Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 February 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humanities desk
< February 9 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 11 >
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.


February 10[edit]

Buried in prison after life imprisonment[edit]

I saw in a documentary film that lifers in the US don't leave prison after their death, being buried in the prison grounds. Is that true to every state? Is this up-to-date information? Quest09 (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many prisons maintain cemetaries to bury the bodies of people who die in prison and have no one to claim the body. See Fort Leavenworth Military Prison Cemetery for a notable example. Note, however, this has nothing to do with life sentences. That is, if you have a life sentance and die in prison, your kids can still claim your body and bury you wherever they want to. If you have a 90-day prison sentence, die in prison, and no one comes forward to claim your body, they bury you in the prison. I know of no US state which will force your corpse to be buried on the prison grounds just because you have a life sentence. It seems patently rediculous. --Jayron32 04:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never underestimate the potential ridiculousness of government action.
I don't know of any state that does that, either, but when the UK used to hang people, they would not release the remains to the families, but buried them at the prison in an unmarked grave. I guess it was supposed to be an extra punishment. So it's not out of the question that some US state copied this practice and extended it to lifers. I think you'd need to check all fifty states; I'm not volunteering. --Trovatore (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was actually part of the sentence imposed by the judge: "... and that you be buried in the precincts of the prison where you were last confined." That actually replaced the earlier version ("... and that your body be delivered up for dissection") and still earlier versions that we shan't dwell upon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems evident that relatives of lifers probably don't claim the body as often as relatives of prisoners with shorter sentences. If you spend the last 50 years of your life in prison is more than probable that you lost contact with your family. Wikiweek (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And if you die in prison, even after just one day there, your sentence turns out to have been an unintended "life sentence". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen several stories about persons executed, cremated, and their ashes buried "in an undisclosed location". I always guessed this location was the toilet in their cell, but as it's undisclosed, who knows? Wnt (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine thats more to do with either respect for the dead or else nobody having asked where they were buried than any sort of 'cover up' like that. Definately not an element of the sentence though, I imagine it would be considered cruel or unusual punishment. Interesting question though 82.23.192.190 (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese citizenship[edit]

Hey, me again. I've read that once a Chinese citizen naturalises him/herself a citizen of any other country their Chinese citizenship is automatically revoked. But how does the Chinese government/whatever bureau processes citizenship know when a formerly Chinese national becomes naturalized a citizen of another coutnry? I can't really imagine Chinese officials coming together with American or other countries' officials to share information like this. Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tis true. See Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China article 9. It's in very plain language, and says exactly that. I don't know the technical aspects of how they determine if you have become a citizen of another country, but when you do so, you are no longer a citizen of the PRC. --Jayron32 03:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They wouldn't need to share constantly updated lists, they would merely have to investigate the individual circumstances should a matter concerning citizenship crop up. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For example, if a Chinese passport-holder applies to renew a Chinese passport while living overseas, the Chinese consulate or embassy would often ask for a letter from the local government authority showing that this person has not become a citizen of that country. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As to OP's disbelief that Chinese officials would "come together" with foreign officials to share such information - there is nothing secret about a person's nationality status between that person and the country or countries of which that person claims citizenship. Foreign governments are generally aware of the practice of asking for a certificate of non-citizenship and do co-operate in issuing the certificate (or not), as appropraite. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, this is not universally enforced. Many countries allow multiple citizenship, and if you become a citizen there, your old country will not usually be notified automatically. Unless you get into trouble otherwise, it will be a non-issue. If they take official notice, they may simply revoke your citizenship, or request that you decide on one (and prove it). In theory, this may be a prosecutable offense in some countries, but again, actual prosecution seems to be rare. I don't know how China treats the issue, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify which part of which post you are replying to? All the posts above related to "how China treats the issue", so I'm not sure what you are labelling as incorrect. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like Stephan Schulz, I think that citizenship statuses aren't typically broadcast to other nations. I know a family that holds both South Korean and United States citizenship, even though you aren't supposed to be a dual citizen in S. Korea after age 21 (see South_Korean_nationality_law#Dual_citizenship). They use their Korean passport when traveling to korea, and their U.S. passports when coming back the U.S, and neither country is apparently the wiser. Buddy431 (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The OP was asking about China, not Korea, and the Chinese government has a policy of requesting applicants for Chinese travel documents living overseas to supply proof of non-citizenship obtained from local authorities. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been hearing rumours that China may be reconsidering its 1950's repeal of dual citizenship. No idea on the authenticity of this news. ~AH1(TCU) 02:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Vietnamese adult film industry[edit]

