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.
Earlier ancestors of the Families of Brabant and Hesse[edit]
Can anybody tell me who were they? They are obviously Frankish/Neustrian counts.
Count Brunulf I in Neustria
Count Aubri I in Neustria
Count Walter I in Neustria
Count Walter II in Neustria
Count Albo in Neustria
Mainer, Count of Sens, d. 800
Gainfroi, Count of the Maasgau,
Gilbert I, Count of the Maasgau, d. 842
Gilbert II, Count of the Maasgau, 825–875
What do you want to know about them? A google search turns them up in a variety of genealogy sites, of which this seems the most useful (and cites its source as Burke's Peerage, which is reputable). Our article Neustria offers a bit of political background to the area; we hear a little about Brunulf here in a discussion of Dagobert I's reign. (Brunulf appears to be the uncle of Dagobert's half-brother.) Gilbert gets a passing mention in this book. You migt find similar pieces of info by googling some of the names yourself. Gwinva (talk) 04:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do germanic and latin europeans 'behave differently'?[edit]
Any attempt to group people together like that are destined to fail dismally. Every individual belongs to all kinds of groups divided along all kinds of lines and those classifications will all have an influence (of varying degree depending on the classification and the individual) on what kind of person they are. To pick one specific classification and consider it in isolation is never going to get particularly meaningful results. --Tango (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True. So why would someone hold such a belief, just stereotyping?--Bored of the world (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, yes. Stereotypes do usually have some basis, but only on a large scale. Applying them to individuals is meaningless. --Tango (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst stereotypical, there is a view that the butter/olive oil line (also the Protestant/Catholic line) functions as an honest/corrupt line, as seen here. Recent revelations in UK (a hodgepodge of german, latin, viking and celtic europe) politics may suggest that such a line is meaningless, of course --Saalstin (talk) 02:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget other similar European lines like the Beer/Wine line as well; however such differences are likely more botanical than cultural (i.e. barley and grapes grow in different climates; just as olives and cattle grazing land does as well). However, such difference have NO bearing on individual personality traits, and any claims that they do should be taken with serious suspicion. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Protestant work ethic probably comes into it somewhere, at least as something that was believed to be true (southern Europe being less Protestant).
From sentence 4 at coffee: "Coffee was first consumed in the ninth century, when it was discovered in the highlands of Ethiopia." Who discovered it, and how do we know? (And can you add the answer to the article.) Thanks! Agradmanappreciates civility/makes occasional mistakes 01:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, it was discovered by people living in the highlands of Ethopia in the ninth century. There may not have been any known first discoverer who documented his findings; rather it is far more likely that the earliest archeological evidence we have that coffee was consumed was in artifacts dated to the ninth century, and located in the highlands of Ethiopia. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discoverer may also not necessarily be male.174.3.103.39 (talk) 04:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even look at the article? The statement is not only referenced to a reliable source in both the lead and in the text of the history section AND in the article History of coffee, but it is elaborated on, and THOSE elaborations are also referenced. It is quite well sourced! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded at coffee, but the upshot is, the statement is patently false, regardless of how well sourced it is; the reliable source I'm looking for would have to say something more credible. I've found six sources on google books and posted them there. Thanks. Agradmanappreciates civility/makes occasional mistakes 18:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are we seriously considering that a single individual first discovered the coffee plant, or that we could know who it was? Mac Davis (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Sweet J**** I hope not! But the question still remains, "HOW did ""WE"" discover which plants were edible and which poisonous? Trial and error?" I doubt that. 67.193.179.241 (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Rana sylvatica[reply]
We seem to lack an article on it, but doing a search [1] seems to indicate the river is mentioned in many articles. The modern (Croatian) name seems to be the Raša River, while the earlier Italian name seems to be the Arsia River. Here is an external article about the modern town of Raša, which is presumably located on said river. There's a picture of the river in the article: [2]. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A question about the FBI, CIA and the Armed Forces[edit]
Can the FBI arrest a person? and CIA? and the Armed Forces?. Or... must they call ordinary Police to do it? --190.50.115.132 (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From what I know of them, the FBI is basically a special police unit, so they definitely can. The CIA are a small wing of the army whose job it is to do bad things behind enemy lines (among other things), so almost certainly not. I suspect the military don't have arrest powers either, however if the concept of a Citizens Arrest exists in the US then members of the CIA and Army would sure be in a good position to use it, seeing as they could likely beat up and detain any member of the public. Prokhorovka (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One does go all over the place just to get here. From what i can see, you have everything all but what im looking for. Do you hold names of those who were actually awarded the B.E.M during the second world war. NZ soldier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miniminz (talk • contribs) 07:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, we do not try to maintain a complete list of British Empire Medal awardees. We have articles on notable people, some of whom were awarded the BEM: see Category:Recipients of the British Empire Medal. To be considered for an article in Wikkipedia, the subject must meet our notability guidelines, and receiving a BEM does not automatically qualify. receiving a Victoria Cross does automatically qualify. -Arch dude (talk) 08:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to look at the London Gazette website. This carries names of all medalholders when they were awarded their medals. [3] It also carries help for family historians. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)I've just noticed that New Zealand has its own gazette, which is linked from the London Gazette page I gave you above.--TammyMoet (talk) 08:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who were the parents of Peter and Christopher Hitchens? 91.104.12.215 (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Their father, Eric Ernest Hitchens, was a commander in the Royal Navy; their mother, Yvonne Jean, née Hickman, was of Jewish descent. See the summary of the first search hit here for the names and here for some details. Deor (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Canada, our constitution has a special formula: what i mean is that a certain percentage of the population or number of provinces, or number of provinces and territories have to accept a proposalchange to the constitution, before something about the consititution can be changed. And I'm not sure ofif the provinces and/or territories have to hold (legally binding) referenda.
