Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities
Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
Select a section:
Want a faster answer?
Main page: Help searching Wikipedia
How can I get my question answered?
- Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
- Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
- Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
- Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
- Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
- Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.
How do I answer a question?
Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines
- The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
See also:
August 13
| This is all speculation and/or argument why he should/should not do certain things. Fascinating, but it has precisely ZERO to do with the WP Ref Desk. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 10:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I know he is retired so is that means he will never come back to play the Olympic games? Is that means he won't ever swim in any races? And why is he retired as such a young age? I mean he could have at least swim for the US for the next 2 Olympic games with his age right now.Pendragon5 (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
|
Most Reliable Pre-1948 Unemployment Rate Estimates for the United States?
Which unemployment rate estimates for the U.S. before 1948 are considered to be the most reliable, say, by academics and economists? Futurist110 (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I personally was under the impression that Stanley Lebergott's estimates for 1930-1947 were the most reliable ones to use, but that Christina Romer's estimates for 1890-1929 are the most reliable ones to use. As for 1889 and before, I genuinely don't know.
- See Romer, C. (1986) "Spurious Volatility in Historical Unemployment Data" Journal of Political Economy 94(1):1-37 and Coen, R.M. (1973) "Labor Force and Unemployment in the 1920's and 1930's: A Re-Examination Based on Postwar Experience" Review of Economics and Statistics 55(1):46-55. 75.166.207.214 (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Lebergott's numbers for the Great Depression must be modified as by Michael Darby in his paper, "Three-and-a-half Million U.S. Employees Have Been Mislaid", cited by Romer, to count WPA and other government workers, which Lebergott wrongly counted as unemployed. See a couple of tables in our New Deal for the Darby numbers. Unfortunately Lebergott's unmodified numbers, which give a grossly inaccurate picture of the 30s, are still the most commonly seen & used, even here, for instance.John Z (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Nazis with atomic weapons
A quick hypothetical question. Say that Nazi Germany had gained enough knowledge of nuclear weaponry to successfully create an atomic bomb, say similar to that of Fat Man, in 1942. Would the Germans be legally/morally obligated to not bomb major cities such as London, New York City, Washington D.C., Moscow, etc.? 64.229.153.184 (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- They probably weren't morally obligated to bomb anywhere with any kind of bomb, but it was war. HiLo48 (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think the Nazi's were that worried about legal/moral obligations. I think it safe to say that they would have used the bomb if they had it. Blueboar (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure they had any way to deliver a bomb to the US. I doubt they would have had any moral or legal objections, though. Both sides were perfectly happy to use enormous numbers of conventional bombs on civilian populations, including incendiaries that can destroy large areas of cities very quickly. The damage done to Dresden (see Bombing of Dresden in World War II) by the Allies in one night of conventional bombing was comparable with the damage done to Hiroshima and Nagasaki (at least in terms of the initial blast - once you include deaths from radiation in the days and weeks following, there were probably a lot more deaths from the nuclear bombs). I don't see why the Nazis would have had a problem with returning the favour using a single bomb. The idea that you shouldn't target civilians in war didn't seem to exist at the time. --Tango (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know if they had a way to deliver a bomb via air, but they could have used a submarine for any coastal city. --NellieBly (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Any count of the casualties shows the atomic bombings far exceed Dresden. (25,000 - 35,000 at Dresden compared to 150,000 - 250,000 initial deaths from two atomic bombs, not counting delayed radiation deaths). Rmhermen (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- I meant the two cities individually. And I think those numbers are including delayed deaths. Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki gives those numbers and says about half were on the first day. That gives 45,000-83,000 in Hiroshima and 30,000-40,000 in Nagasaki. That is comparable with 25,000-35,000. (The reason I'm excluding delayed deaths is because I'm not sure it was known at the time just how many of them there would be - the long term effects of radiation exposure were little understood.) --Tango (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- As for delivery, there was the Amerika Bomber project, the nearest to reality was the Junkers Ju 390. Reports of an actual trial flight to New York by one or two Ju 390s have never been verified. The Luftwaffe was still bombing London with conventional aircraft up to May 1944, see Operation Steinbock, the "Baby Blitz". Alansplodge (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Legality and morality wouldn't make one bit of difference to the government that attempted to conquer the world and exterminate non-Aryans. Look at the Battle of London as an example of indiscriminate bombing that the Nazis did. Why would they hesitate any less with nuclear bombs? --Activism1234 18:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Just to be fair to the Germans, the Luftwaffe were initially under orders to avoid bombing London, however on 23 August 1940, some bombs were accidentally dropped on Harrow, a suburb of NW London. Together with raids on industrial areas of provincial towns which had caused civilian casualties, this prompted a retaliatory night raid by by 81 RAF bombers on Berlin. Night bombing at that time involved scattering bombs in a wide area around the target (within 3 miles was considered a "hit" but there weren't too many of those) and there were civilian deaths in Berlin. From then on, the gloves were off. I suspect that the initial reluctance to bomb London was out of fear of the RAF's large bomber fleet rather than scruples about civilian casualties; the Luftwaffe had bombed the centres of Rotterdam and several other cities during the earlier Battle of the Netherlands. Alansplodge (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- I know you're trying to be fair, not that you support the Nazis or anything, but then I can go and mention 10 other despicable war-related crimes or relentless attacks (not even including the Holocaust) that the Nazis did, starting from their unwarranted invasion of Poland and harassment of Belgium. --Activism1234 21:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- No argument there. Alansplodge (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- I know you're trying to be fair, not that you support the Nazis or anything, but then I can go and mention 10 other despicable war-related crimes or relentless attacks (not even including the Holocaust) that the Nazis did, starting from their unwarranted invasion of Poland and harassment of Belgium. --Activism1234 21:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- A now deceased British friend of mine was a Lancaster bomber crew member in World War Two. He said that the fighter pilots who shot at them were very gentleman like, always aiming for the engines and not the fuselage. His impression of the Germans was that they were more concerned with preventing bombs from hitting their families than causing destruction and loss on the other side. That was, until he was shot down and captured by the Volksturm. They weren't so gentleman like. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- The only thing that would prevent the Nazis from using atomic bombs is if they were afraid they would then be targeted by them, too. This would require that the US or another allied nation either have the bomb, or be on track to having it soon, and the Nazis would have to both be aware of that and be unable to prevent it. They had utter contempt for the technical abilities of the US, so wouldn't believe it without proof, like a demonstration bomb.
- Once both sides had the bomb, presumably a cold war would ensue, with the front lines frozen. StuRat (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- If two sides had developed nuclear weapons while already in a state of total warfare, I'm not so sure a cold war would have been the result. It took the USA and USSR some time to realise all the strategic implications of their new weapons. That time wouldn't be available during war, so they may have acted without fully understanding the consequences. Also, mutually assured destruction requires a lot of very large nuclear bombs - a handful the size of the ones dropped on Japan wouldn't do it. --Tango (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- The retaliatory threat doesn't have to be total destruction. If the Nazis knew that nuking London would result in Berlin being nuked, they might very well back off. StuRat (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- A quick hypothetical question. Say that Capitalist America had gained enough knowledge of nuclear weaponry to successfully create an atomic bomb, in 1945. Would the Americans be legally/morally obligated to not bomb major cities such as Hiroshima or Nagasaki? Tom Haythornthwaite 21:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs)
- How does that moral question compare with the moral question of not using it and thus having tens or hundreds of thousands more Americans die in the alternative, i.e. a D-Day style invasion? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- False dicotomy. They didn't have to do either. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- This was war, not a garden party, and they had two choices, militarily. They chose the path that would kill as few Americans as possible, and hopefully end the war immediately. Which it did. The third choice was for Japan not to have attacked Pearl Harbor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- The logistics of the Germans being able to deliver a nuke to the US would have been astonishingly difficult (there's a reason the Blitzkrieg never made it to Manhattan). London would have been a far more likely target.
- As to the legal/moral thing, I think others have answered this better than I can. They were legally obligated not to invade and occupy half of continental Europe, but that didn't seem to stop them. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 21:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Better to let Europe get destroyed and have Hitler focus his sights on other countries? Give me a break. The "occupation" of parts of Europe by the United States was short-lived (as well as Japan), and was meant like that, unlike some of the colonial European powers after WWI who received mandates and territories. Also remember that stuff like this, such as status of Berlin, was negotiated in agreements, and was split amongst the European powers, with only the U.S. being the non-European power who occupied Berlin, and even that was short-lived.--Activism1234 22:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- That reads like American paranoia. You know, it's not always about the USA. Evanh2008's comment was clearly referring to Germany. HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Not really? And who said I'm American? I read his comments wrong, struck it out. My mistake. --Activism1234 23:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, HiLo. Thanks for clarifying. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- On the question of international law, it is highly likely that, if the Nazis did use such a weapon but did not win the war, they would have been tried by the Allies as war criminals for these activities. Specifically, the wanton targeting of civilians (a massacre) is usually classified under "war crimes," and the use of toxic weapons is explicitly prohibited. If the Nazis had used the weapons and won the war, they would obviously have not prosecuted themselves for war crimes. As for morality, I have no doubt the Nazis would claim that it was in the interest of speeding up the end of the war and thus averting more deaths. (I don't want to put to fine a point on it, so I should just say that I think the similar policies undertaken by the Allies were also war crimes, and would have been treated as such had the Allies not won. Which only goes so far as to tell you what use designating things as "war crimes" are, since the winners are always the judges.)
