Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 July 29

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.

July 29

how tall is rodins thinker?

how tall is rodins thinker in human numbers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.48.114.143 (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

From Detroit Institute of Arts200.7 x 130.2 x 140.3 cm (79 x 51 1/4 x 55 1/4 in.) - See more at: http://www.dia.org/object-info/8098faf4-32a7-4c6e-9a97-eb81b60d9c2c.aspx#sthash.mwfH5sgn.dpuf. But what do you mean by "human numbers"? Mingmingla (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

thats how many humans 178.48.114.143 (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That depends on your measure. The average height of an adult human male (in Germany, but probably representative for Western Europe) is around 180cm. Given that the statue is sitting, and that the Detroit version is described as "monumental", I'd say it's about 1.5 times life size. If you go by weight, the bronze probably wins by much more ;-). The 1882 "original original" is only around 70 cm, the larger versions were made in the very early 20th century. Our articles on both the German and the English Wikipedia could be better... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I failed to mention that there are many versions of the statue. all of them are between 0.5-2.0 humans tall, from what I can tell. Mingmingla (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Non-mud huts in sub-Saharan Africa

When did the people started to build non-mud huts in sub-Saharan Africa? OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

See Bantu migrations for something relevant, the Bantu tend to live in thatched circular wooden huts. (I am not sure the implication mud huts are inferior is true--it's more a matter of resources and mobility.)μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

See Great Zimbabwe (ca. 11th c.) for an example of something else relevant. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Dwellings can be built partly of mud and partly of other materials. In Britain, for example, circular huts were made of woven hurdles with a mud covering in the Iron Age. Later, houses were built with an oak timber framework, but the infill was still wattle and daub. In some regions stone was used from an early period, while in the West Country some walls were still built in mud until the 19th century. A lot of variation in a small geographical area - obviously there is much, much more in Africa. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Michel Bertrand

Dear friends, There is a page regqrding the French painter, Michel Bertrand, on the French Wikipedia, but it is not available on the U.S./English version. I worldwide like to request that there be versions available in all languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.199.59 (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If you like, you can translate fr:Michel Bertrand (peintre) to English and create Michel Bertrand. Wikipedia:TRANSLATE#How to translate describes how you can attribute the original French language version to the French language Wikipedia's contributors (which is necessary for copyright attribution purposes). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 02:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

There are many dead artists so Wikipedia's criteria for notability must apply to a new article. Michel Bertrand is not among the 165-person "Category:21st-century_French_painters" and I find no secondary sources about, or exhibitions of, his work outside France. DreadRed (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Those critera don't say anything about countries; why do you say not being known outside France matters? 184.147.137.9 (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It is the OP, not I, who wants Michel Bertrand made known in all languages. See WP:ARTIST for article criteria. DreadRed (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: the Wikipedia _Category:21st-century French painters_ cited above by User:DreadRed is by no means a comprehensive list: it's merely a compilation of pages existing in the English-language Wikipedia to which this category has been added. Compare with the two foreign-language Wikipedias with the same category: the French Wikipedia has 402 pages, the Italian WP has 19. Otherwise, the preceding remarks about notability and translation are relevant. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

What I really want to know is whether it's worth taking the trouble to do the translation. It's not if someone is only going to delete it. My confusion is that the links provided say nothing about the objection given: that Betrand is notable in France (as opposed to some other country). The criteria don't say he has to notable in any particular place. I'm happy to translate it but not without this reassurance that it's a worthwhile endeavour. In essence, Cuddlyable, you are saying "I might delete it if you translate it" and if that's where things stand, I can't take the risk to do the work. 184.147.137.9 (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Notability is independent of language. While references in English are preferred if they are available (just as online references are preferred if they are available), what matters for notability is simply whether the references are substantial, in reliably sources, and independent of the subject. It is possible that the Notability policy of the French Wikipedia is different (I don't know), so the references in the French article are not necessarily adequate for an English article; but if they meet the requirements of the English Wikipedia policy, then they are adequate. --ColinFine (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Translation/Creation of an existing page in another language.