This Canadian constitution is harder to change compared to just a regular Canadian law.
So in actually, the Canadian constitution has a bunch of laws. And with the Canadian constiutional formula, these Laws (literally), are harder to change, considering hasit has to go through a percentage. Hypothetically speaking, say if this was the case, we could have a polity that has only one law in the constitution, Yay, nay?174.3.103.39 (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)174.3.103.39 (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)174.3.103.39 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the U.S. at least, the constitution is also harder to change than general laws, and I suspect that this is true in many places, because the constitution is not just a random set of laws; it is a set of laws which constitute the government; that is it is supposed to be a description of how the government is supposed to be organized and operate, and not just a random set of rules about how people behave. In fact, there has been exactly ONE true "law" in that sense in the U.S. Constitution, the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that was shortly repealed by the Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution. Other than that aberation, the rest of the constitution is about how the government (as opposed to the people) are to operate. Since one wouldn't just want to change such an important document willy-nilly, the amendment procedure is by necessity quite involved. In the U.S., the amendment procedure is described in Article Five of the United States Constitution, which sets two procedures for amending. An amendment requires the recommendation of 2/3 of BOTH houses of Congress OR 2/3 of the state legislatures may request a special Constitutional Convention to deal with a proposed amendment. After either proposal procedure, the proposed amendment then as to be passed by 3/4 of the states, either by their legislatures directly or by state-level conventions called specifically to deal with the amendment. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In concordance to what is stated above is only logical to assume a countries basic laws or constitution, representing the basic values on which the state is built, to be more difficult to change then everyday laws. (Imagine people abolishing the separation of powers on a whim) There are even some constitutions that restrict changes to certain parts completely. Namely the Eternity clause of the basic law of the Federal Republic of Germany. --91.6.41.211 (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that most constitutions require a higher standard of amendment than an ordinary law, since they define the fundamental principles by which the country is run. The British constitution is an oddity in this respect, since formally it doesn't exist as a single written document, but is instead the sum of statutes, court judgements, and treaties, and Parliament can simply pass new laws to alter existing ones. The Irish constitution, on the other hand, can only be amended by the amendment being approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas, then approved in a referendum, and finally signed by the President. As to the European constitution, note that that's so difficult to enact that it has not been ratified and come into force. -- Arwel Parry(talk) 20:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another example: the Venezuelan Constitution (translation here) requires ammendments to itself to pass a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly and then a simple majority in a popular referendum (Title IX, Chapters I and II). There is also a procedure for modifying it by calling a special Constituent Assembly; I'm not sure what the rules are in this case, but the original one in 1999 had to have its draft approved by popular referendum. "Organic Laws," which are in between the constitution and ordinary laws in importance, require a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly (Title V, Chap. 1, section 4). I think regular laws just require a simple majority in the National Assembly, although I couldn't find that explicitly stated in the constitution. So to sum up, the Venezuelan Constitution, like most of the examples here, makes itself harder to change than ordinary laws. Regarding your idea about a constitution with only "law" (or "article," as I think may be a more usual term): if the constitution was going to make itself harder to ammend than an ordinary law, that would have to be the one article, so the constitution couldn't do anything else. Possible, but not too useful. -- Ong saluri (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the European constitution so difficult to enact?
Is it possible to "entrench" (from what I take from the above responses, entrench = to make something harder to change (or amend (in law))) ordinary law such as: Jailing for a period of 3 weeks for not puttinghay in a barn before sundown, without exception?