- As for delivery, there are many ways to deliver a nuclear weapon to the United States. If I were the Nazis I would simply find a way to get it on a submarine and then detonate it in a harbor. New York would be particularly vulnerable to this sort of attack, just as Einstein warned in his 1939 letter. It would be comparatively easy for the Germans to bomb European capitals. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- The harbours were protected against that kind of thing. And detonating a nuke underwater doesn't do much good - the water absorbs and dissipates too much of the explosion. You want to detonate it in the air above a city to get the most damage possible. Also - the Allies prosecuted the Nazi's for war crimes anyway. One more charge added onto the bottom of the list wouldn't make much difference. --Tango (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Detonating a nuclear weapon actually does quite a lot if you're trying to contaminate things and kill plenty of folks. See Crossroads Baker for a nice vivid example — if something like that went off south of New York it would have caused a lot of physical damage, health issues (short and long term) and economic damage, to say nothing of panic. As for harbors — even, as now, there are a million ways to smuggle things through them. Don't overestimate their impregnability. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Correct - consider the fate of HMS Royal Oak (08), safely tucked away in Scapa Flow. Alansplodge (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose, if they could deliver it, they could place the atomic bomb in a weighted device designed to keep it on the bottom of the harbor until the sub left the area, then drop the weights and float to the surface, where it would detonate. Releasing compressed air into a balloon to lift it to the surface might also be needed. Launching it above the surface would be a more difficult technical problem, at the time (the size of the rocket needed would make it too big to fit on a sub). StuRat (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- In 1942, yes, but it would be a lot harder by 1945. Without bases to refuel and take on supplies, and with enemy vessels and planes scanning the seas, using sonar and visual, it would be difficult to get to NYC. They didn't have nuclear subs, after all, which can stay down for months. Subs of that era needed air to run their diesel engines, except for short periods during combat, when they ran on batteries. The schnorkel made later models a bit less obvious when pulling in air, but they would still leave a wake, if moving. StuRat (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Nazis were rightly tried for war crimes after WWII, nuclear weapons or not. In fact, that's where we get so much of international law today, from the Nuremberg Trials. Not all Nazis were tried there, some were tried later (such as the Eichmann Trial, and some escaped. But the trials provided a basis for international designation of war crimes, and much of the Geneva Accords as well. --Activism1234 22:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- What did the Nuremberg trials have to do with the Geneva Accord (or Geneva Accords (1988))? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Blaaaah meant Geneva Conventions. --Activism1234 04:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's worth remembering that the Allies were very ready to ratchet up the level of warfare and return to using weapons that had been banned only a short time ago, i.e. chemical and I would presume also biological. To see how ready, consider the Air raid on Bari, not an uninteresting article, especially as this bombing was the origin of perhaps the most widespread class of chemotherapy drugs, alkylating antineoplastic agents. I suspect that had the Nazis started nuking cities and the Allies couldn't retaliate with nukes, they'd turn to these weapons. (Indeed, I suspect the Japanese would have done the same, given their extensive interest in biological weapons, except that by the time the nukes were dropped they had very poor access to the U.S. to attack with them) Wnt (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Personally, I suspect that if the Nazis had started nuking the UK in 1942, they likely would have won over there, turned around, beaten the USSR, and then come to some kind of arrangement with the United States. But this is, again, just in the realm of fantasy. I just want to emphasize that the US desire to liberate Europe from the Nazis was only contingent on the actual feasibility of doing it, and nuclear Nazis taking the UK and USSR would have made it a pretty difficult if not impossible thing to do. Why we are debating this only in terms of the Nazis versus the Americans is a little beyond me. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Back to the question of delivery - see The U-Boat Rocket Program about a plan for a U-Boat to tow V-2 ballistic missiles across the Atlantic in vertical-launch containers. Alansplodge (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- The USSR and USA couldn't minaturized nukes enough to fit into rockets until long after World War 2, but as long as we're assuming they had the technical abilites to do things that they could not, sure...and maybe they could just teleport the nukes into the oval office. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Good point, well presented. Alansplodge (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
A quick hypothetical pass over this looks like if the Germans had subcontracted delivery to Japan, using an American weapon design (using Canadian uranium, we can war-crime right up there with anyone), an attack on New York might have been feasible. Little boy is 4400 kg, plus a delivery vehicle is needed, the simplest of which is an airplane. The Japanese had a I-400 Sentoku that could carry three Aichi_M6A's at 3300 kg dry weight apiece, so that is room for a bomb and 5500 kg worth of aircraft, plus whatever those aircraft would have been carrying, so theoretically about 8000 kg of airplane. So the only question is whether an 8000 kg aircraft could lift a 4400 kg load (which I dunno) and whether you could fold that whole plane up into the sub. Surfacing just offshore the US at night would not be a huge problem, nor would be the splash of petrol you'd need to get the vehicle off the water. And unlike the Enola Gay, you don't need extra bulk for long travel, returning safely from the mission, or extra bomb-casing for a high-altitude drop. Luckily a whole bunch of those factors didn't materialize (and unluckily for the subject populations, nuclear weapons were used against human beings :( Whatever the justification, we should mourn that loss ). Franamax (talk) 02:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- (Just a factual thing: there was no extra bomb casing on Little Boy because of the altitude. The bomb detonated well above the ground; it did not have to survive the fall. Little Boy was heavy because was full of very heavy components. The Germans were as capable of everyone else as designing a gun-type bomb; that's easy stuff. They had plenty of their own uranium. And I still think London and Moscow would have been the targets, not New York. If you knock out them, the likelihood of a US invasion would have been pretty low.) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's worth remembering that when the USA and USSR did develop better nuclear weapons and the rocketry to deliver them in the years after WWII, it was with considerable help from German scientists. HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Since legality and morality is decided by the victors, it would depend upon whether they would have won the war. Ssscienccce (talk) 03:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- A Tom Lehrer song is running through my head now. " 'Vonce ze rockets are up / Who cares vhere zey come down? / Zat's not my department!' / Says Wernher von Braun." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- The Nazis, as the aggressors, would be morally responsible (if that means as few casualties/destruction as possible) to end the war as soon as possible and as peacefully as possible, which would have meant surrendering back in 39. The difference between the US nuking the Japanese is that the aggressor role is reversed. 65.95.22.16 (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- So because Japan attacked first, the US got carte blanche to do anything they wanted? That's not how war crimes work. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I note that the OP didn't ask "would this be feasible and how could it have been done", although everybody answered that question anyway. I also note that replies along the lines of "the nazis wouldn't respect law or morality" are so obvious that I'd like the OP to clarify the question. Legally or morally by whose law or morals? If you mean our culture's morality as it stands now, our best guess at the true morality, then the Nazis would be morally obliged to stop fighting completely, and stop being Nazis; so that can't be what you meant. Card Zero (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, FDR managed to extract pledges from the combatants at the inception of the war in Europe to not engage in the kind of bombing of civilians that everyone including the USA eventually engaged in. See Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#Policy_at_the_start_of_the_war, International Law on the Bombing of Civilians and Aerial bombardment and international law.John Z (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I think "stop being Nazis" and "stop fighting completely" are both too simplistic. Firstly, Nazism is a complex package of views, not all of which would have to be abandoned, but mostly I agree. "Stop fighting completely" is more difficult; unless you're saying that all wars are immoral (which you might be, but it's a contentious point). - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 14:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Good points. They would be obliged to become nice Nazis, and fight only in defense. Even so, this still makes the question "would we morally disapprove if they nuked some major cities" such a no-brainer that I think the details of the question must have been different. Perhaps the question is about Nazi morality. (I can't imagine what law the question was asking about.) Card Zero (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's arguable that under their worldview they were fighting in self-defense against a global conspiracy of Jews, capitalists and communists. There's also the issue of lebensraum that they saw themselves as entitled to (and therefore justified in "defending").203.27.72.5 (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Fighting capitalists ? The Nazis always seemed rather capitalist to me, regardless of their name and propaganda (but then, so does the Chinese Communist Party). StuRat (talk) 04:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
French Directory
Were people like Paul François Jean Nicolas, vicomte de Barras elected to the French Directory of the 18th century, or were they simply appointed? I didn't see information on the page that really specified. Thanks, 64.229.153.184 (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- French Directory states the directors were "chosen by the Ancients out of a list sent to them by the Five Hundred." Clarityfiend (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
August 14
Ruintia
What is the Ruintia? List of extinct animals of the Hawaiian Islands say it is an extinct mammal, but I can't find anything about it on the internet.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've deleted it. It was added by User:98.196.92.165, whose primary contributions are to fictional animals, with a history of adding incorrect information to articles.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe you or the other editor was thinking of the rhytina, which is an extinct mammal from that area.--Shantavira|feed me 07:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Unlikely. Steller's sea cows were endemic to the Commander Islands, which isn't anywhere near Hawaii. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe you or the other editor was thinking of the rhytina, which is an extinct mammal from that area.--Shantavira|feed me 07:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Responding to Prayer Requests
When a religious friend tells me about a problem they are facing (for example, their grandmother is very ill) and asks me to support them by praying, the answer which comes to my mind is "I am so very sorry but I don't believe in prayer".
I never give this sort of answer because although it is straightforward and truthful, I think it is TOTALLY useless, if not worse than useless, to the person who made the request.
Under these circumstances, is there any type of response that is compassionate and honest and helpful to the person who made the request? Thank you, CBHA (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
| non-reference oriented matters |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The WP Reference Desk is not a Citizens' Advice Bureau.
