Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 May 6

Humanities desk
< May 5	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 7 >

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.

May 6

Need book title

Someone wrote a fiction several years back about some Chinese escaping (from whom I don't remember) to America during the 9th or 10th century. Then some western colonists showed up and found the Chinese. I can't remember the name. It is definitely not 1421: The Year China Discovered the World. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

A sequence like that occurred in The Years of Rice and Salt by Kim Stanley Robinson. Marco polo (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Men marriying rich and older women

Give some examples of young men marrying very rich and much older women. --HoulGhostjj (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Larry Fortensky and Elizabeth Taylor? Though he was 39 when they got married, so he wasn't really a young man, and I don't know if the 20-year age difference makes her much older. Pais (talk) 09:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Aaron Johnson (actor) (20) is engaged to Sam Taylor-Wood (44). She's got a bit of a nest-egg. Arguably, the 20+ year difference matters more at his age. Joan Collins wed Percy Gibson (a theatre director) in 2001 when he was 36 and she was 68.[1] --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Johnson and Gibson are outside the ${\frac {A}{2}}+7$ "creepiness range" (where A = age of the older partner), but Fortensky was within it. —Angr (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought that formula was ${\frac {A}{2}}+7$ where A= age of the husband and the formula was the ideal marriage. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I heard it as the youngest possible age of the younger partner in order for the older partner to avoid the appearance of cradle-robbing. Your way, there would only be one or two years when the marriage was ideal; after that, the wife would be "too old". —Angr (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

William Lehman Ashmead Bartlett was 29 when he married his boss, the richest and "most remarkable woman in the kingdom", Angela Burdett-Coutts, who was 67. (For the previous 52 years, she had shared her life with Hannah Brown.) BrainyBabe (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

We have a chart File:Half-age-plus-seven-relationship-rule.svg, but it's been banned from article Age disparity in sexual relationships... AnonMoos (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

That is useful. The rule is for a 60yo hetero man --> 37yo hetero woman. For a 37yo hetero woman --> a 60yo hetero man. Anything outside that is too young//too old. Homosexual couples do what they like; no rules apply.Kittybrewster ☎ 02:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The basic mathematical rule shown in the chart does not treat male vs. female differently... AnonMoos (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

That half age plus seven chart doesn't ring true to me. Being twenty (roughly), I cannot imagine dating somebody who is 17 or 25. Just my 2¢ worth. Falconus^{p t c} 22:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It's supposed to be a maximum/minimum limit. Anyway, I was under the impression that there are plenty of high-school senior girls who are more interested in college boys than in high-school boys... AnonMoos (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

And for people under 14, the younger partner has to be older than the older partner! —Angr (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

That can be interpreted as saying people shouldn't start dating until they are 14. --Tango (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The more natural interpretation is that people under 14 shouldn't be in relationships at all... AnonMoos (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

17/20 and 20/25 pairings don't seem that strange to me. They are extremes, but that's what the formula is saying. --Tango (talk)

UK styles

Sir Peter Singer has retired as a judge. 1. Please can you provide me with a reference for this statement. 2. Is he no longer Mr Justice Singer? Kittybrewster ☎ 08:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

"Appointments Lucy Morgan Theis, QC, has been appointed a Justice of the High Court with effect from November 15, 2010, on the retirement of Mr Justice Singer on November 8, assigned to the Family Division." Legal News, The Times, 21 October 2010, p67. Sorry, not sure about the latter. --Kateshortforbob _talk 09:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Well done. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the technical answer to the latter part, but in the UK usage of titles after a person has departed the job is rare, so I assume people will call him just Mr Singer. Prokhorovka (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, Sir Peter it is. Thanks. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Peter Singer would cease being 'Mr Justice Singer' upon retirement. Meph^talk 14:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't he have been "Mr Justice Sir Peter Singer" when he was a judge, after he was knighted? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that's generally correct - unless in the UK for some reason "Mr Justice" trumps "Sir" the way "Lord" would? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No. it isn't. He is Sir Peter socially, Mr Justice Singer in court and confusingly referred to in court as My Lord. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Scottish National Party policy regarding independence