Dear friends, Some friends of mine (In France) have created a page about the French painter, Michel Bertrand, on fr.wikipedia... I have read it and understand it, but I have many friends elsewhere that do not speak French. Is there a simple way that the page can be produced in English for others to enjoy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamilluminated (talk • contribs) 23:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see the thread above called "Michel Bertrand", which you or someone who uses the same salutation ("Dear friends") already asked and received replies to. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Longest serving consort in history

Who is the longest serving consort (spouse of a monarch) in history? The longest one I know would be Queen Sirikit.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you consulted "List of longest-reigning monarchs"? There are only a couple dozen of them with verified reigns longer than 63 years, so checking their spouses would be relatively straightforward. Gabbe (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

High prison population vs. low crime rate

Hello,

Incarceration in the United States shows in a chart that from 1980 to 2006, the prison population more than quadrupled, and later in the article it very unsatisfyingly says that crime rates in the US decreased by about 25% from 1988 to 2006, without discussing whether or how the two statistics are related.

Could anyone point to references analyzing whether the first fact caused the second? Jarflix (talk) 06:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

There is probably a very good reason the article stops short of making any kind of conclusion about those two independent points. Could we find references that make the argument that there is causality between those two stats? Simple answer is yes. Reading your entire question thou it seems like it could be mixing and matching several different things, I have seen certain studies that have linked the drop in crime to the legalization of abortion in 1973 (thus fewer young adults from broken/poor homes in the 1990s to commit crimes), studies that correlated the drop in crime to the collapse of the rust belt and migration during the 80s & 90s to the sunbelt states that traditionally had stiffer laws, more gun ownership among the citizenry etc. Then there is the fact that the death penalty slowly came back in the late 20th century and thousands of other data points out there. If your looking for references to validate a preconceived conclusion trust us the study has been produced by some special interest/university collaboration. However, if your looking for a complete answer, you have to balance dozens if not hundreds of social, cultural, polticial & generational factors. Your question is very important, it just has had academics, jurists and statesmen/women debating these points for decades and we are not as qualified as they per se. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 07:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course, if we imprisoned everybody we would have a very low crime rate, outside prisons. But I'm not sure who we would use for warders. HiLo48 (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Typing "prison population crime rate" into google scholar (here) gave so many hits I didn't know where to start - many look to be on your topic, Jarflix. The last result on the first page (here) looks particularly interesting as it examines multiple factors, as Marketdiamond correctly points out. 184.147.137.9 (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's look at some of the arguments:

1) "They can't commit crimes while in prison". Well, they can still commit crimes inside the prison, or possibly order crimes outside of prison, or directly commit crimes outside via mail fraud and telephone fraud. However, there are many types of crime which are quite difficult to commit while in prison, like a bank robbery. Also, for some crimes, others may "step up" to commit crimes in their absence. A gang that sells illegal drugs, for instance, may recruit a new member to stand on a corner and sell their drugs, to replace a member who was sent to prison.

2) "The threat of prison will scare off potential criminals". This is possible, but most criminals don't seem to worry much about potential consequences of their actions.

So, I would expect both arguments to be at least partially true, and reduce crime somewhat. Also, conjugal visits seem like a bad idea, since any child conceived in such a way is far more likely to become a criminal. StuRat (talk) 06:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If I had a chance to place a bet on a contest between a priest doing exorcisms and a state of the art American prison, I'd put my money on the priest for the lower recidivism rate. Unfortunately, I don't know if the experiment has ever been conducted, which seems a notable omission, but in keeping with the rarity of scientific method in either field. See prison gang, recidivism, etc. Wnt (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Peggielene Bartels

Why does Peggielene Bartels herself and many other call her a "king"? Wouldn't it more appropriate to call her a chief or just nana? I mean this just sounds to me like people calling Pocahontas a princess when in fact that is just inaccurate to equate Western titles with non-Western traditional titles. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If you read English works from more than a couple of hundred years ago, you will find titles like "King" and "prince" used in different ways - generally more loosely - than they are used now. --ColinFine (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

But we aren't working with someone from 100 years ago. Peggielene Bartels has been living in the US for decades working a government job and also the media and talk show hosts also call her king. Calling her that might make sense if she was one of the subnational monarchs in Africa with significant territorial control like the Kabaka of Buganda but she is basically a village chieftain whose rule only affects 7000 people.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Was it Freud or Jung who reported dreaming of assembling Vienna out of turds?

Needed for a para in a story I'm writing - I remember reading it in one of my father's psychology texts, but not which text - might have been Interpretation of Dreams - but Dad has a lot of Jung lying around too.