This came up at an AfD for a BLP - the article in question was speedily deleted, through lack of sources, and as being a possible hoax/attack page, so no link. None is really needed though, as my question is on a broader topic: does Vietnam have an adult film industry? I'm sure that other parts of Southeast Asia may find a market for their products in Vietnam, but does it actually produce its own? I ask because it somehow seems incongruous to me, given the political structure and recent history of this country. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the number of countries with an adult film industry is vanishingly close to 100%. Well, maybe 99%, we'll give the Vatican City a pass on that one. That is, if they have video cameras and a cash economy, then a) someone is shooting porn videos and b) someone else is paying money to see those videos. That counts as an adult film industry as far as I can tell. Now, whether this counts as a notable adult film industry is an entirely different question, and you'd need reliable sources to support a Wikipedia article. --Jayron32 04:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yes, perhaps I could have phrased the question better. Does Vietnam have a legal adult film industry though? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. See Pornography_by_region#Vietnam. --Jayron32 05:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kindle Buddhism Book Rec? More principles, less New Age garbage[edit]

I have recently been given a Kindle. In seizing this opportunity to read more widely, I'd like to revisit Buddhism - something I took a few classes on wake back when in college. However, browsing the Kindle eBooks I found an overabundance of New Age crap written for yuppies having mid-life crises and a paucity of actual intellectual/authentic treatments of the subject. I would be very grateful for some recommendations of Kindle eBooks that discuss meditation, the four noble truths and eight-fold path, key Buddhist sutras, or the history of Buddhism. I'm less interested in books claiming to help me apply Buddhist principles/teachings to my hectic Western lifestyle. So you might say I'm approaching this from an academic/hopeful practitioner angle. You have my thanks. The Masked Booby (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried any of the books listed at Buddhism#Bibliography? --Jayron32 05:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WW2: Russia vs. Japan: Ongoing?[edit]