It appears that in yesterday's elections in Scotland, votes still being counted, the SNP has either got or nearly got a majority in the Scottish parliament. If Scotland becomes independant, will it keep the Queen and/or her descendants as their monarch, or would it become a republic? I cannot see this mentioned anywhere in the SNP article. Thanks 92.28.243.102 (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

See Scottish independence#Republicanism. They've left that question open - some people want an independent Scotland to be a republic; others want it to be a separate monarchy like Canada and Australia. —Angr (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Republicanism in the United Kingdom indicates that the official policy is that Scotland would be a constitutional monarchy, unless the public decided otherwise. Meph^talk 14:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't suppose there's any chance it would become a Jacobite monarchy under King Francis? —Angr (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that the SNP winning a majority in a single election does not necessarily mean that Scottish Independence is coming any time soon. There have been times when the Parti Québécois has had such a majority in the National Assembly of Quebec, between 1976-1985 and again from 1994-2003, the Péquistes were the majority party in the National Assembly, and controled the Premiership. And yet, despite this, Quebec is still not independent. --Jayron32 14:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

An IPSOS-Mori poll around six months ago found that around 22% of Scots favoured independence, so it's improbable that the SNP would attempt a referendum any time soon. Meph^talk 15:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As an addenedum, the times when the PQ has controled the Quebec National Assembly, the Prime Minister of Canada has himself been Québécois, Pierre Trudeau in the 1970 & 80's, and Jean Chrétien in the 1990's. Indeed, since World War II, the Prime Ministership has been in the hands of a Quebecois politician more than any other province, throwing in Paul Martin, Brian Mulroney, and Louis St. Laurent into the mix, and that's about 38 out of the past 63 years. In the UK, Scots have also had positions of national leadership, including most recently Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. --Jayron32 15:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

And David Cameron. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call Cameron Scot, unless you believe Obama is Kenyan. Quest09 (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I would ... and I don't. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The example you give below in another answer, makes me royal if you think that makes Cameron a Scot! --TammyMoet (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You could be royal. No that doesn't make Cameron a Scot. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

What about David McAllister? —Angr (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

To what extent was an SNP vote an anti-Royal-excess vote? It is the only political party with anything approaching that on its agenda. 2.97.208.37 (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Cut-backs during a time of austerity

I know some people object to questioning one's betters but is the use of a friend's jet to fly to the US by Prince Charles, instead of hiring one, the only Royal cut-back there has been to share our pain during this time of austerity? Have their been any others at all? Thanks. 92.28.243.102 (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, pay for those on the Civil List is currently frozen and the household will undertake spending cuts of 14% in 2013–14: BBC. Meph^talk 14:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are they are not being cut-back to the same extent as other government departments? 92.28.243.102 (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the recent wedding was less ostentatious than it might otherwise have been. Goodness knows what that would have looked like! As for the follow-on question, this site claims the average spending cut would be 19%. Now for something to be an average, that means some departments will be cut more than 19%, while others will be cut less. So the 14% cut is on the low side of that average. I also feel compelled to point out that Prince Charles takes nothing from the Civil List, and so doesn't fall under the government spending arena (his income comes from his various dukedoms, especially the Duchy of Cornwall). --TammyMoet (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in this article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10391693 ny156uk (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I wish taxpayers would be given clear information about Royal income and wealth that includes income from publically owned property, and what I think are called 'benefits in kind'. Since the Royals have never been entrepreneurs then all of the money and capital must ultimately have come from the taxpayer or by forceable seizure. The existing information is muddled and obfusticated. 92.15.21.162 (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Prince Charles is indeed an entrepreneur, both in the classical sense of the word, and in the social sense of the word. Of course he takes no money from the latter. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I had forgotten about the Duchy Of Cornwall being used as a brand name for biscuits and tea etc. I expect that PC is merely the owner and some nameless person or commitee does the managing, unless its just a liscensing deal. A few years of doing that isnt enough to cancel the centuries of public exploitation. 2.97.208.37 (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm gathering that the OP is speaking of the UK when saying "during this time of austerity". When was there last a time when the OP (or anyone) would have spoken of "this time of prosperity"? My impression is that we've have times of austerity far more often than the alternative in common parlance over the past 40 years, yet most people are clearly far better off than that long ago. HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a quote from one of the Alice stories that goes something like this - one of the queens saying to Alice, "The rule is, jam tomorrow or jam yesterday; but never jam today." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Best covert/special forces?