Does it ring any bells?

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It rings de:💩. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm with OP on this one, looking forward to some answers/replies! ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 13:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikisource has the text of Freud's The Interpretation of Dreams with its index. DreadRed (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Dread - it's a beautiful book - I can't find reference in it to any of the synonyms for excrement i can think of though - maybe it was Jung's dream I'm thinking of - but the only poodream of his I can find is the one where a giant lump of dung comes crashing through a cathedral ceiling. Adambrowne666 (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Explanation of phrase

what does it mean when someone says "it's written in Britain" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.134.240.33 (talk) 12:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm British and I have never heard this phrase. It gets no google hits (other than as part of the lyric to a Red Hot Chili Peppers song). Where did you come across it? --Viennese Waltz 12:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If you google the phrase without "it's" you get writteninbritain.com. This webpage is a paean to Manchester United. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you give us the context in which they said it? A bit more of the conversation from either side perhaps? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps because it was already Banned in Boston? ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 13:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

"Made in Britain" is a common label, but I've never heard or seen "written in Britain", though there is no reason why someone shouldn't say it if there was some reason for reporting where a text was written. For books, I don't think anyone bothers to record where they were written, though the information sometimes appears in biographical detail. Dbfirs 16:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Why can't they mean the obvious thing--that it was, in fact, written on the island of Britain? --Bowlhover (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That wouldn't be as obvious as it seems, because there is no island called Britain. There is an island called Great Britain. There is a country called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which is sometimes abbreviated to "Britain". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't say I've every heard anyone actually say that, but to my ears it sounds like a little play on words, i.e. "written" rhymes with "Britain". If not on purpose, then the author of that phrase could be said to be "a poet and don't know it". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it may be just that the rhyming is just irresistible, as in legal beagle[1]. Bus stop (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The IP locates to South Africa so there is a slight chance that there is some usage of the phrase there that we've never heard of. You could say written by Brittain but the way her last name is pronounced doesn't rhyme with written and I am sure that the OP wasn't referring to it. MarnetteD | Talk 23:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

So how is Vera Brittain's surname pronounced? I've always thought it was an exact homophone of 'Britain', which for me is an exact rhyme of 'written' AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Many years ago, when the TV adaptation of Testament of Youth was shown on Masterpiece Theatre Alistair Cooke pronounced it with a long "a" as in "Brittane" and I have heard that pronunciation a few other times over the years. I notice that we don't have a phonetic description of her name in the article so I don't know whether these were a mistake or not. MarnetteD | Talk 16:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I've looked high and low for anything that sheds light on how Vera Brittain pronounced her name, to no avail. That suggests there was nothing out of the ordinary about it, nothing worth noting. The default pronunciation seems to apply. But ay, there's the rub. This, in an English accent, says it like the name of the country, and this supports that. But this, in an American accent, sounds it out phonetically, bri-tane. Given that Vera was British, I can only assume she went for the English default.

But English is renowned for some highly unintuitive pronunciations that people are just sort of expected to know without anyone ever telling them. For example, I only relatively recently discovered that Wriothesley (of Shakespearean association) is spoken as reezlee. I never knew that, and for decades I struggled manfully with my made up versions. So, the fact that there's nothing about Vera Brittain's name anywhere is not, of itself, proof of anything. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Some excellent British music was written BY Britten. HiLo48 (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Age of consent raised in China?

Hello, I have a question about the following wikipedia site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Asia#People.27s_Republic_of_China The age of consent in China just recently changed to 16 on this site. I couldn't find any informations about this incident on the internet on any other page. Even the reference number (superscript 17) refers to a text that says the minimum age is 14 in China (not Hongkong or Macau). Is that information true? Did anything change? Many thanks in advance for any information about this. Kind regards A.Alisch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.49.119.124 (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've changed the age back to 14 as it was until recently. I think user:LlywelynII must have mis-read the report. Our facts should agree with the reference given. Dbfirs 16:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Carbine

