered "rightist" in another (being for a different system, reactionary and traditionalist). You really need to explore each political system seperately, and the best way to do that using Wikipedia is to start at an article titled "Politics of XXXX" where XXXX is the name of a country. Politics of Denmark, for example, for Denmark. From there, you can follow links to other articles that let you explore what you want to know. --Jayron32 16:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

political rivals Denmark, UK, France, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium Spain and Portugal

Is there any main political rivalry in the following nations that I mentioned above? --174.89.43.153 (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa

See, for example, our list of political parties in Denmark. There will be similar lists for each of the other countries that you mention. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Does the questioner mean political rivalry between those countries? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

normative but absolute scales of left and right

It is possible to establish a purely normative scale of "left" and "right", one that differs based on the fundamental taxonomy. Speaking from my own political perspective, one could define the "left" as supporting collective workers control over economic institutions as the core value, and define "right" as the fulfilment of an economics designed to remove any power from labour within capital. This scale is good for, say, the UK from Peterloo onwards. It is not good for bourgeois revolutions against feudalism, generally, unless one is willing to recognise a difference in control over labour between the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy (the difference between "conservative" and "reactionary"). In this manner one could suggest that communist socialist fabian labourite green social democrat and anarchist ideologies fall between the centre-right and the left depending on the concessions to capitalism a particular strand of ideology makes in theory or in practice. social liberals tend to fall from the centre-rightwards. The right tends to lack solidly formed ideologies, compared to the left, and many of these are post-hoc classifications. Broadly, in such a scale, liberalism conservatism social conservatism christian liberalism and christian democracy reactionaries and various flavours of fascist fall from the centre rightwards. Other such normative scales exist, but this one is designed to maximise understanding of ideological difference within the left, and within the right; and designed to account for systems of politics where conservatism coheres as an "anti-labour" movement such as is clear in Australia or New Zealand. It isn't a scale designed to allow bourgeois parties to think about how to win elections, nor is it a scale designed to form coalitions in the management of capitalism. All such normative scales will be in someway politically instrumental—they are political instruments. In society, people pick up bits and pieces of such instruments and internalise them, reflect on them through their social and working life, and form a gestalt mixed up out of the dominant social ideology and strains of resistance they've encountered. Most left-right scales are generally compatible, though occasionally on some issues become incompatible. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It is possible to do a great many things. It isn't always wise to do them, though. Politics involves an enormous number of issues and someone's position on a given issue may only be very loosely correlated, if at all, with their positions on other issues. A left-right spectrum is really only useful if there is a very strong correlation between positions on different issues, so that you can account for most of someone's political views with just a position on one linear scale. In reality, you can't (certainly not if you want to include more than one country). There are been some attempts to put together two dimensional scales, which are a little more useful, but even they over simplify things.

The other big problem is with the centre. You gave definitions for "left" and "right" but never defined "centre". The centre is in a very different place in, say, the US than it is in France (the US centre would be considered very right-wing in France, and the French centre would be consider very left-wing in the US, even if you are using the same basic scale). --Tango (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

"Left" and "right" are pretty much complete bullshit, and should just be abandoned by anyone seriously trying to describe political philosophies. Note as just one example that Fifelfoo's scheme has no place at all for anyone trying to remove power from collectives altogether, and restore it to individuals over their own lives. --Trovatore (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The instrumental purpose of the scale that I discussed relates to the mobilisation of proletarian class interest. It is supremely useful for doing so. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Lesbians and short hair

Why is there this correlation? Does this stem from a desire to identify with an established social image or from an innate urge to appear more masculine? Why would this be the case? Ankh.Morpork 15:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd question the premise. Do you have any sources? If anything, short hair seems to go with modern, less traditional views, but that is hardly indicative of sexual orientation (there probably is a correlation in the other direction - LGBT people are less likely to have a very traditional understanding of gender roles). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I would think that some lesbians would try looking more masculine, and thus make their hair short. However, this isn't a general rule--some lesbians have longer hair, while some straight women have shorter hair. Futurist110 (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

My wife's mother keeps her hair short. She's not a lesbian, last I knew. My father-in-law doesn't appear to believe she is. --Jayron32 15:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

And I know people against gun control that aren't Republican. Ankh.Morpork 16:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