I saw a Reuters article about the Kuril Islands, disputed between Russia and Japan, which said that because of these 56 inconsequential islands, with a population of 19,000, the two countries had never signed a "formal peace treaty" ending the Second World War. Is that true? Are "The Empire of Japan"/Japan and "The Soviet Union"/Russia still "at war," technically speaking? What are the practical consequences? Are "enemy aliens" held in internment camps per the Geneva Conventions? Are "enemy warships" prohibited from docking in the "belligerent" countries? Edison (talk) 05:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely true, there is no treaty. Some more reading at RFERL. Never mistake small for inconsequential (!). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 05:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How many Japanese and Russian (Soviet Union) nationals are held in enemy internment camps, at present? (How brave it was of Russia to declare war on Japan after the US started dropping atomic bombs on them. Doubtless they feel the Kurils are only a just reward for this brave effort.) Edison (talk) 05:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this, it is worth noting the significance of the 1905 Russo-Japanese War, not just in terms of the politics of the area, but in broader terms - as a cause of uprisings in Russia, and perhaps even arguably the beginning of the Imperialist rivalry that culminated in the First World War. Arguments over small windswept islands in faraway places can often be harbingers of bigger conflicts. They need not always be though, and I suspect that it is more pride than anything else that prevents a settlement in this case - that and years of Cold-war hostility which had little to do with the issues under contention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there no Jimmy Carter, Henry Kissinger, or Bill Clinton who could mediate peace and bring this 66 year "conflict" to a peaceful and equitable denouement? Must the "bloodshed" continue for yet more decades, like the British /Argentine "war" over the Falklands? Edison (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A response to Edison's earlier post: I think you misunderstand the situation entirely. The Soviet Union had (quite sensibly) seen no reason to get involved in a war on two fronts while the Japanese Military (who had recently learned that Soviet Forces could put up a fight, see Battles of Khalkhin Gol) were likewise avoiding conflict. The Soviet involvement against the Japanese was a requirement of treaties signed with the Western allies. I'm sure that Stalin saw an opportunity to exert influence in the area, but it wasn't some last-minute land-grab resulting from the collapse of Japanese military might. Had the atomic bombs, submarine blockade etc (the latter arguably much more significant) not been successful, I've no doubt that a two-pronged attack on Japan would have been welcomed by the Western allies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And there is a line of scholarship which argues that the Japanese surrendered just as much because of the threat of Soviet invasion as they did because of the atomic bombs. The bombs held out the possibility of really ultimate defeat; the Soviets held out the possibility of defeat plus a much more unpleasant subjugation. Anyway, the US had asked the Soviets to wage war on Japan after Germany was defeated at the Tehran Conference and Yalta Conference — this was before the US knew they would have an atomic bomb, and thought that a lengthy invasion would be necessary. By the Potsdam Conference, Truman was no longer so hot for the Soviets to participate. Stalin was by that point happy to help, since it would give him more clout in Asia if he had managed to invade half of Japan. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not at war at all. See Soviet–Japanese Joint Declaration of 1956 and its article one . See also other related artcles. Kuril Islands dispute, Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact, Soviet–Japanese War (1945), Invasion of the Kuril Islands, Evacuation of Karafuto and Kuriles, and Japanese prisoners of war in the Soviet Union. Oda Mari (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should be pointed out that lack of a peace treaty does not mean ongoing hostilities. After all, there was no formal peace treaty following the end of World War II in Europe either. The status of the Kuril Islands is still disputed between Japan and Russia however, and the issue continues to sour diplomatic relations between the two coutnries from time to time. --Xuxl (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't unconditional surrender formally - de jure - end a war just as much as a peace treaty does? That is what happened at the end of WWII in Europe, isn't it? Pais (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Japan is the least of the Russians' worries, they're still at war with Berwick-on Tweed. Well, sort of. Well, apparently it's all a myth, but I don't have to believe that if I don't want to. --Antiquary (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Thank you, John Steinbeck. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Is this the "Batiment Banque Congolaise"?[edit]

Is File:Banque commerciale du Congo de Lubumbashi.JPG (Banque commerciale du Congo de Lubumbashi) also known as the "Batiment Banque Congolaise" - It sounds like it to me, but I just want to make sure.

Congo Express has its head office in the "Batiment Banque Congolaise"

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

attachment of soul in Christian theology[edit]

Hi,

I would like very detailed information on the manner in which souls are attached to bodies in Christian theology: Would it be possible to change this attachment (again, under mainstream Christian theology), so that, for example, my body and brain become attached to a different soul? Why or why not? Thank you. Note: even though this is theology (and that is why I am placing it in Humanities) I would like you to be as explicit as possible. 109.128.101.244 (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 336, holds that the soul is "created immediately by God" (i.e., at conception), that the soul is immortal, and that the soul will be reunited with the (original) body at the final Resurrection. I'm no theologian, but mainstream Roman Catholicism would not see it possible to attach a human body to a soul other than the one that body had been attached to at conception. --- OtherDave (talk) 13:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While the Church does teach that souls are created at conception, that's a different concept than 'immediately' -- 'immediately' here is not a time word but means 'without mediation' ie 'without the intervention of natural processes'. So the body is created 'mediately' (through biological reproduction, but God is still the ultimate uncaused cause) but the soul 'immediately'. 165.91.188.159 (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are generally interested in mainstream Christianity's concept of The Soul, I suggest reading in full (several times) Aristotle's On The Soul. It is what mainstream Christians believe about the Soul, to the 't.' I would also like to point you at this article which examines what The Bible says about "soul" and "spirit." schyler (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[The website http://www.watchtower.org/ is obsolete, but Wayback Machine has archives of " 'Soul' and 'Spirit'—What Do These Terms Really Mean?" indexed at https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.watchtower.org/e/bh/appendix_07.htm. Today the official website of Jehovah's Witnesses is http://www.jw.org, and that appendix topic is at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102005156.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)][reply]
So does a human chimera have more then one soul? Googlemeister (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good question. I'll have to ask someone. I don't know. schyler (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect chimerism doesn't happen often enough that the church has ever decided. Perhaps the souls merge into a single one at the same time the zygotes merge into a single organism. Pais (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
“The soul of every sort of flesh is its blood.” (Leviticus 17:14). So any flesh has a soul, and that is symbolized by its blood. Using Bible principles one can make a decision on the soul of a chimera (Hebrews 5:12). Additionally:

Have a great day! schyler (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, just as the Catechism of the Catholic Church gives one the view of the Roman Catholic Church, so The Watchtower gives the view of the Jehovah's Witnesses Governing Body. Specifically, the Jehovah's Witness view on blood (and the morality/theology associated with it) is not the view held by mainstream Christian denominations. See, for example, Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. So, if one is looking for a mainstream Christian view on the soul, an answer from The Watchtower talking about the importance of blood is not going to represent that. It does tell you what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. 86.164.25.178 (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Bailey The Soul and its Mechanism 1930, or The light of the Soul. Both very good books and addressing exactly what you have asked for —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.16.154 (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Bailey isn't quite the best writer to tell you what is mainstream in Christianity. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since no one has bothered yet, I thought it might be relevent to direct the OP to Soul#Christianity, which is pretty extensive. --Jayron32 02:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to Aquinas (after Aristotle), the soul is the substantial form of the body - a soul is the form of a living being, a human soul is the form of a human being. (In Aquinas' terminology animals and plants have non-rational, non-immortal 'sensitive' and 'nutritive' souls... but in the modern day 'soul' means specifically the human soul which is a 'rational soul'.) The soul is what solves the Ship of Theseus paradox essentially... so 'my body' is 'my body' because it's the body attached to 'my soul' (even though all the individual atoms and cells making it up may change, it's still 'my body' just as it was 10 years ago). So attaching 'my body' to a different soul is just not possible/meaningful... it would by definition not be 'my body'. 128.194.250.68 (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find the chimera article confusing. Would Abigail and Brittany Hensel be considered "a chimera"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normally a chimera involves the mixing of embryonic stem cells at a very early stage, so that lumps of flesh with different genetics are mixed together to form a normal looking organism. But note that ordinary women are sometimes described as "chimeras", in the sense that X-inactivation occurs at a fairly early stage, with different X chromosomes active in different parts of the body. While every religion (indeed, every religious person) has the right to decide such issues as they wish, it seems logical to suppose that genetic pedigree wouldn't be that crucial to the matter. Another example: if the soul is in the blood, then different white cells have different genetic modifications (e.g. V(D)J recombination). Common sense tells us that what looks and acts like one human being should be one human being.
Now it is true that this conflicts with the doctrine of ensoulment at conception, but Aristotle's belief, if I recall correctly, was that ensoulment actually occurred at 40 days for female fetuses and 80 days for male fetuses. This odd detail resulted, I assume, because very early fetuses all look female. So I think that the early church assumed that fetuses received souls about at 40 days, about the time that they started kicking in the womb, or otherwise reacting to stimuli (remember, the ancients performed abortions and may have had the opportunity to examine the products). At this time, fusion of two fetuses into a chimera is completely impossible. I'm not entirely sure if a parasitic twin could still fuse after this point, in rare cases, but it would certainly be a separate, aberrant lump of flesh. Wnt (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Murdoch (media executive)[edit]

What is his middle name? It begins with R. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of guys get their father's first name as a middle name, so maybe it's Rupert. Pais (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed here and here. Pais (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of interest he also has another middle name starting with J as in James RubertRupert J Murdoch ? MilborneOne (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Kittybrewster ☎ 18:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, according to ancestry.co.uk. No indication what the J stands for, though. Karenjc 19:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The full name is James Rupert Jacob Murdoch (not Rubert).Wikiweek (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if I knew what I would believe -- i.e. that I don't believe now -- if I were smarter...[edit]

If I knew what I would believe -- i.e. that I don't believe now -- if I were smarter... would that be reason enough to believe it? i.e. let's say I believe in absolute morality (that it isn't a relative thing). If I suddenly learned that, were I smarter, I would believe in relative morality. Would that knowledge be enough for me to start believing in what I would believe if I were smarter? Note that, since I'm not actually smarter, I wouldn't have the other reasons for the changed belief. In other words, I don't know why a smarter me would believe in relative morality - all I know is that he does. So, if that knowledge is certain, then should I treat it as my own?