In the M4 carbine, what makes the bullet propel forward? Pass a Method talk 16:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It's the same as with any other gun. Is there something special about this rifle that you'd like detailed? RJFJR (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Guns can vary in their inner equipment. Pass a Method talk 16:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If you meant "what makes the bullet feed from the magazine to the firing chamber?" then see our article; Gas-operated reloading. If you meant "what propels the bullet down the barrel after firing?" see our articles Firearm and Cartridge (firearms). Alansplodge (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Demographics of Carribean Islands

request for debate
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have noticed a habit of classifying all people with dark skin in the Carribean Islands as descendants of slaves 'transported' from Africa. Does this mean that only dark skinned people that are 'slave descendants' are permitted on these islands? There is no other possible method of these people having landed on the islands other having been "transported" there during the good old days of slavery? Is this sloppy thinking or a sign of some ignorance? Or something more sinister? Surely it couldn't be the latter. That would never happen in these, our age of 'enlightenment. If the folks who are 'black' are listed as descendants of slaves, shouldn't the whites living on these islands be described as descendants of slave owners? It seems only fair, don't you think. And it would be a much more accurate description of the islands demographics, which i'm sure is wikipedia's primary goal.108.192.134.204 (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC) If you would point which articles contain the relevant statements on demographics, maybe we could answer your questions—at least the ones that aren't rhetorical. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC) I have never noticed this. Everyone who knows anything about the Caribbean knows that there is an ethnic mix. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC) The OP has offered no evidence we list blacks as the descendants of slaves. The rhetorical questions about the good old days, Africans not being allowed to move to the islands, sloppy thinking, ignorance, sinister motives, and whther it would be fair, don't we think to call all whites descendants of slave owners are provocative nonsense. If the OP has a request for references he can make it. μηδείς (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Sephardic conservative synagogue

Is Sinai Temple in Westwood, California the only synagogue that is both Sephardic and Conservative or non-Orthodox?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.152.136 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 29 Jul 2013

Erm, "the only synagogue" ... in the world? In the United States? In California? In Westwood? --Dweller (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

lol w/ Dweller. Then again nothing surprises me anymore. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 08:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

So, a quick Googling found this, which shows that at the very least, the answers are no, no, maybe and, I suggest, probably. I'd guess that even the maybe probably is a no, but that's speculation on my behalf. --Dweller (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The page United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism describes the presiding body for Conservative Jewish synagogues in the USA. In External links there's a link to its official website. In contacting them for information, be precise in your query: are you asking about synagogues that worship according to the Sephardic rite (prayer service), or whose memberships identify as having Sephardic heritage? For a particular geographic area? The USCJ may have information on the numbers of non-affiliated Jews who attend services or other activities during the year, besides the (quantifiable) synagogue membership demographics. By the way, Westwood is one small suburb (Zip code 90024) of the City of Los Angeles, and due to its proximity to the UCLA campus a significant part of its population are likely to be students rather than long-term residents. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The most powerful person in the world?

I wondered today who the most powerful person in the world was. I thought it must either be the president of the united states, or the pope. The President would be a good candidate due to history of the United States' military power and success. The Pope is a good candidate because even though he is leader of Catholics, I figured that other denominations would still see him as the representative of God. However, this thought seems to be in error, according to the article "Pope".

Curious as to whether the question was asked before, i googled it and came across wikipedia's own article, Forbes Magazine's List of The World's Most Powerful People. According to this, although it IS marked as disputed, President Obama is the most powerful person. I find this rather odd, considering:

• People of the world generally seeming to have greater distaste for the United States recently.
• Some of Obama's own voters expressing disappointment from various events of his presidency. (Some evidence at Presidency of Barack Obama (2010))
• Obama leads a nation of ~316.35 million people, while the pope is an icon for the Christian world, with ~1.18 billion Catholics, and ~2.1 billion Christians overall.
• Even if my assumption of general Christian belief in the Pope is wrong, there are still ~1.18 billion Catholics, which dwarfs the number of American citizens.

I realize that i am probably being fairly subjective, with my thoughts about the church, about Obama's popularity over time, and about what makes a person "powerful" (I seem to be going by something like "population affected".) ... However, i question whether the answer to "Who is the most powerful person in the world?" can possibly be objective.

I have two main things to ask:

• How lopsided are my assumptions? Is there a reason why Obama should be said to have more power than the pope, disregarding my political opinions of Obama's/The United States' approval? What is it that makes Obama most powerful, and Benedict 5th most powerful (in 2012)?
• What about Pope John Paul II (PJP2)? I know that Forbes only started their top people list in 2009, but if there were such a list in 2005, being that PJP2 was loved by so many people around the world, would he be listed as the most powerful? In any year that he was alive?