There's an article Lipstick lesbian... AnonMoos (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

In a very crude way, one can say that within the American (and probably other Western) lesbian communities, there are those who identify more as "femmes" and others who are more "butch." (We have an article: Butch and femme.) The "femme" lesbians are generally indistinguishable from the heterosexual norm of femininity. The "butch" lesbians generally dress and comport themselves in a way that conveys more overtones of masculinity. There is a wide spectrum in between these poles — most lesbians I have known are neither extreme, though their lack of adherence to heterosexual expectations of femininity are often apparent after you know them well (less makeup and lipstick, lack of dresses, fairly conservative clothes), though if you didn't know they were lesbians, you wouldn't be quite right in assuming it based on their appearance alone. Nearly all of the "butch" lesbians have short hair of one sort or another, in my experience, but there are also plenty of those on the "femme" side with short hair, and plenty of those in the middle of that spectrum with short hair. Short hair on women in general is common enough regardless of sexuality (see, e.g. crop), so I'm not sure one can draw many conclusions from the hair alone. I do think one can say that long hair on women does correspond with part of the heterosexual expectation of femininity, and thus its relative absence in "butch" communities is meaningful, but that's probably as far as I'd go. All of the above is a big generalization, of course; the actual practice of individual sexuality and masculinity/femininity is as varied as there are people. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

An example of the failure of that model is the regrettable frequency of short hair on gay men. There's something else at play here... Wnt (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I think your comment "the regrettable frequency of short hair on gay men" is not only a personal judgement ("regrettable") but an off-topic non-sequiter. What does the hair length of gay men have to do with that of lesbian women? One would be equally off topic with comments on the hair length of straight men, regrettable or otherwise. Bielle (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Didn't you read the model above that lesbians are trying to copy the stereotypically short hair of men? Then wouldn't gays be trying to copy the stereotypically long hair of women? It would appear that some other model, exposing both to more frequent shearings, must be in play. Wnt (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

No, because gays are not lesbians, and they can therefore have different cultures. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That will come as a shock to my lesbian friends who also refer to themselves as "gay". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Mr. 98 deserves a gold star for providing the correct answer including references. See also the books "Female Masculinity" by Judith Halberstam and "Persistent Desire" by Joan Nestle for discussions of butch (and femme) identities. Wnt, attempting to draw parallels between the identities and styles of gay men and lesbians is inaccurate because they each have their own subcultures, and sub-subcultures. Personal anecdote: at gay & lesbian bars and events, butch women and "effeminate" gay men are the minority. Most have heteronormative appearances, and the average straight person meeting them casually would assume they are heterosexual. The perception that all or most lesbians have short hair or are butch is confirmation bias- they are "visibly" lesbian, while the more common feminine lesbian is "invisible." The same perception error applies to identifying gay men. 71.175.230.45 (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I am reminded of a radio discussion, possibly over 40 years ago in the hippy era, when some retired-colonel type asked why young men were so effeminate these days, having such long hair? Desmond Morris, author of The Naked Ape, was on the panel and replied that having long hair wasn't effeminate since length of hair is not a secondary sexual characteristic. However, what was definitely a male characteristic was to have facial hair so perhaps shaving should be considered effeminate. I wish I could have seen the colonel's face! Thincat (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It might be greek to me but not all of the inhabitants of the fine island of Lesbos have short hair . . . some have no hair at all! There is a rumor that they all have a certain "lifestyle" choice though I don't know if there is truth to that as of yet. Marketdiamond (talk) 06:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you are asking the wrong question. A short, simple hairstyle is demonstrably more practical- it is easier and less time-consuming to take care of, and less expensive to have cut and styled. Most men choose such hairstyles, because they are practical and socially acceptable. Some women choose them, too. So the question is... why do so many straight women choose hairstyles that are more expensive and high-maintenance? Answer: to be attractive to men. Lesbians are less likely to have 'being attractive to men' as a priority, and thus are more likely to wear practical hair. Of course, this just leads to the question, 'Why do men find impractical hairstyles attractive?' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Not just impractical hairstyles. Also impractical shoes, clothes, fingernails, and cosmetics. I believe the evolutionary concept is that anyone who can do such impractical things and still survive must have abundant resources to bring to the table. This is similar to a peacock's feathers or a bower bird's bower. It is a bit of mystery why it's the females who "put on the display" in our species, though. StuRat (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It's known as the handicap principle (or as "conspicuous consumption" in Thorstein Veblen's original terminology). In species where the males have elaborate displays while females are drab (e.g. peacocks vs. peahens), there's no long-term male-female pair bonding, and fathers do not contribute to childcare. The much greater "paternal investment" typical in humans creates a somewhat different dynamic... (The Guérewol is a famous example of mating customs resembling those of some non-human species.) -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Most things about women are a complete mystery to me. My mother, my ex-wife and my two sisters are all women, and I never understood any of them. Mind you, I don't understand most men, either. Or children. Or animals.