A more concrete example: Let's say I don't believe a proof, I either think it's flawed or I can't follow it. If I somehow learned that if I were smarter, I would believe it (either I would realize that I had been mistaken in the flaw I thought I had spotted, or I would be able to follow it), then would that be enough for me to treat the proof as valid now? (despite my current objections?) 109.128.101.244 (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The RD is not here for answering hypothetical questions about a potential "smarter you." Wikiweek (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent question. Assuming for a moment that a "smarter" you would be comparatively like a "smarter" someone else: we are all to varying extents standing on the shoulders of giants, and must take by faith things we do not know or understand which we believe others "smarter" than ourselves have come to know or understand in ways that we cannot.
As far as one's own direct experience of being "smarter," that was one of the things Huxley wondered about, too, in The Doors of Perception: what if we could, by ingesting certain substances, catch a glimpse into the mind of genius? (Amphetamines, for one, have been shown to temporarily improve performance on a variety of measures of cognitive functioning).
All that and other things being said, though, you should whenever possible not really believe anything that you cannot work out for yourself. WikiDao ☯ 20:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a "smarter" self would not always be "right". S/he might be "right" generally or more often than you, but there's still a lot of room to be wrong given how imperfectly informed even the "smartest" among us are. So you would have to consider probabilistically whether or not to believe a smarter you on any given point: it might be considered a good reason to believe something, but again it could still be wrong as far as you know unless you can independently work it out for yourself. WikiDao ☯ 20:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since many beliefs are based on emotions rather than logic, being a "smarter yourself" may not make any difference. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Argument from authority says "no", if a guarantee of being correct is important to you. Essentially your scenario is not much different from selecting another human being who you believe to be smarter than you, and automatically believing everything that person believes. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's smarter = more knowledgeable, smarter = quicker thinking, and smarter = wiser. They don't always go together. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our Argument from authority article actually says: "On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism." WikiDao ☯ 21:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating question. I think you will find the article doxastic logic of interest. It is all about reasoning about beliefs. Greg Bard (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also highly relevent read is Pascal's wager... --Jayron32 23:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NY Times 11 nov. 1918[edit]

I would like to read this (NYT 11/11/18) newspaper, but the images is to low quality. Is there a database for american newspapers like in some european countries where I can read it?--SelfQ (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page is the New York Times's archive of this particular date's paper. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow... According to the ads, in 1918 you could get a nice men's suit for around $30 ... adjusting for inflation, $30 in 1918 is equivalent to around $700 today... and which is about what a really nice men's suit costs today. Blueboar (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go ask on the Science Desk whether the ad is correct that the (sneer) German theory is wrong and that saliva is alkaline, so toothpaste doesn't have to be. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of ship casualties[edit]

I have read the article about the sinking of the AHS "Centaur" with great interest. I believe that my aunt may have been one of the casualties (she was a serving nurse in the region at that time). I was wondering if anyone knows the list of names of those who lost their lives on that tragic day or where I might find out. If I can source this information I am willing to post it with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffcarroll (talk • contribs) Moving from malformed helpdesk request SmartSE (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Googling ahc centaur casualty list eventually got me this Australian government list of casualties. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or there's this list from the Centaur Association website, with ages & home towns. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Centaur Association list (based on info from Milligan & Foley's Australian Hospital Ship Centaur... the prime published book on the subject) contains everybody believed to be onboard at the time of the attack, but does not distinguish between suvivors and casualties. However, as the only female survivor was Sister Ellen Savage, you should be able to work out if your relative was killed in the attack.
I've added the list as an external link to the article, but would advise against adding information about your relative to the article itself, as it may not meet the memorial section of the WP:What Wikipedia is not policy. -- saberwyn 02:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2011_February_10&oldid=1138604411"