What is the most effective special/covert forces organization in the world? I know the US CIA is in the top 10 for sure, but is it the best? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

(Sshhh. It's a secret.) Seriously, if they are really covert, how would we ever know? HiLo48 (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

While we can't really ever know, the ones who the scraps of information we do get seem to indicate are the most active (and perhaps therefore powerful) are probably the CIA and the Mossad, with the FSB being less internationally active but also significant. However being more active also leads to more debacles, such as Lillehammer and the Bay of Pigs. So perhaps the most effective organisations are ones that we never notice, because they know their limits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prokhorovka (talk • contribs) 22:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Such as the SAS? We hardly ever hear about them, but they are continuously active, as this country is at war. Having said that, they are continually active even when we are not at war, but we still don't hear much about them. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Unindent - it's almost impossible to answer this sort of question as all of the organisations/forces involved have different remits, training, equipment, modus operandi, ethos etc - It's like asking which is the best Main Battle Tank in the world - all of the current generation are broadly comparable in spec with some shading towards more armour, some slightly faster, some having slightly better ammunition etc - it's such a subjective subject we can't realistically determine who's the "best" to answer your question. Exxolon (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

CIA, Mossad, FSB, and ISI all have pretty fearsome reputations. The Stasi were quite effective in their day and much better in terms of international spying than most people know. One hears very little about the Ministry of State Security, but that's probably how they like it... --Mr.98 (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe you've neglected to mention the Illuminati whose covert action council has infiltrated the upper echelons of most of the above mentioned organizations. --Ludwigs2 01:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Then there are the grey men of Zurich ("oops"-looks over her shoulder)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

And where do we Wikipedians fit into the scheme of things?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I remember reading about a competetive exercise held by NATO for teams of special forces (in the 1980s?). The Regular SAS don't get involved in that sort of thing but sent along their colleagues from 21 Special Air Service Regiment (Artists) (Reserve) who all have full time civilian jobs and train in their spare time. They won. Alansplodge (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the autobiographies of former SAS members are full of accounts of joint exercises with U.S. special forces (Navy Seals, Delta Force and the like) where the SAS were said to significantly outperform the other units. They also describe how the SAS is (or was) regularly involved in training U.S. special forces units, and by implication is more "elite". However they do acknowledge that the U.S. units often had better equipment or facilities.

The highly respected Israeli Sayeret Matkal special forces unit was based on the SAS, and the U.S. special forces in turn trained to use Israeli counter-terrorism hostage rescue tactics based on the Sayeret Matkal-led Operation Entebbe. The Israeli Defence Force has a great many different special forces units, though. The Russian army Spetsnaz is described, unreferenced, in our article as "one of the best special forces in the world today".

The SAS, SBS, Delta Force, Seals, Spetsnaz and other special forces, all perform a markedly different role from intelligence services per se ("spies") such as MI6, the CIA, and Mossad; although confusingly, the Spetsnaz is part of the Soviet GRU which performs some intelligence agency roles, but which in turn is separate from the Foreign Intelligence Service (Russia) (SVR). It's even harder to answer which is the "best" intelligence agency than which is the best special forces unit, especially since all of the intelligence agencies seem to have had multiple defectors and moles, and double and even triple agents, at various times. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)