"I don't pray, but I hope it all turns out well for you." HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
relocated the above 3 comments under the hat. — Lomn 15:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
|
What serious thinkers have said on atheists and prayer
I think this is a very legitimate issue of philosophy, specifically etiquette, as a branch of ethics. Ayn Rand was an atheist who repeatedly made the point that saying things like God bless you are a way of saying "you are a great value to me", or "I wish you the highest." Google Ayn Rand on God Bless You. That shows concern for people as individuals in their own terms. Presumably some of the New Atheists would think that something like not compromising your principles is more important. Christopher Hitchens asked that people not pray for him as he was dying. μηδείς (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- And in the flip side of the original question here, someone might be inclined to tell Hitchens, "OK, I won't," and then go ahead and do so anyway, privately. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
See [1], [2], [3] and [4]. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Here is some detailed exposition on the topic by someone who has obviously thought about it enough to churn out several pages each. There is more at
http://www.squidoo.com/sympathy-101-for-atheists(that host is in our spam filter for some reason) and it's an even better essay in my opinion. Here are some briefer forum suggestions. 75.166.207.214 (talk) 03:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC) [copied here from talk by μηδείς (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)]
The famous physicist Niels Bohr purportedly had a horseshoe nailed above the door to his office. When visitors asked why he had it there, he said "it's supposed to bring good luck". When the visitors then asked him whether as a scientific guy, he really believed such a silly superstition, he'd reply "of course I don't believe in it, but it's supposed to work whether you believe in it or not". I guess you could treat the request for prayer as similar to a request to keep a horseshoe in your office, and go along with it if it wasn't too much hassle, even if you didn't believe in it. 67.122.211.84 (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Good answer! 75.166.207.214 (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- When rational people buy lottery tickets, they know at the outset that there's an extremely slim chance of them winning anything significant. They buy the ticket not because they believe they're going to win, but because not to do so would give them no chance at all. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 03:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I use the phrase "I will keep you/them in my thoughts" .Hotclaws (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Question about the validity of marriage
Here is a hypothetical situation that struck my curiosity. Let's say that a man and woman get married. This is, let's say, in the USA and in a state that forbids same sex marriages. During the course of their marriage, one spouse (let's just say, the husband) has a sex-change operation. He is now legally a female. What happens to the status (validity) of that marriage? Does it remain the same, as if nothing happened and nothing changed? Or does the sex-change operation somehow invalidate the marriage? I am just curious about this situation, even though it is bizarre and unlikely. Any ideas? Or, has this actually ever happened in real life somewhere? I am asking about the legal status and validity, not moral or religious or otherwise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- According to this FAQ, marriage laws are based on the legal gender of the people at the time of their marriage, so the marriage remains valid even if one partner later changes to a different legal gender. It does happen from time to time; here's an article from ABC News with a biography of one such couple. For transgender people who fall in love after their transition, the legal question depends on (a) whether their state allows same-sex marriage, and (b) whether their state allows legal changes of gender. Ironically, this means that in the most conservative states, where no legal change of gender is permitted, gay and lesbian transgender people are getting legal same-sex marriages that other gay and lesbian people can't get. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that's "ironic". It makes perfect sense if you look at it the way they do. From the point of view of the lawmakers in those states, these are not same-sex marriages at all. To them, you have a man and a woman, except one of them (let's say th man) got some strange ideas in his head that led him to undergo cosmetic surgery. Odd, maybe, but not an impediment to marriage. The woman is not specially privileged because her husband is trans — she could have married any man, not just one who had done the cosmetic procedure. --Trovatore (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Iran goes about this the other way around. There homosexuality and transvestism is a death penalty crime, and same sex marriages are not happening any time soon, if ever. But sex reassignment surgery is actually encouraged and completely legal, since after changing legal genders, future marriages will not be same-sex anymore (only applies if the transgender people in question are heterosexual of course).-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that's "ironic". It makes perfect sense if you look at it the way they do. From the point of view of the lawmakers in those states, these are not same-sex marriages at all. To them, you have a man and a woman, except one of them (let's say th man) got some strange ideas in his head that led him to undergo cosmetic surgery. Odd, maybe, but not an impediment to marriage. The woman is not specially privileged because her husband is trans — she could have married any man, not just one who had done the cosmetic procedure. --Trovatore (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Though I mostly agree with all of the above, it's also notable that laws, even in just the U.S. vary considerably in this regard, and that there federal, state, and even sometimes local precedents that routinely come into conflict as different legal and governmental bodies try to decide who the ultimate arbiter is (though States do mostly dominate influence on the issue, but can vary considerably amongst themselves). Also note that in most cases, regardless of external factors influencing changes in marital status, almost any partner could sue for divorce citing irreconcilable differences caused by the other spouse; in rare cases they might even be able to get an annulment if their partner was in transition or intending to transition. Though again, considerable variation here. Snow (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- This question is of some importance in the UK. Note first of all that having a sex-change operation doesn't legally change one's gender. In the UK a legal change of gender occurs on granting of a gender recognition certificate, but this can't be granted to a person who is currently married. So a married person wishing to change gender legally has to have their marriage dissolved, and the couple can afterwards have a civil partnership. The awkwardness of this procedure is one argument in favour of introducing equal marriage (that is, marriage without regard to the gender of those involved) in the UK. --rossb (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
August 15
Hawaiian feather cloaks
Why are the feather cloaks of Hawaii have two different lengths? Some covers half the torso like a cape and others cover the entire body to the legs. Is the ʻahuʻula a name for the short cape or the long cloak or both? Also is there any significance to the lengths.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- The Pocket Hawaiian Dictionary (ISBN 0-8248-0307-8) translates ʻahuʻula as "feather cloak or cape", for whatever that's worth... AnonMoos (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know how reliable this site is, though it appears to have some decent references for further study. The article talks about the rarity and expense of the right kind of feathers for these cloaks and capes, particularly the yellow ones, and at one point says "Only the highest ranking chiefs had the resources to acquire enough feathers for a full cloak. Most chiefs wore the shorter capes which came approximately to the elbow." So the significance could be to do with resources and status. - Karenjc 19:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
IS ABOUT USS NIMITZ CVN 68 SHIP CARRIER
MY QUESTIONS:
1. HOW OLD IS USS NIMITZ CVN68?
2. WHEN IS IT GOING TO BE REFUEL?
3. WHAT TYPE OF FUEL DOES IT USES AND WHAT TYPE OF PROCESSES DOES IT USES TO REFUEL?
4.CAN IT REMAINS OF FUEL BE USE FOR OTHER THINGS WHICH COULD BENEFIT MANKIND?
5. WHEN IS IT GOING TO DECOMMISSION?
FROM SYLVESTER — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.215.160.159 (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- 1) USS Nimitz was laid down on 22 June 1968, launched on 13 May 1972, and commissioned on 3 May 1975. StuRat (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- 2) The A4W reactor core is expected to last 20 years, so presumably it has already been replaced once, and either was replaced a second time, or is about to be. StuRat (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- 3) I'm not positive this info pertains to this reactor, but, according to the Introduction for Section 3, here: [5] "The fuel is an alloy of 15 percent zirconium and 85 percent uranium enriched to a level of 93 percent U235." StuRat (talk) 04:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- That document agrees with the fuel composition given by [6], which in turn cites Director, Naval Propulsion Program (1995), p. 35. as its source. Nitpick: that should be 235U. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- I copied it verbatim from the document, including positioning of the superscript. StuRat (talk) 05:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, dare I say that Magdi Regheb, Associate Professor of Nuclear Engineering from the University of Illinois got the isotope notation wrong, consistently, throughout that paper? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- The ship was launched on 13 May 1972, so it is now 40 years old. It was refueled in 2001 and its A4W reactors are expected to need refueling every 20-25 years, so 2021 should be the next refueling. For details on the refueling process, see Refueling_and_Complex_Overhaul#Refueling. For details on the type of fuel used in these reactors, see Pressurized_water_reactor#Fuel and United_States_Naval_reactor#Power_plants. The Nimitz class carriers have a lifespan of around 50 years, so it would be expected to be decommissioned in around 2022. This probably means that it will either be refueled in 2021 or decomissioned. For the possible uses of the spent fuel, see Spent nuclear fuel. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- See USS Nimitz (CVN-68). 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC) (Note: reply moved from duplicate copy of the query. Looie496 (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC))
- 5) As to when it will actually be decommissioned, this depends on many factors. First, there is it's expected lifespan of 50 years. However, if it's still useful at that point, it could be kept in service longer. With refits to add the latest technology, it could be kept in service for several more decades. As of now, aircraft carriers remain quite useful (unlike, say, battleships). This could change, however. For example, we might rely more on UAVs in the future, perhaps launched from the smaller missile boats and caught in a net when they return. If so, then we would phase out old aircraft carriers faster (while keeping a core fleet for tasks not suitable to UAVs). Economics also plays a huge factor, and the US may not have the budget to maintain the Nimitz indefinitely. StuRat (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- So the short answer is, no published source indicates that a date has been set, and we are not going to engage in crystal ballery as to when that date might be. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- In other words, we don't have the balls to give a good estimate. StuRat (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- 4) The remaining fuel could, in theory, be reprocessed to remove plutonium and/or any remaining enriched uranium, which could then be used in other reactors. At the moment the US does not engage in civilian nuclear fuel reprocessing and has enough HEU and plutonium to meet all military needs, so I suspect it will simply be treated as spent fuel (nuclear waste) and put either into a military repository (e.g. WIPP) or dry cask storage somewhere. --Mr.98 (talk)
