Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 November 13
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < November 12 | << Oct | November | Dec >> | November 14 > |
| 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. |
November 13[edit]
Children procession[edit]
Yesterday, that is to say Saturday, 12 November, I obsevered a group of children (guided by some adults) carrying lanterns and singing what sounded like a him in a Germanic language (I could easily be wrong about that - but hopefully it's some guide - the children were murmuring, rather, as five year olds are prone to do when in public). This, in itself, was not a particular surprise. But I haven't been able to work out what they were celebrating or commemorating. It was a large group, so I assumed it was to do with what day it was. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 00:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, could it be a Saint Martin's Day parade a day late? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 00:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- It might help someone to answer if you tell us where in the World this took place! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.16 (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- I suspect you have some reason for discouting this, but any procession this weekend I would assume to be connected to Remembrance Sunday until proved otherwise. 128.232.241.211 (talk) 08:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- If we knew in which town this took place we might be able to trace a local news item. Many towns have their own peculiar parades, some of them with Germanic themes. If you were in Birmingham, see here.--Shantavira|feed me 09:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I'm in Oxford, UK. Should have mentioned that. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- So it's a rehearsal for the Oxford Procession of Lanterns. Honestly, you could have found that one yourself by reading your local paper. (mutters about the quality of students at Oxford Uni these days...) --TammyMoet (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Close, but I don't think so. It would be three weeks away, and it wouldn't explain the singing. All the lanterns were normal lanterns, although I think they were probably home-made. (I wasn't in Oxford when that was published.) I guess we'll never know. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Why do you think they wouldn't rehearse? One of the links says that the children will be leading the processing. In that case, they would need to rehearse their very important part. It would explain why they weren't singing properly too. I think I'm right. Oh and I googled "Oxford procession 12th November". You could have done that. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- I've looked at videos for 2009 and 2010 and they seem to have a band and a lot of talking and noise but not much singing so I wonder if the OP is right. Of course it could simply be one group who is singing for whatever reason or perhaps they only sing at some specific time. Nil Einne (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- One of the links refers to the fact that the procession has changed for this year, and the children leading is a new thing. So I still think it's a rehearsal for the event. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Here's a link referring to the children's procession, its theme and their puppet style lanterns. Here is a link for a "lantern making workshop" advertised for the 12th. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- How so? Your second ref says "A CHILDREN’S lantern procession will again form the centrepiece of Oxford’s Christmas Night of Lights" (emphasis added) and includes a pic of last year's procession showing children. Both the first and second ref say "We’re looking forward to building upon the hands-on work that our engineers undertook last year working with participating schools to help children build their lanterns" (again emphasis added). Neither of these suggest the children leading is new to me. And this seems to be supported by the videos I saw which did show the many of the lanterns were held by children (although most are older then 5 years) some advertising specific schools, simply as I noted earlier that they weren't singing [1] [2] [3] [4]. BTW I just noticed the first ref you provided mentions singing but as part of something on stage not as part of the lantern procession. Nil Einne (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- OK I give up, you're obviously going to pick holes in whatever I say. I read about 20 - 30 links before choosing ones I thought were more relevant. The first or second of these links said the procession had changed in the last year - although I confess I didn't take a note of the date of the link. Whatever, I stand by my assertion that what the OP saw was most likely a rehearsal for this year's procession. OK? --TammyMoet (talk) 08:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- How so? Your second ref says "A CHILDREN’S lantern procession will again form the centrepiece of Oxford’s Christmas Night of Lights" (emphasis added) and includes a pic of last year's procession showing children. Both the first and second ref say "We’re looking forward to building upon the hands-on work that our engineers undertook last year working with participating schools to help children build their lanterns" (again emphasis added). Neither of these suggest the children leading is new to me. And this seems to be supported by the videos I saw which did show the many of the lanterns were held by children (although most are older then 5 years) some advertising specific schools, simply as I noted earlier that they weren't singing [1] [2] [3] [4]. BTW I just noticed the first ref you provided mentions singing but as part of something on stage not as part of the lantern procession. Nil Einne (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- One of the links refers to the fact that the procession has changed for this year, and the children leading is a new thing. So I still think it's a rehearsal for the event. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Here's a link referring to the children's procession, its theme and their puppet style lanterns. Here is a link for a "lantern making workshop" advertised for the 12th. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- I've looked at videos for 2009 and 2010 and they seem to have a band and a lot of talking and noise but not much singing so I wonder if the OP is right. Of course it could simply be one group who is singing for whatever reason or perhaps they only sing at some specific time. Nil Einne (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Why do you think they wouldn't rehearse? One of the links says that the children will be leading the processing. In that case, they would need to rehearse their very important part. It would explain why they weren't singing properly too. I think I'm right. Oh and I googled "Oxford procession 12th November". You could have done that. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Close, but I don't think so. It would be three weeks away, and it wouldn't explain the singing. All the lanterns were normal lanterns, although I think they were probably home-made. (I wasn't in Oxford when that was published.) I guess we'll never know. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well this here [5] (in German) is an invitation by the German Congregation West-London to meet on 12 Nov, 5pm at Radcliffe Camera, Oxford for a St Martins Day Lantern Procession. I guess that settles the issue. 109.150.130.187 (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Books about the Renaissance[edit]
Hi, I'm looking for some informative books (in English) on the Renaissance. I'm a layman in art, but rather learned in philosophy and was hoping to draw upon contrasts between the two fields. Do the omniscient inhabitants of Wikipedia have any suggestions? --90.220.162.146 (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- If you're looking for books specifically about Renaissance art and its relationships to the thought of its time, the works of Erwin Panofsky might be a good starting place. Deor (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'll look for his work. --90.220.162.146 (talk) 05:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Panofsky is a bit out of date these days, in terms of scholarship, although certainly worth a look. There's a surprising amount of new information since his day, and lots of new approaches (see e.g. Michael Baxandall).
- Also, the Renaissance is a VAST field of study - art, literature, music, politics, covering large parts of Europe (Italy, Germany, Netherlands/Flanders, France, England, Scotland, even other places), covering up to 300 years, so maybe if there's something you're particularly interested in - painting, architecture, politics, history, literature, philosophy; or a particular geographical area? Or a particular approach (biographical, social history, marxist, post-structuralist, feminist, etc)? Other than that, the Oxford History of Art series[6] is very useful, though it splits the Renaissance into several volumes, as befits its complexity. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Gay law in Springfield, MO[edit]
Not asking for legal advice but for info. Can a man participate as a wife in a marriage in MO ? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, of course, a man can never be "a wife" anywhere, given that "wife" is per definition female. However, assuming you want to know if same-sex marriages are legal in Montana, apparently they are not. According to Same-sex marriage in the United States, Montana is among the paleolithic states that have constitutionally banned same-sex marriage. I suspect you can still hold a ceremony, but the marriage would be legally void. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Not to get too picky, but isn't the argument given above for a man never being able to be a wife exactly the same argument that is used against calling a same-sex relationship a marriage? That words have strict definitions, and it simply doesn't make sense to talk about a same-sex marriage or a male wife? I just don't think people should use certain arguments to support their own views if they reject the same arguments when they contradict their own views. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh if only the entire thing was an argument about semantics. It's not. Marriage throughout history has varied in definition. Consider that the original Biblical definition is one man + many women (often underage). In no part of the Bible was this definition ever rescinded.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I quite agree that it isn't all about semantics, but consider the case of the UK where we have civil partnerships for same-sex couples, which are identical to civil marriages except for the name and being between two people of the same sex. Campaigners still campaign for it to be renamed as marriage, rejecting the argument that "marriage is defined as between a man and a woman". Since the argument is summarily rejected in this case, it is foolish to use the same argument to say that a man cannot be a wife. Either a man can be a wife if someone chooses to redefine the word for themselves, or marriage cannot be redefined as between two people of the same sex and a civilly recognised relationship between two such people must be called something else. If I had my druthers, we'd have a separate legally-recognised thing called a 'civil partnership' for anyone who wanted a legally recognised relationship with another person, and this would be completely separated from the cultural and religious concept of 'marriage' and 'wedding'. Everyone who wanted to be married would register their civil partnership with the state, then get married in whatever religious or cultural context they wanted. It would do away with all mixing of government with religion, and do away with the weird differences in process depending on religion, in this country. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- LOL, damn right. I feel exactly the same way. You can call it whatever you like (let's call it "cake") as long as the legal definition is the same and as long as the civil definition is the one recognized by the state, not the one requiring a priest or a rabbi or a lama or an imam or something. The way the state completely depends on the religious definition of marriage is in severe contradiction with the separation of the church and state. Why would anyone need somebody else's god's permission? On the other hand, I guess I can also understand why people disagree with the "equal but different" thing given precedents with racial segregation in the early 20th century US. *shrugs* :/ -- Obsidi♠n Soul 17:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I quite agree that it isn't all about semantics, but consider the case of the UK where we have civil partnerships for same-sex couples, which are identical to civil marriages except for the name and being between two people of the same sex. Campaigners still campaign for it to be renamed as marriage, rejecting the argument that "marriage is defined as between a man and a woman". Since the argument is summarily rejected in this case, it is foolish to use the same argument to say that a man cannot be a wife. Either a man can be a wife if someone chooses to redefine the word for themselves, or marriage cannot be redefined as between two people of the same sex and a civilly recognised relationship between two such people must be called something else. If I had my druthers, we'd have a separate legally-recognised thing called a 'civil partnership' for anyone who wanted a legally recognised relationship with another person, and this would be completely separated from the cultural and religious concept of 'marriage' and 'wedding'. Everyone who wanted to be married would register their civil partnership with the state, then get married in whatever religious or cultural context they wanted. It would do away with all mixing of government with religion, and do away with the weird differences in process depending on religion, in this country. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh if only the entire thing was an argument about semantics. It's not. Marriage throughout history has varied in definition. Consider that the original Biblical definition is one man + many women (often underage). In no part of the Bible was this definition ever rescinded.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Not to get too picky, but isn't the argument given above for a man never being able to be a wife exactly the same argument that is used against calling a same-sex relationship a marriage? That words have strict definitions, and it simply doesn't make sense to talk about a same-sex marriage or a male wife? I just don't think people should use certain arguments to support their own views if they reject the same arguments when they contradict their own views. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Is MO not Missouri? Kittybrewster ☎ 13:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Possibly (hey, it's another continent ;-). But apparently exactly the same applies to Missouri. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. MO is Missouri. Yes. Same-sex marriage is banned in Missouri. Even if married in another state, it is not recognized within Missouri. Legal unions are recognized for some cases, such as joint-ownership of property, but are not recognized for other cases, such as being allowed to visit a partner in the hospital during "family-only" visiting hours. -- kainaw™ 16:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Being banned is a different thing from not being recognised, although the practical effect is the same. Is there any place that explicitly prohibits same-sex marriages, and not just by implication (by declaring marrriage is between a man and a woman)? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, the refusals of some states to recognize marriages contracted in other states might be on shaky ground with respect to the "full faith and credit" provision of the U.S. Constitution (though this doesn't seem to have been directly tested in the Supreme Court yet). AnonMoos (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- And there will be other constitutional issues, as Congress has passed the Defense of Marriage Act in an attempt to circumvent the full faith and credit clause, and is considering the Respect for Marriage Act, which would rescind, or partially rescind, the DOMA. - Nunh-huh 19:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree there are a whole host of legal issues that are unresolved including the full faith and credit clause but of the later, I would note there seems some doubt including among legal scholars over when & whether the full faith and credit clause would apply, e.g. if a couple go to another state to get married because their state does not recognise such a marriage [7]/[8] (Creighton Law Review, Feb2005, Vol. 38 Issue 2), [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Of course only a ruling from the US Supreme Court will provide definite clarification, and it sounds like this is still a long way from happening. Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- And there will be other constitutional issues, as Congress has passed the Defense of Marriage Act in an attempt to circumvent the full faith and credit clause, and is considering the Respect for Marriage Act, which would rescind, or partially rescind, the DOMA. - Nunh-huh 19:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, the refusals of some states to recognize marriages contracted in other states might be on shaky ground with respect to the "full faith and credit" provision of the U.S. Constitution (though this doesn't seem to have been directly tested in the Supreme Court yet). AnonMoos (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's not different in a legal sense. You can say, "we're married" without any legal recognition, obviously, but without legal recognition you lose every benefit and right associated with marriage. Anyone who processes a same-sex marriage in said states loses their job. That's compulsion if there ever was any. I know you're saying, "nobody goes to jail", but that's a very narrow definition of a ban, especially where things like civil rights are concerned. Turning it around another way, the supporters of the amendment in question saw it as a ban, and passed it with the explicit purpose of making sure that gay marriage would not be legal. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- what URL will advise me the tel no or email of Wes Monday please? Kittybrewster ☎ 20:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's not different in a legal sense. You can say, "we're married" without any legal recognition, obviously, but without legal recognition you lose every benefit and right associated with marriage. Anyone who processes a same-sex marriage in said states loses their job. That's compulsion if there ever was any. I know you're saying, "nobody goes to jail", but that's a very narrow definition of a ban, especially where things like civil rights are concerned. Turning it around another way, the supporters of the amendment in question saw it as a ban, and passed it with the explicit purpose of making sure that gay marriage would not be legal. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- What I was getting at was this: Marriage has traditionally been considered something that only different-sex couples enter into. Laws did not spell this out because until relatively recently it was just taken for granted that this was what it was about. Now that our society is evolving and widening its views on many things, some jurisdictions that don't recognise same-sex marriage have gone to the trouble of spelling out in their laws that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, just so that everyone's clear. That has the effect of cutting same-sex couples out of the picture, or making sure they don't get into the picture in the first place, which is what the legislators wanted. What I want to know is, are there any places that explicitly spell out in their laws that marriage is NOT between same-sex couples? I guess laws are about what is, not about what is not - and such a law would set an undesirable precedent for those who would like to marry their dog. But I'm just curious.-- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- There are plenty of ones by exclusion (e.g. Colorado's "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state."), but looking at Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state, we find Alabama: "No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to parties of the same sex. ... The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred or was alleged to have occurred as a result of the law of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a marriage license was issued." Arizona: "A marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited." Arkansas: "A marriage between persons of the same sex is void." - And that's just the "A"s. -- 71.35.99.151 (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- That'e enough to answer my query. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- I still think your "clarification" argument is poor. These things have been marketed as, and passed as, bans. They serve no purpose other than to outlaw homosexual marriage. They may dress that up in euphemisms, but it's clear that's what their intentions are meant to be. They are not meant to be benign, "oh, times are changing, we just want to clarify what we mean by this definition." They are discriminatory bans in intent and practice. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's not my argument and I do not support these developments. I was simply wanting to slake my curiosity on a purely technical question of the actual wording of legislation. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Having recently seen Ken Burns' film about Prohibition, and how and why it didn't work, it occurs to me that these state-constitution bans are the same kind of thing. They are trying to impose their will on everyone in the state by prohibiting something (FYI, most of these laws would also prohibit polygamy, but that's usually against the law anyway). A fairer and more flexible amendment would be to authorize the government to define what marriage is. But that wouldn't serve the prohibitionists' purpose. They want to lock it in. And as demonstrated by the Burns film, such an inflexible, hard-line approach typically fails in the long run. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Have to agree with JoO here. I see nothing in this thread to suggest JoO was ever trying to argue in support of the bans in any way. In fact it seems clear from the beginning of JoO comments that they don't support any bans and recognised the effect was likely the same in most cases but they just wanted to know for personal interest. (Perhaps JoO's comments about the traditional view of marriage were misintepreted. It seems clear to me JoO was simply acknowleding this was the case. To me, it doesn't sound like they were trying to imply the later attempts to legally define marriage in that sense were okay.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is the wording I disagreed with: "Now that our society is evolving and widening its views on many things, some jurisdictions that don't recognise same-sex marriage have gone to the trouble of spelling out in their laws that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, just so that everyone's clear. That has the effect of cutting same-sex couples out of the picture, or making sure they don't get into the picture in the first place, which is what the legislators wanted." It's not a "just so that everyone's clear" sort of thing, at all. I am not accusing JoO of anything, just clarifying what the actual intentions were (in case the Aussie coverage of these amendments was lacking). The attitude by those in favor of passing these amendments is not "just so everyone's clear," it's "OMG if we don't pass this today GAYS WILL GET MARRIED and the MARRIAGE WILL BE OVER" and things of that nature. They are worded euphemistically and "family-friendly" but they were explicitly meant to be prohibitions against homosexual marriage and stated so in the most hyperbolic and fearful terms. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have difficulty understanding why anyone reasonable would object to a state allowing Gay marriage. I can understand religions not wanting to do it, but most of these religions would consider a state-only marriage not to be a full marriage anyway. The only reason I can see for them objecting to civil gay marriages is if they want to impose their morality and views on people with different beliefs. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- The world is full of groups of people trying to impose their views on everyone else. Why would you expect religious groups to be any different? You are imposing your own views by stating that anyone who opposes gay marriage is unreasonable. -- kainaw™ 15:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Actually I said that it would be unreasonable for religious groups objecting to gay marriage to try to impose this on people outside their group, which is not the same as saying that they would be unreasonable for objecting to it. I would not sanction gay marriage within my religion, as I see that marriage is a partnership under God to bring up children in accordance with the teachings, but I would not want to stop civil gay marriages. -- Q Chris (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- So post-menopausal childless women and men who had a vasectomy should not be allowed to marry, but gay christian couple who adopt should be? That makes sense! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Actually I said that it would be unreasonable for religious groups objecting to gay marriage to try to impose this on people outside their group, which is not the same as saying that they would be unreasonable for objecting to it. I would not sanction gay marriage within my religion, as I see that marriage is a partnership under God to bring up children in accordance with the teachings, but I would not want to stop civil gay marriages. -- Q Chris (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- The world is full of groups of people trying to impose their views on everyone else. Why would you expect religious groups to be any different? You are imposing your own views by stating that anyone who opposes gay marriage is unreasonable. -- kainaw™ 15:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have difficulty understanding why anyone reasonable would object to a state allowing Gay marriage. I can understand religions not wanting to do it, but most of these religions would consider a state-only marriage not to be a full marriage anyway. The only reason I can see for them objecting to civil gay marriages is if they want to impose their morality and views on people with different beliefs. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is the wording I disagreed with: "Now that our society is evolving and widening its views on many things, some jurisdictions that don't recognise same-sex marriage have gone to the trouble of spelling out in their laws that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, just so that everyone's clear. That has the effect of cutting same-sex couples out of the picture, or making sure they don't get into the picture in the first place, which is what the legislators wanted." It's not a "just so that everyone's clear" sort of thing, at all. I am not accusing JoO of anything, just clarifying what the actual intentions were (in case the Aussie coverage of these amendments was lacking). The attitude by those in favor of passing these amendments is not "just so everyone's clear," it's "OMG if we don't pass this today GAYS WILL GET MARRIED and the MARRIAGE WILL BE OVER" and things of that nature. They are worded euphemistically and "family-friendly" but they were explicitly meant to be prohibitions against homosexual marriage and stated so in the most hyperbolic and fearful terms. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's not my argument and I do not support these developments. I was simply wanting to slake my curiosity on a purely technical question of the actual wording of legislation. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- I still think your "clarification" argument is poor. These things have been marketed as, and passed as, bans. They serve no purpose other than to outlaw homosexual marriage. They may dress that up in euphemisms, but it's clear that's what their intentions are meant to be. They are not meant to be benign, "oh, times are changing, we just want to clarify what we mean by this definition." They are discriminatory bans in intent and practice. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- That'e enough to answer my query. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- There are plenty of ones by exclusion (e.g. Colorado's "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state."), but looking at Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state, we find Alabama: "No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to parties of the same sex. ... The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred or was alleged to have occurred as a result of the law of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a marriage license was issued." Arizona: "A marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited." Arkansas: "A marriage between persons of the same sex is void." - And that's just the "A"s. -- 71.35.99.151 (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- What I was getting at was this: Marriage has traditionally been considered something that only different-sex couples enter into. Laws did not spell this out because until relatively recently it was just taken for granted that this was what it was about. Now that our society is evolving and widening its views on many things, some jurisdictions that don't recognise same-sex marriage have gone to the trouble of spelling out in their laws that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, just so that everyone's clear. That has the effect of cutting same-sex couples out of the picture, or making sure they don't get into the picture in the first place, which is what the legislators wanted. What I want to know is, are there any places that explicitly spell out in their laws that marriage is NOT between same-sex couples? I guess laws are about what is, not about what is not - and such a law would set an undesirable precedent for those who would like to marry their dog. But I'm just curious.-- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Four political parties in Canada before merger of Conservative Party except Bloc Quebecois[edit]
Someone told me that NDP and Canadian Alliance were the voice of Western Canada and the Progressive Conservatives and Liberal Party were the voice of Eastern Canada on right and left wings of the political spectrum. Is this true?