But words: now there's something you can have a real and enduring relationship with. They never desert you; never sleep around; never say one thing and mean another; never grow old, fat, or diseased; never get jealous when I choose another. And they're great in bed, too. Always up for it, never have headaches. True friends and noble companions indeed. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

But if long hair is generally considered more attractive, why should it matter whether one is trying to attract male or female attentions? Ankh.Morpork 16:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not generally considered more attractive. In our culture it's feminine, so is only attractive to those who like feminine things. Some lesbians prefer masculine looking women, and/or to look masculine themselves. StuRat (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Federal language vs national language

What is the difference?65.128.190.136 (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, "federal language" is not an established phrase in English, so your question has no answer. Particular federations round the world may have defined "federal languages" for themselves: if so, the answer will lie in what their definition says. --ColinFine (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

To expand on ColinFine's point: "federal" means something entirely different than "national". There are federations that are not nations (the European Union), there are federations that ARE nations (Switzerland, the United States), there are nations that are not federations (France, Japan), so it depends on the context. As Colin notes, the term "federal language" isn't an idiom in English, and if forced to create a definition for what it may mean, I would say it would be something of a "lingua franca" spoken when the various constituent parts of a federation come together. For example, if there was a Federation where each part spoke a different language, there may be some other language that they all speak when doing business with each other, something akin to the status of English in India or Swahili in many parts of East Africa. I've never heard such a term used in those ways, but I suppose it could be. --Jayron32 16:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that "federal official language" is an acceptable phrase, in contrast to 'state official language'. From the article multiculturalism, an example: "Hindi (spoken in the form of Hindi-Urdu) is the federal official language". OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That only works in countries with a federal government, where the constituent territories are called "states". In countries which are not federations, the term "state" tends to refer to the central national government, while the term "federal" is rather meaningless. Alansplodge (talk) 11:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

No Presidential debate in 1964

Dear everyone. The first presidential debate on TV in the U.S. was held in 1960 between JFK and Richard Nixon. But why was there no debate until 1976 again? I am especially interested why there was none in 1964 between President Johnson and Republican Barry Goldwater although both had very different plans (for example Goldwater was far more right than Richard Nixon was in his 1968 campaign). Some time ago I heard (but no idea if it's true) that Lyndon Johnson refused a debate. Is that true? And why did he so? Or did Goldwater also show no intention? The specific article provides no information upon the reason. --85.176.225.22 (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It says here (http://www.american.com:8080/archive/2008/september-09-08/a-brief-history-of-the-modern-presidential-debate) that LBJ refused to debate Goldwater since a debate wouldn't provide any benefit to him and since he was already leading Goldwater in the polls by huge margins. As for 1968 and 1972, I know that Nixon refused to debate after 1960 due to his election loss that year, which some people attributed to his debate performance. Futurist110 (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

One must remember that the election in 1964 was less than a year after the JFK assassination and although campaigning went on Goldwater later admitted to the affect that to ask the American people to focus on pure politics just 9-10-11 months after that horror was a lost cause. Marketdiamond (talk) 06:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Afghanistan and Terrorism