- Reprocessing uranium fuel also produces depleted uranium as a byproduct. This fantastic material benefits mankind thorugh its use in super dense, incendiary projectile ordinace. It's also useful for; making armour plating (to stop the aforementioned ordinace), shielding radiation (as in the radiation produced by the main reprocessing product) and as a tamper in nuclear weapons. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- In theory, sure, but the uranium fuel in said reactor is 93% U-235. Recovering the uranium from the spent fuel is going to get you a lot of probably-not-depleted uranium at worst, or small amounts of "reactor-depleted" uranium at best. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Reprocessing uranium fuel also produces depleted uranium as a byproduct. This fantastic material benefits mankind thorugh its use in super dense, incendiary projectile ordinace. It's also useful for; making armour plating (to stop the aforementioned ordinace), shielding radiation (as in the radiation produced by the main reprocessing product) and as a tamper in nuclear weapons. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's 93% when it goes in, but after 20-25 years of fission, it's going to be considerably less than that. According to Spent_nuclear_fuel#Uranium, it's only 0.83% 235U, though we should assume that it's talking about spent fuel from slightly enriched uranium or low enriched uranium. If it is still very high, then there is no need for reprocessing at all; just stick the rods into a normal reactor. If for some reason you don't want to do that, you could also always downblend the material to make a lower enrichment grade. Of course any and all DU produced from spent fuel rods is by definition "reactor-depleted". 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- You might need to reprocess it to remove some of the decay products, even if there is still plenty of U-235 left. --Tango (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Right. HEU becomes incredibly difficult to handle after only a few weeks in a reactor. (This is one of the reasons that HEU research reactors don't bother with much security; after a very short amount of time, the fuel becomes deadly to the touch and nobody's going to be able to use it in a bomb or anything else without reprocessing). Also, my point is that I don't think reactor-depleted DU is actually used in any of the applications you are discussing, because it contains lots of other U isotopes like U-236 and probably other weirder ones. The DU that is used in weapons situations is usually derived from enrichment, not reprocessing, and is a lot cleaner. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Don't take this the wrong way, but I would like to see sources. I can't find much at all of the US Navy's security for HEU used in those reactors, which is essentially weapons grade. Since apparently even 15% enriched uranium can be used in a crude bomb, I'm sure 93% enriched material that has been in the reactor for a week or two could be used without reprocessing. And I can't find anything on the handling of used HEU that isn't way too technical. I know that here in Australia, there was originally a suggestion that certain sources of a very high activity (such as partially reacted fuel) would be considered to be a low security risk with the rationale that trying to steal them would almost certainly result in the death of the thief, and locating the stolen source is easy because its radioactive emissions can be detected at a considerable distance. This suggestion was rejected so the current code requires that such sources "must be protected by, at a minimum, physical security measures capable of providing sufficient delay to allow immediate detection and assessment of the intrusion, and for a guard or police service to interrupt unauthorised removal of the source", and anyone in proximity to the source must have undergone either a background ground check by ASIO, the federal police and every state and territory police service or a comprehensive identity check if their contact with the source is only incidental. They're also required to run annual drills with police/guard services on responding to threats, and daily accounting to ensure the source is still in place if the source is determined to be high risk. There are also additional reporting requirements to the Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office if the source is fissile. There is currently no HEU in Australia at all, since the last batch was shipped back to the US in 2009. You're right that reactor depleted DU isn't actually used in any of those applications as far as I know, and that the DU is actually sourced from enrichment. Apparently, you may not need to remove those other, weirder decay products before using them in other reactors (though I'm far from sure on this) because the accumulation of neutron poisons is offset by the high enrichment and gradual depletion of burnable neutron poisons that were purposely integrated into the fuel. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know exactly when it becomes deadly, but I've had many discussions with people who operate research reactors about this question. Used HEU is radioactive enough that it'll kill you quick. Exactly how used is has to be, I don't know (the reactor people I've talked to didn't seem to want to talk about that; whether that was out of ignorance or out of security, I'm unsure), but I got the impression it didn't have to be inside a reactor for very long. I know of numerous HEU sources (e.g. research reactors) in the USA that are protected with no more than a heavy door and some cameras. This is in marked contrast to how non-irradiated HEU sources are treated (armed guards). (The term that is used in the technical literature is "self-protecting".) --Mr.98 (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Don't take this the wrong way, but I would like to see sources. I can't find much at all of the US Navy's security for HEU used in those reactors, which is essentially weapons grade. Since apparently even 15% enriched uranium can be used in a crude bomb, I'm sure 93% enriched material that has been in the reactor for a week or two could be used without reprocessing. And I can't find anything on the handling of used HEU that isn't way too technical. I know that here in Australia, there was originally a suggestion that certain sources of a very high activity (such as partially reacted fuel) would be considered to be a low security risk with the rationale that trying to steal them would almost certainly result in the death of the thief, and locating the stolen source is easy because its radioactive emissions can be detected at a considerable distance. This suggestion was rejected so the current code requires that such sources "must be protected by, at a minimum, physical security measures capable of providing sufficient delay to allow immediate detection and assessment of the intrusion, and for a guard or police service to interrupt unauthorised removal of the source", and anyone in proximity to the source must have undergone either a background ground check by ASIO, the federal police and every state and territory police service or a comprehensive identity check if their contact with the source is only incidental. They're also required to run annual drills with police/guard services on responding to threats, and daily accounting to ensure the source is still in place if the source is determined to be high risk. There are also additional reporting requirements to the Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office if the source is fissile. There is currently no HEU in Australia at all, since the last batch was shipped back to the US in 2009. You're right that reactor depleted DU isn't actually used in any of those applications as far as I know, and that the DU is actually sourced from enrichment. Apparently, you may not need to remove those other, weirder decay products before using them in other reactors (though I'm far from sure on this) because the accumulation of neutron poisons is offset by the high enrichment and gradual depletion of burnable neutron poisons that were purposely integrated into the fuel. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Scottish Parliament and Scottish independence referendum
Is there any possibility of an election between now and the Scottish independence referendum in 2014? Should the Scottish Independence Party lose their majority, or lose the government of Scotland altogether, is there any chance that the referendum will be halted? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 06:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- The next election is not due to be held until 5 May 2016, so there is not much of a chance of the election being called earlier, or for the Scottish National Party to lose its majority. There is still a slim chance that it may lose its majority due to defections or resignations, but that's unlikely. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- As Scottish independence referendum, 2014 notes, there is no more than a proposal to hold an advisory referendum in 2014. The bill to enact that has not been put before the Scottish Parliament, so there is no law to that effect now. Nothing is certain in poltics, so while the SNP government may now plan to put that bill to the vote, they may change their minds. The content of the bill is not decided, and it's not possible to know for sure that all of the SNP's MSPs will vote for it. And if the bill passes into law, as the article notes, it's very possible that the law will be challenged in court (as it's not clear what authority is devolved to the Scottish parliament has in this regard). And the Westminister parliament may, in the meantime, pass a law either preemptivey introducing a referendum on its terms (the current UK government has indicated it is inclined to do so, for a simple in/out referendum sooner than the SNP's preference). Were they to do so, it's likely that would face legal challenge too. So one cannot say with any certitude that there will be a referendum at all, when it will be, from where it will derive its legitimacy, who will write its language, or what it will ask. The electoral fortunes of the SNP in the Scottish Parliament are certainly an important part of that, but there is still much to be decided. 146.90.121.119 (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- There can be an early election for the Scottish Parliament if 2/3rds of MSPs (members of the Scottish parliament) vote for it. See question 1 here. Based on the current numbers this would require SNP support. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Did Supreme Court Justice and Senator David Davis ever write or tell anyone how he would have voted had he remained on the Electoral Commission that determined the Presidential winner in 1876? Futurist110 (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Why did Henri refuse to become King of France while France retained the tricolor flag? Also, why did Henri refuse to give up his claim to the French throne immediately in 1870-1871 if he did not want to be King of France himself with the tricolor flag, so that another claimant could have received the French throne immediately in 1870-1871 while royalist sentiment was still high? Futurist110 (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- His article basically said it all. He didn't like the flag because of what it represented and he would never have given up his claim to the throne because in his mind he was rightful King of France and it was his choice which flag should represent his nation. Henri wanted to get everything and wasn't willing to compromise. As for other candidates, the Bonaparte's were out of the question, so the other candidate were the Orleans who would have accepted the tricolors since the July Monarchy used the tricolors but they probably didn't have as much support since they were deposed not to long ago in 1848, plus they joined with the Legitimists to support Henri.
- (ec) Henri considered himself the sole legitimate pretender to the throne, by divine right; any others were usurpers in his eyes so it was him or no one, and France be damned. It was his entire outlook on life. He was very much a reactionary, and for him the tricolor flag represented the worst excesses of the Revolution, and especially the execution of Louis XVI. The fact that no one in France held that view anymore was of no concern to him - he had lived most of his life outside of the country and had married a foreigner, so he was very much out of touch with public opinion. See here if you can read French [7]. Thus the Assembly decided to go with a president for a term of seven years, which was how long Henri was expected to live. By the time he died in 1883, however, the Republic had won many more supporters, and the constitution was not re-opened because the monarchists had lost the upper hand. --Xuxl (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- So basically the Orleans feared that they would not get enough support in 1870-1871 to get their own candidate on the French throne and thus supported Henri? Wouldn't it have been more pragmatic for them to immediately nominate their own candidate in 1870-1871 after Henri declined the throne? Also, what exactly was the rationale in predicting how long Henri will live? You generally can't predict that kind of thing for younger people. Futurist110 (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- The Orleanists were not a particularly strong group in 1871, and they openly backed Henri's candidacy as the best hope for a return of the monarchy. Plus, since Henri did not have any heirs, their leader, the Comte de Paris, would be his successor in any case. You have to remember that King Louis-Philippe I's time in power had ended in a popular uprising in 1848, and the Orleanist cause had never been particularly popular among the hard-core monarchists. Their support had come from the emerging middle class who wanted stability without the reactionary trappings of the Legitimists. These people had largely supported Napoleon III for the same reason, and were ready to support a Republican system if it guaranteed the same sort of economic climate that allowed them to prosper. The Third Republic was able to do just that. Henri was already 53 in 1873, when the length of the presidential term was decided, and not in the greatest of health. The idea was that the Republic would be temporary until his death, and seven years seemed a decent term (I doubt that there was a much more scientific calculation made), after which the retauration could occur with the Orleanist candidate as the monarch by default. Except that, as I said above, the royalists' time had passed by the time Henri died in 1883. --Xuxl (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- So basically the Orleans feared that they would not get enough support in 1870-1871 to get their own candidate on the French throne and thus supported Henri? Wouldn't it have been more pragmatic for them to immediately nominate their own candidate in 1870-1871 after Henri declined the throne? Also, what exactly was the rationale in predicting how long Henri will live? You generally can't predict that kind of thing for younger people. Futurist110 (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) Henri considered himself the sole legitimate pretender to the throne, by divine right; any others were usurpers in his eyes so it was him or no one, and France be damned. It was his entire outlook on life. He was very much a reactionary, and for him the tricolor flag represented the worst excesses of the Revolution, and especially the execution of Louis XVI. The fact that no one in France held that view anymore was of no concern to him - he had lived most of his life outside of the country and had married a foreigner, so he was very much out of touch with public opinion. See here if you can read French [7]. Thus the Assembly decided to go with a president for a term of seven years, which was how long Henri was expected to live. By the time he died in 1883, however, the Republic had won many more supporters, and the constitution was not re-opened because the monarchists had lost the upper hand. --Xuxl (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Candidates for the Greek throne