The article doesn't say. Don't imagine it would be that high, but the article gives no particular indication.--Bored of the world (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Spanish wikipedia articles, the Argentinian part has 126,212 inhabitants, and the Chilean part 6,904. Total of the island therefore around 133,516 --Saalstin (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was Germany still bombing London in February 1945? I was sure that at that point they had stopped. Copana2002 (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actual planes flying over and dropping bombs had long ceased, but V-1 and V-2 attacks continued... AnonMoos (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to our V-2 article, the last V-2 attacks were on 27 March 1945 and our V-1 article says "The last enemy-action incident of any kind on British soil occurred on 29 March 1945, when a V-1 struck Datchworth in Hertfordshire." --Tango (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"enemy-action incident"? Ewww. I'm changing that to "enemy action". Clarityfiend (talk) 05:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Almost as bad as describing a plane crash as "an undesirable ground/aircraft interface". Exxolon (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to make a computer model for sales in a market, for a game (i.e. not real money). The market has a number of products, each with a fixed price and fixed value to consumers. Each customer has a preferred buying price. The result should be a number of sales for each product.
Is there any function, statistical distribution, or otherwise that would give realistic sales figures?
To give an example of what ought to happen:
- If a customer has a budget of $100 and the product nearest to $100 has a value of 1000, he should probably consider a 900-value at $90 and a 1100-value $110 product equally. But a $120 product might be so far outside the budget that it would need 1500-value to be considered equally. Similarly, a product of 800-value might have to have a price of $50 to consider.
- It shouldn't lead to paradoxes like a product that is the same value but cheaper than another selling less.
- No market is perfect. Even if one product is clearly the best, some people will buy worse choices. The more outstanding a product it the less people would buy the others.
- It should be smooth - there should be no sudden jumps between e.g. $99 and $100 products.
This could also go in mathematics despite the economics aspect, so if it's the wrong section I'll move it to there. 86.163.186.102 (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might help to look at some price/number sold graphs. It's a similar concept - perceived value and the price one has to pay for it. I mean, if you can't model the current situation, this one (which has definitely been studied) might help. All it is is a different variable - you have the value of the product in actual terms, and the number who bought it, which can give you an indication of perceived value - the more who bought it, on average they must have valued it more highly. It would be some work, but there's lots more material. A poor second, really, but messing around with this might be the answer. I don't have the links, but others will if you don't find exactly what you're looking for. 92.1.236.171 (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on how much the customer wants the product to begin with. In econo-speak, the price elasticity depends on the commodity and market. 208.70.31.206 (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know when Canada stopped the practice of allowing titles. Does Canada have nobility?
Is it written into the constitution, the British North American Act? No nobility in Canada
USA has it written into thier constitution that everyone is equal.
Since Caanada has the British style of governance do they still have Sir somebody, or Lord this or that, or the Earl of Ottawa, etc. The first Prime Minister was knighted by Queen Victoria. Sir John A Macdonald. Lord Black gave up his Canadian citizenship to get a title from Queen Elizabeth. When was the priactise of allowing titles dissoved in Canada?
Thanks for your answer, Nottawa Nottawa (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just reading this article, I was curious — can any Parliament in the Commonwealth (or the UK, if it's not part of the Commonwealth; I can't remember) make demands of the reigning monarch? Of course they can resolve to make requests of the monarch, and the Prime Minister's advice is always taken in practice, but would it be seen as proper/constitutional/traditional/whatever to make an absolute demand upon the sovereign? Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Legally, I doubt it. Conventionally, yes. The Queen rarely makes any political decisions for herself. She'll hand out honours and titles to members of the royal family unilaterally, but not to other people. --Tango (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's what I meant about requests and the PM giving advice — I can't imagine such requests/advice being ignored or rejected. Given the highly formal system of the British constitutional monarchy, it just seemed to me rather disrespectful to demand something (in those words) from the monarch when "requesting" or "advising" would get the job done well. Nyttend (talk) 03:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it would have been done very politely and diplomatically. Who suggested it was a demand? --Tango (talk) 04:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Queen, by convention, acts on the advice of her ministers. In relation to the UK, this would be her UK ministers. In relation to Australia, her Australian ones. In relation to Canada, her Canadian ones. If the Canadian Prime Minister properly advised her to bestow a title (except those within the monarch's personal pleasure, like the Order of the Garter) -- then she would.
Making a public and hostile demand is probably a breach of convention already. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian, Canadian, Jamaican ... Prime Ministers could advise her to award a knighthood or some other sort of honour. But I would have thought the only person who can advise her to raise anyone to the Peerage of the United Kingdom is the PM of the United Kingdom. Just as the British PM could not advise the Queen to appoint someone as a member of the Order of Australia, for example. (Not that the Australian PM is involved in that process either; it's decided by an independent committee). -- JackofOz (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've answered your own question: she is Richardis, who was put through an ordeal by fire, according to her article. --Tagishsimon(talk) 23:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are two women in this painting. Richardis is the nun in flames in the far back. See: Talk:Richardis. Responding to the original poster, I have translated the German description in the image page into English. —6birc (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