How come the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan never got put onto the U.S. State Sponsors of Terrorism list while other countries such as Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, Sudan, Syria, et cetera were put on this list at some time throughout history? Futurist110 (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Because at the time it was not politically expedient to do so. Remember that, at the time, the Taliban began during the context of the Soviet occupation and withdrawal from Afghanistan, among groups that were expressly anti-Soviet. So during the early 1980s, when the U.S. list was developed, it wasn't clear that the Taliban was a threat to the U.S.; on the contrary there is some speculation that the Taliban may have, early on, received indirect support from the U.S., through the proxy of Pakistan's ISI. See Taliban's rise to power. During the years when the Taliban directly ruled Afganistan, from 1996-Oct 2001, it also wasn't considered to be a big deal. The state sponsors of terrorism list has always been about more than just "states that sponsor terrorism", it has ALWAYS been "states that sponsor terrorism that the U.S. has an interest in caring about. Prior to 9/11 Afghanistan was considered a state of marginal interest to the U.S., not unlike Chad or Somalia or any of a number of other states with oppressive regimes but with no natural resources to exploit or business interests of the U.S. present in that country. The U.S. was quite content to let the Taliban oppress Afghanistan because the U.S. had no interests there. That changed after 9/11 when it was clear that the Taliban had sponsored the 9/11 attacks, and a swift U.S. military response removed them from power in less about a month. --Jayron32 16:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I meant explicitly in the late 1990s and early 2000s, after the Taliban captured power in Afghanistan and after the Cold War ended. Obviously I am aware of why the U.S. funded Islamic extremists in Afghanistan during the Cold War. In regards to Chad, the government there wasn't actively sponsoring al-Qaeda and providing them a safe haven. I'm pretty sure that the U.S. knew that the Taliban were sponsoring and harboring al-Qaeda way before 9/11--just look at the missile strikes that Clinton ordered on Afghanistan in 1998. Futurist110 (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the US did know that the Taliban was actively supporting al Qaeda. They knew al Qaeda had bases there, but that alone doesn't mean much. If you recall, Bush even gave the Taliban an out in the form of an ultimatum to turn over al Qaeda. Presumably, had they done so, the Taliban would have remained off the terrorist list, just as Pakistan's ISI has. Instead, the Taliban spokesman replied with something to the effect of "As Muslims, the Koran instructs us to be good hosts to our guests" (somehow I doubt if those passages in the Koran are meant to apply to mass murderers). That's when Bush brought out "If you're not with us, you're against us" (prone to misunderstanding as it was), and attacked. StuRat (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

To be honest I thought that the U.S. did know but as you said, offered the Taliban an opportunity to clean up its act right after 9/11, which the Taliban refused to do (in time, anyway). Futurist110 (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Note that StuRat's memory of the Taliban's response seems faulty here, see Responsibility for the September 11 attacks#Taliban. This can easily be confirmed from sources of the time, e.g. [3] Nil Einne (talk) 07:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you link to the wrong section ? The section after that is on the Taliban. You've now corrected your link. Also, what specifically are you saying I remembered incorrectly ? StuRat (talk) 07:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

If you read either link it's fairly obvious but in any case you only gave one Taliban response so you don't even have to read the links to know which part I'm referring to. It's possible some random Taliban spokesperson gave the response you referred to, but it clearly wasn't their primary response. Nil Einne (talk) 08:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Our article doesn't go far enough. The Taliban made multiple offers to turn over Bin Laden, the one that got the most press - which was however very scant - was in the UK's Telegraph I believe. Chomsky analyzed it some. There were others, reported in Counterpunch for instance, which came to light in the subsequent years. The US refused to make a formal extradition request. I do seem to recall some spokesman saying what Stu said though, can't remember where.John Z (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I just want to make sure--did the Taliban ever offer to turn bin Laden in to the U.S., rather than to some Islamic country? Also, even if they did offer this at a particular point (or several points) in time, the U.S. demanded that the Taliban kick out all al-Qaeda members from Afghanistan, not just bin Laden. I don't think that the Taliban ever agreed to kick out all of al-Qaeda from Afghanistan, though if someone has a source to correct me, please post it here. Futurist110 (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe the Taliban also demanded to see evidence before they would consider turning over bin Laden. This may well have been a delaying tactic, with them determined to (eventually) reject any evidence presented. Revealing such evidence to the Taliban would expose US intelligence methods and operatives, while providing al Qaeda with time to escape or prepare for an attack. StuRat (talk) 04:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember that part as well. Did the U.S. try giving the Taliban any evidence at all? I mean, obviously they shouldn't have revealed any intelligence methods and operatives, but the U.S. should have perhaps provided some evidence to the Taliban, considering how suspicious Muslim extremists are of the "Great Satan". However, even if the Taliban was serious about turning over bin Laden (and they might certainly not have been), it would have been a moot point if the Taliban didn't agree to give up other al-Qaeda leaders and expel all of al-Qaeda from Afghanistan as well. Futurist110 (talk) 05:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I believe at this point, Bush decided "we're not going to play their game" and decided to attack. StuRat (talk) 05:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