Who were all the candidates for the throne after the Greek head of state referendum, 1862? So don't mention the candidates that received votes since most were turned down because of their association to one of the Great Powers. I know there were Ernest II, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Prince Wilhelm of Baden (1829–1897). There must have been more since the choice and candidates seem to be all over the place. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- The election of the Greek king was very closely tied to the Mediatisation of the German principalities over the long trip towards German unification; there was a strong pressure to give the dispossed "great families" something to rule. Having a ruling class with nothing to rule and several Balkan states with no one to rule them seemed like a "hand-in-glove" solution for the Conservative elements of the Concert of Europe. I'm sure that active campaigning or announcing one's candidacy publicly for such a position would have been seen in the worst of form for the day (even candidates in Republican governments like the U.S. didn't formally campaign at this time), so there may not be an "official" list of candidates. It was basically open to any dispossed German prince, of which there were probably dozens. --Jayron32 16:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Most of the candidates were younger sons of ruling families or relatives of one of the Great Powers (France, Britain and Russia). Mediatised nobles were hardly ever considered because they were one level below those of the ruling families; the only mediatised German noble who received a throne in the Balkan was William, Prince of Albania. And there were probably no "campaigning", the Greek politicians and the Great Power chosed the candidates and asked the candidates afterwards.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Also who were the other candidates the first time around when Otto was chosen. I know there were Prince Frederick of the Netherlands, Leopold I of Belgium and Prince Louis, Duke of Nemours.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Russian film-maker, Battle of Stalingrad & Battle of Dien Bien Phu
Hello learned humanitarians ! While watching a documentary about war photographers & cameramen, I failed to note the name of a russian film-maker, famous for its views of huge winding files of POW after the battle of Stalingrad & the battle of Dien Bien Phu : something like "Karmen" (???) . You know him, of course... Thanks a lot beforehand, t. y. Arapaima (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- See Roman Karmen. Alansplodge (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot AlanS. ! Arapaima (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
ResolvedCANFORCE ONE
According to Call sign, a Canadian Air Force aircraft will use the callsign "CANFORCE ONE" when carrying the Prime Minister or the Governor General. What if both of them are flying, but in different aircraft (e.g. one goes from Ottawa to Toronto, the other from Ottawa to Vancouver); is it possible for two aircraft to use the same call sign at the same time? 2001:18E8:2:1020:481B:2041:9088:9F9C (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thinking back to my days as a pilot (albeit in the US and not Canada), I can tell you that two aircraft in different airspaces can have the same call sign because it's just a call sign. Each aircraft's tail number is unique though. While both aircraft are in the same airspace, the tower would make it clear which they were talking to by using the tail number. On occasion while around a busier airport, I'd sometimes here things like "Piper Cherokee N123MW, you are now Cherokee Mike Whiskey" because another Piper Cherokee had entered the same airspace. The "Mike Whiskey" part are the last two letters of the plane's tail number. Dismas|(talk) 19:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- The logical assumption would be canforce two, not that logic ever got anyone anywhere. μηδείς (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think our article might just be wrong. I can't find a reliable source, but Google has found me several unreliable ones saying that CANFORCE ONE is just used for the Prime Minister and RIDEAU ONE is used for the Governer-General. --Tango (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think I've found one of the unreliable sources you mentioned, at http://www.liveatc.net/forums/listener-forum/canforce-zero-one/?wap2. In that post, they quote from the Air Traffic Control Manual of Operations, which can be found here: www.czvr.ca/_Controller_Resources/_Training/ATC_EN.pdf. I'm not quite sure if it qualifies as a reliable source, but on page 70, or section 132.3, it outlines what flights carrying VIPs are identified: the Governor General (RIDEAU 01), the British Royal Family (ROYAL 01 -09), the Canadian Prime Minister (CANFORCE 01), and other heads of state or government (CANFORCE 02-19) which I am assuming means leaders of other countries. ROYAL 10, RIDEAU 2, and CANFORCE 20 are used for pre-positioning flights, a term that someone else may be better able to define. Hope some of this helps. 142.104.135.185 (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- A pre-positioning flight is when an empty airplane is moved to where it's going to be needed. (In the case of a VIP transport, "empty" means the VIP isn't on board.) --Carnildo (talk) 01:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think I've found one of the unreliable sources you mentioned, at http://www.liveatc.net/forums/listener-forum/canforce-zero-one/?wap2. In that post, they quote from the Air Traffic Control Manual of Operations, which can be found here: www.czvr.ca/_Controller_Resources/_Training/ATC_EN.pdf. I'm not quite sure if it qualifies as a reliable source, but on page 70, or section 132.3, it outlines what flights carrying VIPs are identified: the Governor General (RIDEAU 01), the British Royal Family (ROYAL 01 -09), the Canadian Prime Minister (CANFORCE 01), and other heads of state or government (CANFORCE 02-19) which I am assuming means leaders of other countries. ROYAL 10, RIDEAU 2, and CANFORCE 20 are used for pre-positioning flights, a term that someone else may be better able to define. Hope some of this helps. 142.104.135.185 (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Meo = Hmong?
I just read some 1960s newspaper articles about Pop Buell, all which speak of him as working with a people called the "Meo" in the Laotian hill country. They're definitely not Muslim Rajputs from North-Western India, and the name "Hmong" doesn't appear in the article at all. Is this an error reproduced across many newspapers, or are/were the Meo a tribe of Hmong, or is there some other solution? 2001:18E8:2:1020:481B:2041:9088:9F9C (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- An alternate spelling of Miao people, I think. Rmhermen (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Link added to Meos; thank you. Could you please fix the display issues on the Miao article? I can't figure out how to keep the bullets from overlapping with the left-side photograph. 2001:18E8:2:1020:481B:2041:9088:9F9C (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- There are many different people groups in "the Laotian hill country" including various Mon-Khmer, Tibeto-Burman, Hmong-Mien, and Tai groups. The term "Meo" is a transliteration of the Lao ແມ້ວ (Thai แม้ว), an exonym that the Lao use most often to refer to the Hmong people. The Thai/Lao term is probably derived from the Chinese "Miao" but is considered highly derogatory by the Hmong of Southeast Asia, in part because it is used by the Thai/Lao as a type of ethnic slur and also because ແມ້ວ/แม้ว is reminiscent of แมว (differing only in tone), the onomatopoeic equivalent of a cat's "meow" in English. So to answer your question: yes, "Meo" in your articles most probably refers to the Hmong, but "Meo" doesn't equal "Hmong".--William Thweatt TalkContribs 18:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Viktor Yushchenko's dioxin poisoning
Some people claim the evidence for Viktor Yushchenko's poisoning was falsified. How did those people explain his chloracne?A8875 (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- You want us to explain the unsourced conspiracy theory allegedly held my some random people you haven't named, and supposedly expressed in some venue you haven't specified? How should we know what some unknown crazy person thinks? 146.90.121.119 (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Never mind, found it. "It was a mere food poisoning. The diagnose was determined yet on the first day, and every third person in the world often suffers from such poisonings. It is pancreatitis."[8]A8875 (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Looking at the source, it just looks like a blatant attempt at a coverup. The evidence was quite clear. StuRat (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's reasonable to expect that the ones who poisoned him would have claimed that the evidence was falsified. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- As our article makes clear, the evidence was not so clear. To answer the OP's question: [9] says: "In other words, both rosacea (accounting for Yushchenko’s outward appearance) and pancreatitis (internal symptoms) can be brought on by excessive alcohol consumption."John Z (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- The person who wrote that about rosacea must be red/green colour blind! Rosacea, by its very nature, results in red skin - not an overall green appearance! LOL! --TammyMoet (talk) 08:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hence its name. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 09:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. That "source" reads like somebody paid off by the Ukraine officials to distribute misinformation. StuRat (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- As I said, our article does not treat the dioxin poisoning theory as fact. I think it unlikely that Ukrainian officials were paying off Texan internists, or the medical director of the clinic in Vienna where Yushchenko was treated. As for his coloration, I don't see any tremendously green appearance in the article, and there is no doubt that the internal ailments he had can cause jaundice, yellowish coloration which can even be greenish.John Z (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- But what does any of that have to do with rosacea ? StuRat (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Name of a Washington official brought down for petty theft
I remember a couple of years ago hearing about a guy who I believe was a fairly high-level person either in the White House or in the U.S. government in general who was found to have a history of going to places like Target, buying small to medium sized merchandise, taking it home, then going back to the store, receipt in hand, then going and picking up an identical item off the shelf, and then going to the return desk to "return" it. Who can tell me what the guy's name was? 67.163.109.173 (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- You probably mean this. It took about 5 seconds to find with a search engine. 67.122.211.84 (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm, he gave up a $161,000 a year job to steal a few hundred dollars worth of goods. Sounds like a kleptomaniac to me, who stole for the thrill, not for the money. StuRat (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Funny to see that question so soon after this. —Tamfang (talk) 07:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Where's the date on that? 67.163.109.173 (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Check the receipt. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
August 16
How Come the West Opposes the Partition of Kosovo?
