Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 July 16

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 16

Personal jurisdiction

Our article Personal jurisdiction makes it seem like this is a concept in American law only. Is this correct? If so, what is the equivalent concept elsewhere? (If not, the article should be reframed so it doesn't say "in United States law" in the first sentence.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a much more widespread concept. The article needs editing. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Careful, Calliopejen1 — you simply removed "In American law..." from the intro of that article, which was a bad idea because the article, to date, has been written to discuss the subject in the context of American law. Most of the article suddenly made no sense (references to constitutional aspects, individual case citations...) I'm going to revert your change, but leave the "globalize" tag at the top of the article until a knowledgeable editor can rewrite the entire intro. At that point the US content can be moved into a "In the United States" section. But it's a pretty big editing job, not just axing one sentence. And I'll shut up now because this kind of discussion belongs on the talk page of that article and not here on the Reference Desk. Tempshill (talk) 06:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

joe son

wad he aquited? ITs BEEN OVER A YEAR AND HES NOT ENTERED A PLEA? that means the charges were droped? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.3.30 (talk) 05:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This ironic article, not a reliable source even if it hadn't been ironic, says he's currently in jail. Our article Joe Son says that he was apparently charged in October 2008 but has not made any public comment or entered a plea. The article certainly needs updating. This link, which does not appear to be one of those reliable sources we like to use, says the charges are related to a 1990 gang rape, and claims that he was linked to the crime when he gave a DNA sample to authorities following a probation violation. Tempshill (talk) 06:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it even possible in California that a person is charged with an offense and months later has not entered a plea? If Law & Order is anywhere near accurate (I know it's fiction, but on these procedural sorts of things it's supposed to be) in New York he'd've been arraigned and asked to plead guilty or not guilty within days, and if he didn't, the judge would enter a not-guilty plea. --Anonymous, 05:05 UTC, July 17, 2009.

Arraignment is even faster in NY: less than 24 hours by law (when it works).[1] Rmhermen (talk) 06:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[2] "Son is scheduled to be arraigned on Wednesday, Oct. 8, 2008..." [3] (Dated November 12, 2008) "He remains in an Orange County jail in lieu of $1 million bail." 152.16.59.190 (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

And the band played on

In the book titled "And the band played on", is there evidence of professional dominance in the story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zel652 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. --Dweller (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No. --TomorrowTime (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

A classic homework question, formulated by an incoherent teacher (so what else is new?)

Are you referring to Randy Shilts' nonfiction history of the early AIDS crisis in America? Rhinoracer (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-fiction in genre, but largely inaccurate, particularly in its perpetuation of the "Patient Zero" myth. - Nunh-huh 20:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Even when I know what "And The Band Played On" is in reference to, I don't understand this question. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

GDP per capita (constant 2000 US$)

The World Bank's World Development Indicators has an indicator called "GDP per capita (constant 2000 US$)". What do they mean by constant?

If you for example express Britain's 1970 GDP in this way, would you adjust for British inflation 1970-2000 and convert at the 2000 GBP/USD exchange rate or would you convert at 1970 GBP/USD exchange rate and adjust for American inflation 1970-2000? Jacob Lundberg (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This article (http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=417) on 'constant prices' might help. ny156uk (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but it does not answer my question about how inflation is adjusted for. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

One would actually need to have constructed a Price Index. Specifically, in this case, a Laspeyres index, where the "base" of the index is the sum of all of the prices of a fixed basket of goods in the base year multiplied by the quantity of the basket of goods in the base year. Using this constant base, increases in the "numerator" in each successive year (increases in the prices of goods) increases the value of the index multiplier (it would be 100 in the base year (2000), 103 (or so) in the next year (2001), or 97 in the previous year (1999) etc. etc.). Constant dollars in any given year would be calculated by dividing the dollar amount in question by the index value for that year.

I think that if this is done for the US dollar, backwards through time, then it's a simple matter to use market exchange rates of one type or another in the year in question to convert GBP prices to USD prices (using the second method you mention there). It would seem to be the least wrong way to do it.NByz (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The lazy (wo)man's way is to caclulate the percent change in nominal GDP per capita from 1970 to 2008, and then to subtract the change in prices (inflation). The new, inflation-lite percent change would then be applied to the 1970 data to come up with a 2008 figure. Or, reverse it all to calculate in 2008 dollars. The results are close enough for most uses.DOR (HK) (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Reading questions from the Da Vinci Code

Just flipping through my old copy of the book. I always wondered: 1) What exactly is so offensive about the idea of Christ getting married and having a child (cf The Last Temptation of Christ)? 2) Why is Christianity so obsessed about the question of the Trinity? In any overview of Christianity, the first thing to be talked about would be the trinity (Arianism, homoousios, filioque clauses and all that good stuff). The concept does seem to be quite minor (it has nothing to do with salvation or ethics or anything Jesus actually said), does it not? 3) was Gnosticism ever in a real position to overtake "mainline" Christianity at any point in its history?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.189.90 (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

To answer question 3, Pope Innocent III thought they were enough of a threat to go after them. Googlemeister (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

To answer question 2; it IS a big deal, the exact nature of the divinity of Christ is central to one's relationship with him. Acording to mainline faiths, salvation is availible only to those who give their lives to Christ because Christ is divine. It's not that Christ is kinda like God, or set aside by God, or that God has given him a special place; Christ is God and simultaneously is Man. Salvation, for the mainline faiths, depends on both of these ideas. To deny the trinity is to deny that Christ is fully God. All of the other heresies you list deny the basic idea that Christ is simultaneously fully God and fully Man, which is why they were considered heresies, and threatening to the idea of salvation through him. While the Trinity itself is not expressely called that in the Bible, the concept is fairly clear through such events as the Pentecost. Jesus's divinity is confirmed many places in the Bible, notably The Gospel of John, Chapter 1... --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 00:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

As for Jesus marrying and having children, the Bible mentions no such thing, so that without even exploring all the theological implications, maintaining such a hypothesis would immediately involve casting major aspersions on the sources of traditional mainstream "orthodox" Christianity.