What about before 9/11? Futurist110 (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bush Administration claimed it was "developing it's anti-terrorism policy". So, despite having been in office for 9 months, they hadn't yet decided what to do about terrorism. To me, they should have all this figured out at the inauguration, if not before. That was an unforgivable delay. Before Bush, Clinton seemed to favor a limited response, trying not to incite the situation further. StuRat (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

In regards to before 9/11, I was asking if the U.S. presented any evidence to the Taliban about bin Laden and al-Qaeda before 9/11. Futurist110 (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It's also the case that the point of the list is not just to say "we don't like you", but to impose specific sanctions and controls. I suspect that there would have been no point to doing such a thing before invading Afghanistan in 2001. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You might have a point on this. Afghanistan's economy was near the point of collapse under the Taliban, so any more sanctions would have hurt Afghanistan's population even further. Of course, the same could have arguably been said about several other countries on the state sponsors of terrorism list and an even worse lifestyle for the people might theoretically cause more of them to try rebelling/revolting. Futurist110 (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, rogue nations tend to have little trade with the outside world to begin with, especially the US and Europe, so are minimally affected by sanctions. StuRat (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true of a lot of rogue nations (though not of all of them--Iran and Syria are notable exceptions). Futurist110 (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if the U.S. was still hoping that the Taliban would eventually change their ways in regards to al-Qaeda, and that putting Afghanistan on the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism would have undermined any efforts to engage the Taliban in regards to this. For the record, considering that al-Qaeda conducted the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenys and Tanzania and the 2000 U.S.S. Cole bombing, I'm pretty sure that the U.S. government was aware of the threat posed by al-Qaeda and from Afghanistan, which was al-Qaeda's safe haven back then. Futurist110 (talk) 05:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Does predestination (calvinism) explain why some people are just naturally more religious than others?

According to this article, I am getting the impression that some people are chosen by God and therefore are predestined to go to heaven or be saved, regardless of the person's choice. Does this explain that some people are just naturally more religious than others or have a tendency to become religious than others? Is there a psychological basis for greater religiosity among certain individuals? Is religiosity fixed within an individual? Are some people just born with a greater propensity to become religious than other people and so they are "predestined" to be saved? Wouldn't that render proselytism useless? 18:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.188.155 (talk)

I think you are confusing two things, namely predestination in Calvinism and people's propensity to being religious. Surely, the dogma of Calvinism wouldn't affect people's religiosity if they are Moslem, Hindu, or even Lutheran. As for religiosity being 'predetermined' (e.g. by genetics), there have been studies on this, see, for instance Religiosity#Genes and environment or God gene. V85 (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I went the two links and read them, and also went to Religiosity's bottom of the page and read some of those pages as well. When comparing religiosity, I do not think it is fair to say or suggest that the opposite of religiosity is atheism. Confucianism is an ethical-philosophical system, sometimes regarded as a religion. It has no personal god, but it nevertheless counts as a religion, and this religion has a deep influence on Far Eastern cultures like China, Korea, and Japan. I suspect that article is biased toward religion that deals with a personal god or supernatural phenomenon. Therefore, the opposite of religiosity is not atheism. It is presumably irreligiosity. Irreligiosity is not the same thing as atheism, because atheists can be very religious. See Unitarian Universalist. 20:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.188.155 (talk)

164.107: please sign your comments with --~~~~. Obviously if predestination is true, then it explains all characteristics of all humans, including their religiosity. That argument suffers only from a false premise. As for factors affecting religiosity, there are plenty of strong correlations but fewer definite causations. The less intelligent, less educated, less scientifically knowledgeable, and poor are more religious. Women are more religious than men. Children of heavily religious parents are more likely to be heavily religious, and if so, they almost certainly hold the same religious beliefs as their parents. People living in countries where apostasy is punishable by death or worse--including many Muslim countries today and Christian countries in the past--are more religious. People in liberal democracies with freedom of thought and speech are less religious. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