- That was broadly true when the Canadian Alliance existed, but as you can see by this electoral map, things have changed a bit for now. Remember, though, that there are pockets of politcal difference. Vancouver and environs doesn't vote the same as the rest of the province, for example. Likewise Montreal and the rest of Quebec or Winnipeg and the rest of Manitoba. Mingmingla (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Shankill Road chip shop[edit]
Does anyone happen to know the exact location on Belfast's Shankill Road of a chip shop in the 1970s called "The Eagle"? It was noted for two things: serving up the best chips in Belfast and the upper floors rooms served as the headquarters of the Ulster Volunteer Force's Brigade Staff. Also, is the building still standing? If so, what is the current name of the premises? Thank you very much.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm - check Shankill Road bombing - this was attack in the 1990s but the other details match - a chippy used for meetings that got bombed by the IRA. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- That was the UDA leadership's headquarters, not the UVF - although interesting that they were both based above chip shops. Warofdreams talk 23:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Not the exact location, but according to Bruce's The Red Hand, "the UVF brigade staff could often be found in the Bayardo Bar, round the corner from the office above The Eagle chip shop on the Shankill Road". The Bayardo was apparently on Aberdeen Street, so that's a rough location. There's an old street directory scanned here, but I think it's too old to include this place. Warofdreams talk 23:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- That directory has the "Eagle Supper Saloon" at 214 Shankill Road, at Spier's Place. Today the wall on the Spier's Place side of this corner building has this memorial which says that William Marchant was killed "near this spot." Our article on Marchant says he was killed outside the Eagle chip shop. --Cam (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Here's a Google street view of that corner.--Cam (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- The Shankill bombing took place at Frizzell's fish shop, not a chippy; however, Martin Dillon says in The Dirty War that Marchant was killed outside "The Eagle" chip shop which was 50 yards away from Conway Street. And Peter Taylor stated in Loyalists that UVF member Trevor King and two others were shot dead at a corner close to where Frizzell's had stood. They were 100 yards away from "The Eagle". This would give the location at Spier's Place if my calculations are correct. The Bayardo Bar was a UVF haunt and close to "The Eagle". The street directory gives The Eagle supper saloon at 214, which as the Google street view shows is now Home Furnishings. This most likely became the chippy. Interestingly at number 174 which was the address of the Bayardo, there had been a spirits merchant.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- A fish shop is a chip shop, you have to call it a fishmonger or similar if you want people to know you only sell fish for home cooking. Newspaper reports on the subsequence prison career of the surviving bomber refer to him as '"chip shop bomber". 86.163.1.168 (talk) 12:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- John Desmond Frizzell, owner of Frizzell's Fish Shop (one of the ten people killed in the bombing) was a fishmonger. Anyway, my question has to do with "The Eagle" chip shop not Frizzell's as I know exactly where the latter was located.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- A fish shop is a chip shop, you have to call it a fishmonger or similar if you want people to know you only sell fish for home cooking. Newspaper reports on the subsequence prison career of the surviving bomber refer to him as '"chip shop bomber". 86.163.1.168 (talk) 12:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- The Shankill bombing took place at Frizzell's fish shop, not a chippy; however, Martin Dillon says in The Dirty War that Marchant was killed outside "The Eagle" chip shop which was 50 yards away from Conway Street. And Peter Taylor stated in Loyalists that UVF member Trevor King and two others were shot dead at a corner close to where Frizzell's had stood. They were 100 yards away from "The Eagle". This would give the location at Spier's Place if my calculations are correct. The Bayardo Bar was a UVF haunt and close to "The Eagle". The street directory gives The Eagle supper saloon at 214, which as the Google street view shows is now Home Furnishings. This most likely became the chippy. Interestingly at number 174 which was the address of the Bayardo, there had been a spirits merchant.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Here's a Google street view of that corner.--Cam (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- That directory has the "Eagle Supper Saloon" at 214 Shankill Road, at Spier's Place. Today the wall on the Spier's Place side of this corner building has this memorial which says that William Marchant was killed "near this spot." Our article on Marchant says he was killed outside the Eagle chip shop. --Cam (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
request a new article on Gerónimo de Villanueva, Marquis of Villalba, member of the ancient family of Aragon, of which kingdom he was Prothonotary[edit]
Wikipedia:
In researching the Spanish Inquisition under Philip IV, I came across some highly interesting material on Gerónimo de Villanueva that you can read about here, but was unable to find an article about him on Wikipedia:
http://libro.uca.edu/lea2/3lea5.htm
I think his story is illustrative not only of the machinations of the Inquisition but also of the general state of superstition and confusion among average people. Well worth a Wikipedia article, though I haven't the time to do it.
Let me know if you put something together.
Judith Dancoff [redacted email address]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.143.199 (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- You're in the wrong place. Try WP:REQUEST. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Tahiti Kingdom[edit]
The former Kingdom of Tahiti had a flag, but did it ever adopt a constituion, a currency, or a national anthem?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)