Again, I feel that i must state what subjectivity is involved here. There are many factors too including statistics, analysis, politics, human perception and values, etc. I'm just trying to understand the best i can how the most powerful person in the world is determined. I am especially interested in answers to my question about PJP2. Thanks everyone in advance!

216.173.145.47 (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The article you link to says that the Forbes list is based on "the amount of human and financial resources that they have sway over, as well as their influence on world events". The referenced article [2], goes into more detail about how they pick and rank the candidates. -- 205.175.124.72 (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• You are speculating on an undefined premise (What is "power") and without regard to context: (My kingdom is not of this earth, Turn the other cheek, He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's). If you are unfamiliar with those phrases you can google them. Once you have defined power you should have an answer, or the basis for a better question. μηδείς (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

"The Pope! How many divisions has he got?" Joe Stalin, 1935 at Wikiquotes. Edison (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If the number of people under someone's "leadership" is what matters, you can't ignore the political leaders of China and India, both of which have greater populations than the number of Catholics in the world. But as Medeis asks, what is power? HiLo48 (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

One thing the OP needs to keep in mind is that it is not Obama who has the power, as such, it is the office of the U.S. President which holds the power. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, Obama doesn't have the power to unilaterally enact policy even in the U.S. The scope of his powers is restricted in the U.S. by the constitutional role of the President, as well as legislation passed by Congress. --Jayron32 23:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

There are some very lopsided assumptions in the OP.

• First, power does not require approval. Hence, anyone – including those voted for Mr Obama – who don’t think he’s lived up to their expectations has almost no impact on the man’s actual power.
• Second, given the great variations in the nature of Catholic congregations and the long history of Catholic-Protestant conflict, I would strongly suggest that the Pope is not necessarily powerful over 1.18 billion people. An icon, by the way, need not have any power at all; it is just a symbol.
• Third, the President of the US is the Commander in Chief of the most powerful armed forces in the world. He has authority over, for example, more than half the world’s aircraft carriers. One doesn’t have to be a citizen of the US to recognize the power that represents. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

There is another inapt assumption in the OP as well. The fact that people have "distaste" for the US or that some Americans have distaste for Pres. Obama has little effect on the power that attaches to the post. Likewise the number of Catholics who adore the Pope does not give him power to topple dictators or solve earthly problems. The OP seems to be equating 'popular' with 'powerful' and also assuming that the Forbes survey was a test of popular opinion rather than, I imagine, a considered study by a panel of experts/thinkers. Sussexonian (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state of 16 countries. Number of countries over which one reigns is as good a criterion for determining who's more powerful as any of the others, IMO. That's 16 votes at the UNGA, for one thing, which is 15 votes than the US has and 16 more than the Pope has. At the moment it's also 2 votes at the UN Security Council, one of them a veto vote, which is more than any other country! Did you know she also owns all the swans in the UK? That's a lot more birds than Obama owns.

She is also concurrently Head of the Commonwealth - a quarter of the world's land area and a third of the world's population. 100% of the world's kangaroos, too. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

But she has no power over policy or resources - no political power - in any of those countries. Or, at least, very very little. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - power is too subjective to measure. Sure, you can say that the Pope can't nuke Obama but Obama could nuke the Pope. Except... if he tried it he'd almost certainly fail (the almost, hopefully, being more paranoia than reality) and very likely end up in cuffs. Last but not least, the Catholics would probably say that the Pope can help save an immortal soul, which represents an infinite amount of change, and Obama can't top that. Wnt (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Can she make any of "her" swans, or kangaroos, obey her will? That sounds to me like a fairly vainglorious "power"... Constitutionally, the US is supposedly a government of, by, and for the people. They made the office of "president" and called it that, because he is supposed to "preside" while the people govern of, by and for themselves. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

VERY good points on some of the things i didn't see before... that opinion polls do not affect a persons power, and that sometimes the power comes from the general title, not a specific individual holding a title etc. I feel a little more enlightened after reading the replies you have given so far. Perhaps then, Pope John Paul II may not have been #1 any of the years he was alive? I thought earlier that this may be so, but as Sussexonian commented, i am looking perhaps at popularity and not power.

216.173.145.47 (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you fond of riddles? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)