To the OP: In the Calvinist system, not only the salvation of people is predetermined, but also the means of bringing people to salvation. So Calvinists do believe that proselytism brings people to faith, and just as importantly, that proselytism is a command. So the fact that all things are predetermined does not negate the usefulness of the means. For example, if I decide to travel to a certain nearby town, I may use public transportation, a car, a bicycle or I may walk. If I choose to travel by bus, then the bus is a useful means of transportation, despite the fact that I had already 'predetermined' that I would go, and I could also have chosen a different method. - Lindert (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Count of Barcelona

Why did Infante Juan, Count of Barcelona used the title Count of Barcelona during his pretension as the Spanish monarch? I understand that it was one the sovereign titles of the Kings of Spain and the Kings of Aragon before that, but why that title and not the other or simply styling himself as with the title of the heir apparent, Prince of Asturias, or even just Prince of Spain? Was he trying to convince the Catalan factions to support his cause by choosing a title associated with that region? --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure it was a self-assumed title? I know our article says so, but he was the third son of the former King, and his older brothers were Prince of Asturias and Duke of Segovia respectively. Have you tried looking for sources outside of Wikipedia to see if he might have been assigned the title by his father? --Jayron32 00:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It is definitely a self-assumed title until his son granted him the use of it in 1977. I tried finding some other information but nothing I searched spoke about the title itself just Juan as a person. Prince of Asturias and Duke of Segovia weren't sovereign titles of the Spanish crown like Count of Barcelona which was one of the many titles of the King of Spain. And it looks like initially none of the younger sons of Alfonso XIII had courtesy titles other than Infante; Jaime only got the title Duke of Segovia when he renounced his claim in 1933, Gonzalo had no other title besides Infante, and Juan was suppose to be the next Prince of Asturias since his both his older brothers renounced his rights to the succession. It was only after Alfonso XIII's death that Juan took the title Count of Barcelona. My question is why he chose that title over other titles in the Crown or assuming the title of Asturias or simply Prince of the nation, like many pretenders during the period and today. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe analogous to Count of Paris? -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

"The title was given by Louis-Philippe I to his grandson Philippe, as show of gratitude towards the City of Paris and in reference to the early ancestors of the Capetian dynasty." This wasn't a sovereign title, like Count of Barcelona.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

According to List of titles and honours of the Spanish Crown "Count of Barcelona" is a subsidiary title held by whoever is the King of Spain (similar to the way Duke of Lancaster is a subsidiary title of the King of England) So... up to 1941 the "Count of Barcelona" would have been Alfonso (even if Alfonso never used it). The title would have then passed to Juan upon Alfonso's death. As to why he chose that title over all the other one's he was entitled to... interesting question, but possibly unanswerable. Maybe he just liked it. Blueboar (talk) 02:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe also analogous to the Duc d'Anjou (a formerly sovereign title in France) or the Duc d'Orleans (which was never sovereign). It seems to be bad form to claim to be king of a country which legally has no monarchy. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It has no legal monarchy right now. There's no accounting for the future. Spain, France, the Netherlands, and the UK have all seen, at various points in their history, republics replaced by monarchies. Since monarchies are often based on strict interpretation of inheritance law, when monarchies are re-established, they are often granted to the best legal heir still alive (see Charles II of England, Louis XVIII of France). I agree it isn't likely, but these pretenders are just biding their time (likely indefinitely) until the tides of history change in their favor. --Jayron32 18:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Logically I can explain all those other titles you mention, maybe a bit of original thinking on my part but probably supported by other historians. Duke of Anjou was the title of Philip IV of Spain, the ancestor of the Spanish Bourbon when he was a Prince of France, so it would make sense to be link to the senior male of Philip IV in his pretension to the French side of his heritage. The Duke of Orleans was the head of the house that ruled during the July Monarchy, but the Orleanist pretender today actually use the title Count of Paris after the last heir before the July Monarchy. Choosing Count of Barcelona, to me anyway, seems like a big slap on the face to the other former historical Spanish kingdoms of Castile, Leon, Galicia and etc. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think his choice was intended as a slap at the former Spanish Kingdoms. Lets look again at the List of titles and honours of the Spanish Crown, ignoring all the titles that are either purely historic or no longer associated with places in Spain... here is what he had to choose from:

• King of Spain
• King of Castile
• King of León
• King of Aragón
• King of Navarre
• King of Granada
• King of Mallorca
• King of Toledo
• King of Seville
• King of Valencia
• King of Galicia
• King of Cordoba
• King of Menorca
• King of Murcia
• King of Jaen
• King of Algeciras
• King of the Canary Islands
• Count of Cerdanya
• Count of Barcelona
• Count of Girona
• Count of Osona
• Count of Besalú
• Count of Covadonga
• Lord of Biscay
• Lord of Molina

Now, in 1941 it was politically impossible for Juan to style himself "King of Spain" (or "King" of any region in Spain) ... which left him with his various "Count of " titles (which, by the way, are all of Aragónese origin). "Count of Barcelona" was the only title he was entitled to that named a major city in Spain. Is it any wonder that he chose that one? Blueboar (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess that could be an explanation but he could have easily taken a more neutral title like Prince of Asturias or Prince of Spain. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Except, to my guess: a) there is no Historical title "Prince of Spain", and if monarchies are anything it is slavishly committed to historical precedent and legitimacy and b) the title "Prince of Asturias" is historically limited to the eldest son and heir apparent to the sitting King. With no sitting King, there's no Prince of Asturias. Remember here, you're posing questions of a counterfactual nature, which depend on us deciding why people didn't do something. Unless you have a documented quote where someone directly asked them the same question, there's no meaningful way to provide a reference satisfactorily explaining why. If you like my, or any others answers, as being logical, fine, but there's no reason to particularly favor them over any other, nor is there any reason to refute them. It's an entertaining, but pointless, exercise. --Jayron32 12:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly... Once Alphonso died, Juan was no longer entitled to call himself "Prince of Asturias" (Just as Prince Charles will not be entitled to call himself "Prince of Wales" or "Duke of Cornwall" the second Queen Elizabeth dies). If anyone was entitled to call himself "Prince of Asturias" (from 1941 to the restoration of the Monarchy) it would have been his son, Juan-Carlos (the current King). Sure, Juan could have invented a fancy title for himself ... but why make something up when you already have titles that you are legitimately entitled to use? Blueboar (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Railways in Ireland: two questions

• Rail transport in Ireland
• File:Ireland rail network sb.svg

Southwestern Ulster

Do I understand this rightly to mean that there's absolutely no railway service currently in the southwestern half of Ulster? If so, how do facilities with large freight shipment needs (e.g. grain elevators) operate — do they just ship it all by road? Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the answers are: "Yes, there really isn't a rail service there" and "There's no rail freight service at all in NI anyway". I found this article that talks about "the passenger-only railway network of Northern Ireland", and this one, from 2011, which says "Another exciting development is the possibility of the introduction of a long haul service from Londonderry to Waterford ... If this Londonderry flow does start, it will be the first time freight traffic of any nature has operated on Northern Ireland Railways tracks for many years." (my italics). It also says that this traffic flow is currently moved by sea. - Karenjc 09:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Changes of trains

As a child, I spent a summer in Northern Ireland, near Ballymoney. During a family trip to Belfast, we had to go through a change of trains; where does this typically happen? Or is there no particular location? Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the present timetable it looks as though all trains that stop at Ballymoney also stop at Belfast. The situation may have been different in the past - I'm afraid that I've never been to NI and so have no local knowledge. Alansplodge (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Might help if I specified a date — this was the summer of 1995. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any stations or lines that have opened or closed between Belfast and Ballymoney since 1995. According to this diagram of the NIR rail network, the only station between Ballymoney and Belfast that has more than one line running through it is Whiteabbey, so that seems the most likely place you would have changed trains. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

A little more digging. There used to be a Lisburn–Antrim railway line, which was closed in 2003. Some trains from Ballymoney would have joined that line at Antrim, so you might have had to get off there to change for Belfast. Seems more likely than changing at Whiteabbey, as all trains going through Whiteabbey go to Belfast. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)