With repect to disputes about Christological theology in early Christianity, Colin McEvedy has this to say in his Penguin Atlas of Medieval History:

"The importance of these subtle arguments lies in the adoption of dissenting views as a badge by people at odds with authority, or nations grasping for a sense of unity. In those days of pragmatic political thought, an attempt to secede from the [Eastern Roman] Empire on the basis of 'Armenia for the Armenians' would have been unthinkable. But the central power could be indirectly challenged by adopting the local patriotic heresy, and thus the Monophysitism adhered to so passionately in Egypt, Syria (which at first inclined to Nestorianism), and Armenia was a sign of discontent otherwise inexpressible. ... Pelagianism, the native British development, rather lost its point when the [Roman] legions left and the heathen Saxon became the antagonist..."

It's interesting that where most Christian schisms have ostensibly been over abstract theology, most Islamic schisms have been caused by disputes over who has the most legitimate authority to rule over the Muslim community (i.e. have been originally political in nature). I guess it depends on your own individual taste whether you consider religious disputes over dynastic politics to be worse or better than religious disputes "over a vowel" (as some have called the homoiousianist vs. homoousianist debate)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• • To answer question #2: if you're a Christian, you worship one God. But who is God? If one individual says "I believe in a God who is three persons" and another says "I believe in a God who is one person" [I can't explain this idea of the Three Persons better than Trinity does], the two are plainly not worshipping the same deity — obviously God isn't both exactly one and exactly three. Therefore, each individual will believe that the other is an opponent of the true God, and thus do all that they can to fight for what they believe to be the true understanding of who God really is. Finally — since you speak of "salvation" — (assuming that you understand the connotation of this term) a Christian will say that one must trust the true God in order to be saved. How, s/he will say, can someone be saved who worships a nonexistent deity? Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Death Penalty

Why is the U.S. all in red here if some states don't have the death penalty? [4] --190.50.103.19 (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Because federal law applies to the whole US, and federal law has the death penalty. Algebraist 22:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Algebraist, and so is the Federal Law stronger than State Law? --190.50.103.19 (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is a matter of stronger or weaker, they both apply so the death penalty exists there. --Tango (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

To be more specific, in the US, if a person is convicted in a federal court of a federal crime that carries the death penalty, he can indeed be sentenced to death even if he committed the crime in a state that does not have the death penalty. Tempshill (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

But, nowadays, the execution would take place in a state that does have the death penalty using that state's approved method. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am not positive, but I believe that federal executions are carried out at United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, which is a federal facility. I know that the nearby United States Disciplinary Barracks, the military wing of the facility, DOES maintain a death row; and I believe that civilian executions are carried out there as well. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 00:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There are very few federal executions; by far the great majority of executions in the U.S. are under state laws... AnonMoos (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

See Capital punishment by the United States federal government: the only three federal executions since 1963 have been in Indiana (all civilian). There have been zero military executions since 1961. Rmhermen (talk) 06:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Although at least one federal execution was for a crime committed outside of Indiana. Nyttend (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, there are some classes of crime that violate federal law and can be prosecuted by the federal government. There are others that violate state law and are prosecuted by the state government. There are overlapping cases where the two duke it out over jurisdiction. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually if something is illegal under both federal and state law, you could be prosecuted by both without there being any double jeopardy problem. (Not sure how common this is in practice though.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Samantha Smith, CIA & KGB.

I have been reading that some people say child activist Samantha Smith who wanted peace between the United States (her native country) and the Soviet Union was indeed murdered by the KGB or the CIA. Is that possible?. My question, can intelligence agencies kill innocent people? Even a child?. I really don't believe someone murdered her and I strongly believe that it was an accident but I'd like to know your opinion. Thank you all. --FromSouthAmerica (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As it says at the top of this page, "if you need advice or opinions, it's better to ask elsewhere", as this is a reference desk and not a discussion forum. To answer the factual part of your question, yes, obviously it is possible for intelligence agencies to kill innocent people, even children. I expect this would most often occur when the innocent people are collateral damage, but surely at some point in world history an intelligence agency has intentionally killed an "innocent person". Tempshill (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Bar Harbor Airlines Flight 1808 says that if is was murder, the cover-up was convincing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

On the collateral damage point, secret services certainly can kill innocents, just see the death of Jean Charles de Menezes or the botched Lillehammer affair. As for intentionally, well I guess they wouldn't be keen to broadcast the fact that they purposefully targeted a child, and keeping secrets is kind of their job, so I doubt we'd ever know. Prokhorovka (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, both of those examples are what we might call accidental killings—cases of mistaken identity. That's not the same thing as saying, "well, we want to kill this person, so let's kill those other six people as well." Obviously collateral damage does happen, but those particular cases aren't great examples of it. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem plausible to me. She doesn't seem worth assassinating (by either side), and certainly not in such an elaborate way. In any case, the weather seemed to be a huge factor in the crash—CIA and KGB can't presumably control that. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)