If they're arguing for self-determination, wouldn't it be best to allow the Serb-majority areas in North Kosovo to rejoin Serbia? Also, I really don't see how Serbia would agree to (eventually) recognize Kosovo without getting the Serb areas of Kosovo back. Futurist110 (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Did they become Serb-majority areas by ethnic cleansing ? That is, by moving in Serbs and killing or moving out the natives ? If so, you could see why supporting their desire to rejoin Serbia amounts to endorsement of ethnic cleansing. Imagine if, post-WW2, Poland had said "well, these areas were Polish, but since the Poles were all moved out or killed, and Germans live there now, I guess we should just give it to Germany". StuRat (talk) 06:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Eh, No, I don't think so. Kosovo's population was about 1/3 Serb in 1900 or so (if I remember correctly), but it's less than 10% Serb now. I would assume that Serbs were a majority in North Kosovo for several hundred years, and probably previously in some other parts of Kosovo where they recently lost their majority to the Albanians. Futurist110 (talk) 07:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe they should all just move to Serbia and then everyone would be happy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- The comparison with Poland and Germany after WWII is singularly unhelpful as what actually happened was that Poland (having had large parts of its pre-war territory in the East taken by the Soviet Union), took areas of land in the West that historically had significant ethnic German populations and expelled (almost) all the Germans. See Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II. (This is a contentious issue and I'm not interested in a debate on the moral rightness or wrongness of this, just pointing out the actual events). The comment that all the Serbs in Kosovo should move to Serbia and then everyone would be happy would seem frighteningly simplistic and wholly unhelpful in answering the OP's question. Valiantis (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think it is a question of "the West" opposing a partition of Kosovo... Its more a question of "the West" recognizing that the government of Kosovo strongly insists that the territory in question is part of Kosovo, and that the Kosovars would totally reject the idea of having it be part of Serbia ... to the point where the war would re-start over the issue. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- The Kosovars might reject giving up the Serb-majority areas of North Kosovo to Serbia, but the Serbs in those areas want to rejoin Serbia. I don't see how one can argue for self-determination (even in "special cases" of ethnic cleansing) and refuse to let North Kosovo rejoin Serbia, since if I recall correctly, the KLA also committed some crimes against the Kosovo Serb population during the 1990s war with Serbia. Futurist110 (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, I want to point out that saying that Kosovo shouldn't give up Serb-majority areas because most of Kosovo's Albanians oppose it is like saying that Serbia shouldn't give up any of Kosovo in the first place due to the fact that most Serbs in Serbia oppose it. If both sides want to resolve their dispute, they will both need to make some painful compromises. Futurist110 (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Or they could do something incredibly annoying. Find all the houses occupied by Serbs, and declare the discontinuous piece of land that forms to be part of Serbia. Then you wind up with the borders of Kosovo looking like those of Baarle-Hertog, but at least each family will be in the country it wants to, and no one has to move! (or die.) Someguy1221 (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's quite impractical. More realistically, the part of Mitrovica on the north bank of the Ibar river and immediately adjacent areas near the Serbian border (i.e. North Kosovo) will probably continue to be somewhat independent of central Kosovo government authority. Of course, North Kosovo does not include several smaller remaining Serbian-majority areas in Kosovo, nor certain historical and cultural sites important to Serbs, such as the 1389 battlefield and the Medieval Monuments in Kosovo... What seems to me to be more unhelpful than opposing the partition of Kosovo is the international community insisting for the last 20 years that Nagorno Karabakh must remain under the sovereignty of Azerbaijan, despite a complete lack of any evidence that this can or will form the basis of an acceptable settlement or agreed resolution of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. We're coming up on the 25th anniversary of the disturbances of 1988, and all the main international players seem to be sticking with a consistently-losing strategy... AnonMoos (talk) 05:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- To be honest, I don't see the harm at all in giving North Kosovo to Serbia, since that will not create any messy boundaries and since both the Serbs and Albanians will end up in the country that they want to. As for the 1389 battlefield and the Medieval Monuments, they could either be turned into Serbian enclaves inside Kosovo or be turned into international zones. Futurist110 (talk) 07:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Even if those are Serb majority areas, there are bound to be non-Serbs there, too, and they would then be in danger, judging from how the Serbs treated non-Serbs in the recent wars (executing the men and raping the women). StuRat (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- You could just as well make the same argument for refusing to allow the Albanian-majority parts of Kosovo to secede because there are some Serbs there who would then be in danger considering how badly Albanians there (such as the Kosovo Liberation Army) have treated Serbs in the past. Futurist110 (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The Serbs in Kosovo actually are already de-facto in Serbia, as they are formally citizens of Serbia and they behave in that way (they refuse to pay their taxes, they get their passports, pensions etc. from Belgrade etc. etc.). The Kosovo government has tried but failed to reign them in, the standoff is continuing to this day. E.g., border posts are erected by KFOR but they are then vandalized by the Serbs.
Unless the Serbs voluntarily decide to become citizens of Kosovo, there is no way Kosovo can force them to become citizens. It is not practical to designate them as illegal aliens and forcefully deport them nor can they all be imprisoned for having violated the laws.
This situation will be formalized as soon as the international community decides that KFOR's mission should have a deadline. Count Iblis (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- They could confiscate their homes for failing to pay taxes. StuRat (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- You're missing the point -- even supposing that that were a useful and productive strategy, the Kosovo government does not exercise practical governing authority north of the Ibar. The Serbs are already disgruntled with the changeover from troops under UN command to troops under EU command (i.e. excluding Russians), and using those troops to intrude the Kosovo police into north Kosovo would start another war which nobody needs right now... AnonMoos (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
What is the raw number of total import entries into Canada in 2011?
I'm looking for the number of import entries made, not the dollar value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.98.14 (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- What does "import entry" mean? --Tango (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Presumably individual imported items. (Chips...potato, some corn. Long matches.) I can't find any info aside from dollar value, and I'm not sure it would be feasible to count them like that. We may be able to find the number of items for particular kinds of imports, but probably not all of them. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Entering an embassy to detain a person
Apparently the UK might "storm", as the news put it, the Ecuadorian embassy in London to arrest Julian Assange. I thought that the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations didn't allow that. I know that diplomats can be considered persona non grata and I suppose that there might be some method to close a foreign embassy and remove it's protection. What are the rules under international law that would allow the UK to enter the embassy without Ecuador's permisson? Sjö (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- There are no rules that would allow UK forces to ender the Embassy without permission. Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is very clear: "The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission." [10] So any "storming" would be in breach of the Vienna Convention, which is quite serious. The UK's choices, if it really wants to extract Assange, are to convince Ecuador to invite them to intervene or hand over Assange, or to do so without authorization and then plead extraordinary circumstances, invoking motives of health and safety. What would happen in practice, if they breach the Vienna Convention ? Ecuador could suspend or cut off diplomatic relations, or retaliate aggainst UK interests on its territory, and perhaps convince allied countries to do the same; in addition, it could seek international condemnation of the UK's action by the United Nations, the Organization of American States, etc. It's unlikely that the UK would like to be seen as behaving as a rogue state, just for the sake of Julian Assange. --Xuxl (talk) 08:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- One must set aside the intentionally inflammatory and eye-catching title carefully crafted by the newspaper editor in order to actually understand what is bring proposed here. As quoted in this article, 'Under British law we can give them a week's notice before entering the premises and the embassy will no longer have diplomatic protection," a Foreign Office spokesman said. So there is a British legal mechanism for shuttering embassies which allows for seven days' notice. If this action was taken, Ecuador would either be forced to release him into British custody or declare him an official diplomat of Ecuador (and presumably a citizen? not sure about this) which gives him diplomatic immunity that even the closure of the embassy cannot overcome. It's an interesting development to be sure, but one best avoid the idiotic article headlines. The Masked Booby (talk) 08:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- However, that provision is under British law and is not covered by the Vienna Convention, so it would be considered a breach of diplomatic protocol, with the serious repercussions outlined above. So it depends on how badly the UK wants to get Assange. I get a sense that there is some posturing going on to see how far both sides want to take this dispute. After all, the Ecuadorians have no great attachment to Assange, but they do place a high value on the protection of their diplomatic premises - as do all countries. --Xuxl (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- The Vienna Convention says the embassy is inviolable. It doesn't say that once you grant a country an embassy you can't take it back. --Tango (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- However, that provision is under British law and is not covered by the Vienna Convention, so it would be considered a breach of diplomatic protocol, with the serious repercussions outlined above. So it depends on how badly the UK wants to get Assange. I get a sense that there is some posturing going on to see how far both sides want to take this dispute. After all, the Ecuadorians have no great attachment to Assange, but they do place a high value on the protection of their diplomatic premises - as do all countries. --Xuxl (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- What's the British interest in him, anyway? He's not a British citizen and he's been charged with no crimes in any country. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 09:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- The UK has agreed to the European Arrest Warrant system, which means the UK must comply with Swedish requests. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- What's the British interest in him, anyway? He's not a British citizen and he's been charged with no crimes in any country. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 09:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think you can unilaterally declare someone a diplomat. They have to be recognised by the host country as such when the enter the country. --Tango (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- The UK is quite within its rights to do so, and it's consonant with its treaty obligations. The immunity to the legal processes of the host country enjoyed by diplomats and diplomatic premises is a grant made by the host country, by dint of those treaties, not a right enjoyed because the diplomat's home country says so. The treaties' grants are not permanent - the host country can remove those privileges as it wishes. Host countries often say that a diplomat to whom they have granted protection will shortly no longer to be so protected; the host country has to allow a (pretty short) notice period, so that person can leave while still under the treaty protections. Similarly a host country remains sovereign over embassies, consulates, and other diplomatic premises, but agrees not to enter them under the treaty terms - but these grants too can, and occasionally are, rescinded. Again the diplomats have a notice period to remove themselves and either destroy or remove (by diplomatic bag) sensitive diplomatic documents. Such a removal of protection is pretty rare, and most commonly occurs on the outbreak of war - for example, on the outbreak of WW2 the UK told German diplomats to leave, and once they'd gone it seized the German embassy at Carlton House Terrace as enemy property. Similarly, during the Libyan civil war, the British government told the Gaddafi-aligned diplomats to leave, and once they were gone took the Libyan embassy in London and gave it to the rebels[11]. But the removal of an embassy's status is a big step, one usually reserved for outright military conflict or total breakdown of diplomatic relations. Ecuador would really have to reciprocate in kind, and without premises to work from, those diplomatic staffs that remained in each country would be greatly impaired in their work. I can't think of any situation where a western country has done this other than during a major breakdown of relations. Some countries don't allow foreign embassies freedom of location, forcing them to be located in a controlled diplomatic quarter, and very occasionally host countries will force embassies to move. I really don't think the UK is serious about doing this, as they can get what they want by just sitting outside the (surely very small) embassy for a year or two until the Ecuadorians or Assange get sick of the arrangement. The Ecuadorians disclosing the contents of a private meeting (in, if I might opine, rather theatrical terms) might suggest they're preparing to refuse Assange's application, but they'll do so saying "we woz bullied by evil imperialists", to save face. Embassies usually hate this kind of thing, and try to chuck such folks out whenever they can. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 11:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see that removing the protection of an embassy is spelled out in the convention, but perhaps it's more a question of case law or some other conventions that are relevant?Sjö (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't recall if any action was taken against Iran in 1979 when they stormed the US embassy and took about 50 Americans hostage for the next year-plus. Meanwhle, the articles I've seen indicate the Brits aren't ready to storm the embassy, they're merely watching it 24 x 7 to try and grab this guy who, by the way, has jumped bail and is in violation of British law. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- A number of countries (Canada for one) pulled their diplomats out of Iran and kicked Iranian diplomats out of their countries as a result of the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy; Iran was an international pariah for a number of years afterwards. So there were consequences. --Xuxl (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed. As our article Iran hostage crisis says, there were diplomatic and economic sanctions and even an attempt at a military intervention.Sjö (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- A number of countries (Canada for one) pulled their diplomats out of Iran and kicked Iranian diplomats out of their countries as a result of the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy; Iran was an international pariah for a number of years afterwards. So there were consequences. --Xuxl (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The letter from the British Government to the Ecuadorians says "You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the Embassy."[12]. Alansplodge (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Here's [13] an interesting article on using the 1987 Act. It was not designed for a case like the current one, and it's unlikely a British court would uphold its being invoked. Here's a direct quote: "Former [UK] government lawyer Carl Gardner says a court would likely rule that using the law against Assange would be inconsistent with the intent of the law." --Xuxl (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- As I understand it the 1987 act resulted directly from the Yvonne Fletcher shooting. It was put in place to provide the legal framework for resolution of situations where diplomatic staff were perpetrating crimes from within the building, for example a diplomat firing a sniper rifle from an upper window. In a case like that the procedure would presumably be to evacuate the area, give the seven days notice and then enter the building. The current situation is unlike that.Blakk and ekka 16:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- In the Yvonne Fletcher case, the Libyan diplomats had been expelled from the embassy by radical pro-Gadaffi students with the approval of the Libyan Government. They had established a "Libyan People's Bureau" in the building, which was still protected by diplomatic immunity even though the diplomats had departed. I'm not much of a lawyer, but I suspect that the 1987 Act was intended to close that particular loophole; ie it gave the Home Secretary the power to withdraw the diplomatic status of a building or piece of land "if he is satisfied that to do so is permissible under international law." Alansplodge (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- As I understand it the 1987 act resulted directly from the Yvonne Fletcher shooting. It was put in place to provide the legal framework for resolution of situations where diplomatic staff were perpetrating crimes from within the building, for example a diplomat firing a sniper rifle from an upper window. In a case like that the procedure would presumably be to evacuate the area, give the seven days notice and then enter the building. The current situation is unlike that.Blakk and ekka 16:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The building in question is shared with the Colombian embassy, which allows them to enter the lobby. 71.215.68.200 (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- There are two precedents in international law for storming the embassy to seize Assange. First is the abuduction of Adolf Eichmann from Argentina by Israeli agents and the second is the abduction of Osama Bin Ladin from Pakistan. Both of these technically violated international law and both of these involved criminals. One Legal scholar has found two criteria for violation of the Vienna Conventions: the criminal must have executed heinous crimes, and the hosting state is active in harboring the criminal.[14] This case will be interesting for international law because Assange's crimes, although heinous to his female victims, do not rise to the level of a terrorist or Nazi. Should the UK storm the embassy, Ecuador is free to seek relief from the UN Security Council. The UK is sure to veto any resolution against herself. There would be diplomatic fallout between the two countries which could harm long term relations and trade. To learn more about this, do an internet search for United Nations Security Council Resolution 138. Scholarly articles on international law which cite this resolution and those written about extraordinary rendition will discuss all of the legal ramifications of an arrest of Assange before he can be secreted away to a life of exile in Ecuador before he is finally abducted there by some government. Please excuse my mild sarcasm. Gx872op (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Alleged crimes and victims, please. Unless you have some information the rest of us don't? --Trovatore (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I would never use the term "alleged" when speaking to a rape victim. It diminishes their story. It is very difficult to encourage women to testify against their attackers, most decline but this does not mean that they are alleged victims. Gx872op (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. Just as rape is a terrible crime, to be falsely accused of being a rapist is likewise a terrible thing and can ruin someones life. To state as fact that a woman was raped automatically implies the accused is a rapist, which is worse than to remain neutral about the truthfulness of the accusations (indicated by the term 'alleged'). Note that the distinction is not between women who do press charges and women who don't; but rather between those that are really raped and those that forge the charge (which does happen). - Lindert (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly. Gx872op, you do not know that these women are telling the truth, and you should not assume it to Assange's detriment.
- Note that even if they are telling the truth, matters are a bit murky, as the acts the women are reporting seem by all accounts to have been in the context of a larger consensual sexual encounter. According to Assange's article, the reason they lodged the accusation was to make him take an HIV test. --Trovatore (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly, when you state alleged victim, you assume these two independent women are not telling the truth. When you say the victim of an alleged crime, you accept how they feel about what happened to them while accepting that the crimes have not yet been proven. The question is which story do you believe and it is apparent that you believe Assange without knowing all the facts. You may be critical of someone believing the victims, but you are doing the exact same thing with blind faith in Assange based on his politics. Regardless, Assange can never leave the embassy legally. Ecuador could attempt to hide him away to the airport where British customs would deny him from leaving. They could try to use diplomatic channels to get him out of Britain like Israel did with Eichmann, but that would be a violation of international law and British sovereignty. Britain or the U.S. would be just as bad if they were to take him back out of Ecuador through the same diplomatic channels, except in that case, they would have a basis in international law under the precedents of Bin Ladin, Eichmann and others. Indeed, if the U.S. really wants Eichmann, they would want him to travel to Ecuador. If the U.S. can get Bin Ladin, they can get anybody. However, I don't think the U.S. is going to prosecute. The only one who is saying this is Assange and that is an effort to escape investigation of the sex crimes alleged by his victims. Gx872op (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, you're quite wrong. When I say "alleged victim" I do not in any way exclude the possibility that she is a real victim. I simply limit myself to reporting what I know, namely that there is an allegation, and not what I do not know, which is whether or not there was a crime or a victim. --Trovatore (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly, when you state alleged victim, you assume these two independent women are not telling the truth. When you say the victim of an alleged crime, you accept how they feel about what happened to them while accepting that the crimes have not yet been proven. The question is which story do you believe and it is apparent that you believe Assange without knowing all the facts. You may be critical of someone believing the victims, but you are doing the exact same thing with blind faith in Assange based on his politics. Regardless, Assange can never leave the embassy legally. Ecuador could attempt to hide him away to the airport where British customs would deny him from leaving. They could try to use diplomatic channels to get him out of Britain like Israel did with Eichmann, but that would be a violation of international law and British sovereignty. Britain or the U.S. would be just as bad if they were to take him back out of Ecuador through the same diplomatic channels, except in that case, they would have a basis in international law under the precedents of Bin Ladin, Eichmann and others. Indeed, if the U.S. really wants Eichmann, they would want him to travel to Ecuador. If the U.S. can get Bin Ladin, they can get anybody. However, I don't think the U.S. is going to prosecute. The only one who is saying this is Assange and that is an effort to escape investigation of the sex crimes alleged by his victims. Gx872op (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. Just as rape is a terrible crime, to be falsely accused of being a rapist is likewise a terrible thing and can ruin someones life. To state as fact that a woman was raped automatically implies the accused is a rapist, which is worse than to remain neutral about the truthfulness of the accusations (indicated by the term 'alleged'). Note that the distinction is not between women who do press charges and women who don't; but rather between those that are really raped and those that forge the charge (which does happen). - Lindert (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I would never use the term "alleged" when speaking to a rape victim. It diminishes their story. It is very difficult to encourage women to testify against their attackers, most decline but this does not mean that they are alleged victims. Gx872op (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Alleged crimes and victims, please. Unless you have some information the rest of us don't? --Trovatore (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- But is the Vienna Convention relevant to the Eichmann and Bin Laden cases, where the actions took place on foreign territory, not in an embassy? There is no mention of the Vienna Convention in the article by Marshall Thompson that you linked, either.Sjö (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- The Eichmann case did involve the Vienna Conventions. Israel sent its Minister of Security to represent Israel during Argentina's Independence Day celebrations via an Israeli plane on a diplomatic mission. That same plane returned to Israel without the minister but carrying a drugged Eichmann. To answer your question, "Is the Vienna Convention relevant to the Eichmann and Bin Laden cases?" Yes, the convention is relevant as are all other treaties having to do with national sovereignty and what happens when it is violated. The persona non grata provision is usually discussed under the broader chapter of sovereignty in a law school textbook on international law. I gathered from your response that you believe that there is no relevance. Reading a law school textbook on international law would makes things clearer (or possibly more confusing for some people). Gx872op (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, yes. I failed to consider the "precedents in international law for storming the embassy" at the top of your text as I was more interested in the if and how an embassy's protection can be withdrawn. If that protection can be withdrawn, I suppose that the police could enter under the same regulations as on any other piece of British soil, couldn't they? Sjö (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- The Eichmann case did involve the Vienna Conventions. Israel sent its Minister of Security to represent Israel during Argentina's Independence Day celebrations via an Israeli plane on a diplomatic mission. That same plane returned to Israel without the minister but carrying a drugged Eichmann. To answer your question, "Is the Vienna Convention relevant to the Eichmann and Bin Laden cases?" Yes, the convention is relevant as are all other treaties having to do with national sovereignty and what happens when it is violated. The persona non grata provision is usually discussed under the broader chapter of sovereignty in a law school textbook on international law. I gathered from your response that you believe that there is no relevance. Reading a law school textbook on international law would makes things clearer (or possibly more confusing for some people). Gx872op (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- What still mystifies me most is how any charge in the U.S. is even conceivable. Even American journalists have pretty routinely published classified and leaked documents when they received them - for example, in the Plame affair when Robert Novak published the leak that Valery Plame was a CIA agent, he was not put on trial. Wnt (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think any charge would come from the United States. It is such a weak case, any criminal defense attorney would jump at the fame that high profile, winning representation would bring. The claims of Assange mostly detract from the focus on his actual criminal investigation in Sweden. If Assange assisted in plotting and obtaining classified material, that's one thing, but what is known is that he merely accepted the information from others, which is not a crime in the U.S. Gx872op (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Err, not to contradict, but my understanding is that while accepting information from others is pretty safe, republishing it is pretty clearly a crime in the US. ("Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, [etc.] relating to the national defense ..., willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, [etc.] to any person not entitled to receive it, [...] Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.'') Whether the law that makes it a crime is constitutional is a different story. Depending on how one interprets the intent of the distribution (something Assange's public statements probably wouldn't help), the sentencing varies (if you do it while intending to hurt the US or help a foreign power, the punishment goes up — all the way to capital punishment and/or life imprisonment if done during wartime). There's a fine line between the power of the Espionage Act and the safety of the First Amendment (see e.g. New York Times Co. v. United States), to be sure, but I see little reason to assume a priori that Assange's work would be protected by it. And of course it's true that newspapers are not usually prosecuted for reprinting leaks, but that's usually because they sit pretty clearly on the side of the First Amendment issue; I'm not sure if Assange would, being more anarchist than journalist. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see any aspect of Wikileaks' activities that is anything but journalism, and the release of these particular cables was done in collaboration with well-known newspapers from several countries. What is clear is that if Assange were prosecuted for reprinting these things, for "not being a journalist", then the classification system would be very clearly established as an intellectual caste system - one in which over 500,000 people could have free access to a large number of "secrets" on SIPRNet, but where the population at large would be denied access to them even after even the illusion of secrecy had been broken, with journalists defined as a specially selected group of licensed go-betweens with a carefully regulated power to give hints and intimations to the underclass about what weighty matters their masters and superiors might be contemplating. Wnt (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Of course I can't read the minds of hypothetical US federal prosecutors, but it's possible he could be charged not with publishing or receiving, but with obtaining. If a prosecutor alleges that Assange was an active participant in the espionage, perhaps by encouraging Pfc. Manning, they may try to pin him with something that can't be excused by the first amendment. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see any aspect of Wikileaks' activities that is anything but journalism, and the release of these particular cables was done in collaboration with well-known newspapers from several countries. What is clear is that if Assange were prosecuted for reprinting these things, for "not being a journalist", then the classification system would be very clearly established as an intellectual caste system - one in which over 500,000 people could have free access to a large number of "secrets" on SIPRNet, but where the population at large would be denied access to them even after even the illusion of secrecy had been broken, with journalists defined as a specially selected group of licensed go-betweens with a carefully regulated power to give hints and intimations to the underclass about what weighty matters their masters and superiors might be contemplating. Wnt (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- (ec)I don't think having a high profile criminal defense attorney is much of a consolation when they wisk you off to Bagram Air base, Guantanamo bay or extraordinarily rendition you to some other hell hole. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand why Assange would fall under US jurisdiction. China doesn't consider the CIA to be an illegal organization, despite the CIA working with illegally obtained classified information from China. If a Chinese organization were to do that, they could be prosecuted under Chinese law. But China won't pretend that their laws apply to US citizens if they aren't in China. So, why does the US want to enforce US laws on non-US citizens in their own countries? Count Iblis (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, Eichmann didn't commit his crimes in Israel. In fact, his crimes were actually done to enforce compliance with local laws, so there's precedent for this sort of thing. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Allegedly consensual intercourse accompanied or followed by alleged "molestation" followed by refusal to take an HIV test makes someone comparable to Eichmann and Bin Laden? Surely this is an insult to victims of the Holocaust and the 9/11 attacks. And it justifies the British government imitating a 1979 mob of Iranian students and invading an embassy? Amazing! Edison (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, Eichmann didn't commit his crimes in Israel. In fact, his crimes were actually done to enforce compliance with local laws, so there's precedent for this sort of thing. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand why Assange would fall under US jurisdiction. China doesn't consider the CIA to be an illegal organization, despite the CIA working with illegally obtained classified information from China. If a Chinese organization were to do that, they could be prosecuted under Chinese law. But China won't pretend that their laws apply to US citizens if they aren't in China. So, why does the US want to enforce US laws on non-US citizens in their own countries? Count Iblis (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Err, not to contradict, but my understanding is that while accepting information from others is pretty safe, republishing it is pretty clearly a crime in the US. ("Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, [etc.] relating to the national defense ..., willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, [etc.] to any person not entitled to receive it, [...] Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.'') Whether the law that makes it a crime is constitutional is a different story. Depending on how one interprets the intent of the distribution (something Assange's public statements probably wouldn't help), the sentencing varies (if you do it while intending to hurt the US or help a foreign power, the punishment goes up — all the way to capital punishment and/or life imprisonment if done during wartime). There's a fine line between the power of the Espionage Act and the safety of the First Amendment (see e.g. New York Times Co. v. United States), to be sure, but I see little reason to assume a priori that Assange's work would be protected by it. And of course it's true that newspapers are not usually prosecuted for reprinting leaks, but that's usually because they sit pretty clearly on the side of the First Amendment issue; I'm not sure if Assange would, being more anarchist than journalist. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think any charge would come from the United States. It is such a weak case, any criminal defense attorney would jump at the fame that high profile, winning representation would bring. The claims of Assange mostly detract from the focus on his actual criminal investigation in Sweden. If Assange assisted in plotting and obtaining classified material, that's one thing, but what is known is that he merely accepted the information from others, which is not a crime in the U.S. Gx872op (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Whatever -- regardless of dismissive airy hand-waving and/or the laws and conventions governing diplomatic enclaves, Assange largely brought his troubles on himself by poor decision-making on several separate occasions (whether or not he has committed a crime), and therefore he has few to blame other than who he sees when he looks in the mirror... AnonMoos (talk) 04:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- The US placed an allegedly troubled Army Specialist (one click above Private First Class) in a situation where he had unrestricted access to masses of classified info which he seemed to have little plausible need to see, and let him download hundreds of thousands of documents, such as old diplomatic cables? No one ever took a look at a log of what secret files he was accessing, and asked why? An intelligence organization with no internal checks? Then they want so badly to"render" the guy who published the stuff, that the Brits are ready to storm an embassy and send him to Sweden in preparation for the "rendition?" Edison (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure AnonMoos is primarily referring to his decisions relating to sexual intercourse and the events that follow, not what he may or may not have done re: wikileaks. I rarely agree with AnonMoos but for once I do. The idea Sweden would be more willing to cooperate in some sort of rendition of such a high profile but controversial target to the US, let alone somewhere like Guantanamo, let alone that the UK would be willing to storm the embassy but for some reason didn't just sent him themselves or keep him under closer watch is just strange. (Or for that matter that the US didn't if they're allegedly so desperate to get him.) The US has and continues to do many dodgy things but the conspiracies surrounding them and Assange are mostly just silly. And really from some of the dodgy things they did do, why would they be displeased about him going to the Ecuador? The US seems to think of the Americas (at least all countries southern of them) as their playground. If they really wanted Assange, getting him from Ecuador doesn't seem like a big problem. It's not like governments there have tended to be particularly stable. And besides if Assange really did matter to those in the US, you would think some in the US would prefer it this way. Another black mark on that 'wacky leftist government of Ecuador' another reason to push for 'regime change'. Why risk losing those supposedly friendly UK and Swedish governments by making them do something unpopular with their voters like rendering Assange? Frankly as wacky as this theory is, it makes more sense thet a lot of the stuff others are spreading around. Nil Einne (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
W203.27.72.5, I don't think your analogy with Eichmann holds, because Eichmann was involved in the persecution of Jews. Also Israel did not use the accepted legal rules to get hold of Eichmann. So, the question remains why US laws also apply to citizens who live in other countries, while the same laws of those other countries don't apply to US citizens in the US. So, Assange could be prosecuted in the US, but the American version of Assange who works with Russian classified information in a way that would be criminal in Russia would never face prosecution in Russia. Count Iblis (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- See universal jurisdiction: many countries' legal systems can prosecute people for crimes that took place outside their borders. Assange could only be prosecuted in the US if he went to the US, either by extradition or free choice, and I don't see why someone who had similarly enraged the Russian government wouldn't be prosecuted there. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Per 81, that article on universal jurisdiction is informative. I don't see what the fact that Eichmann persecuted Jews has to do with anything. He did it in Germany. You're whole argument above seems to be based on the concept that you can only be guilty of a crime if you did it in the jurisdiction where it's illegal. On a related note, the Australian government threatens it's citizens with charges if they bribe officials or engage in sexual conduct with minors (using Australian definitions of the age of consent) in foreign countries, even if it's legal or de facto legal in the jurisdiction where they do it. See [15]. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't appear that Ecuador is concerned about Sweden trying Assange on rape charges, their concern is the apparent willingness of Sweden to turn him over to US authorities for as-yet unspecified crimes. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
What is the statute of limitations in Sweden for what Assange is accused of there?
Count Iblis (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- The statute of limitations is ten years for rape and five years for sexual molestation. However, he was häktad on November 19, 2010, which means that he can be charged even after more than ten years.Sjö (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- (EC) I don't know, but bear in mind as per our Statute of limitations the time limit is sometimes suspended when on the run. although he hasn't been charged, since they are waiting to interview him to decide whether to charge him, this may apply. In other words, don't trust any raw number unless the source also appears to have consider whether this is an issue. Although [16] suggests the law in Sweden is or was somewhat different, at least when it comes to actual convicts. Nil Einne (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- It probably doesn't matter. In most jurisdictions the statute of limitations only applies to crimes for which there is no suspect (or more precisely, no indictment of a suspect). Once an indictment has been handed down, that person must stand trial for his/her crimes or remain a fugitive. For example, if one robs a bank but remains unidentified until the statue of limitations in that jurisdiction has expired, legal action, in most cases, can not be taken. However, if a definite suspect is identified sufficiently to warrant legal proceedings and said proceedings are begun (even if in absentia), then the statute of limitations will not apply.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 16:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's the case in Sweden. If a person is häktad or is served the indictment against him or her, the statute of limitions no longer applies, according to the Swedish Penal Code (Brottsbalken), chapter 35, 1 §.Sjö (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Assange got accused of having consensual sex with two adult women without using a condom, which is a crime in Sweden apparently based on some extremely old and obscure law that no one enforced before nowadays. Yes, I'm completely serious. Futurist110 (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Does it seem reasonable to you that condoms would be mentioned in 'extremely old' laws? 81.170.148.21 (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, because 100+ years ago most Europeans had a pretty conservative morality. Futurist110 (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- They had condoms then? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Lord Byron supposedly used condoms made from lamb intestines. Anyway, it seems that Assange could have kept events from spiraling out of control if he had agreed to get STD tests (as was asked of him long before any criminal charges were thought of)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- They had condoms then? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, because 100+ years ago most Europeans had a pretty conservative morality. Futurist110 (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- From the lede section of Condom: Condoms have been used for at least 400 years. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 22:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- There's even a separate article on the History of condoms, which says, "The oldest claimed representation of condom use is a painting in the French cave Grotte des Combarrelles; the paintings in this cave are 12,000–15,000 years old." Pais (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- From the lede section of Condom: Condoms have been used for at least 400 years. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 22:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- [citation needed] (to Futurist). The HeraldSun editorial doesn't say anything about an old or obscure law. BTW don't really want to do this for BLP reasons but I see no choice given this existing diversion. Have you actually read the charges [17]? Without commenting on the accuracy of the claims, it's more complicated then simply non condom usage as you seem to be suggesting. Personally as a male, if I clearly tell a woman I will only have sex with a condom, and wake up to find her fucking me without one, I would consider that some sort of assault even more so if I clearly tell her to stop upon waking up and she does not. I will probably try quite hard to stop her, and you can debate what it means if I don't or if I remain close to her after the event, but I would find the claim I wasn't assaulted just because I was able to stop her rather offensive. Whether I will consider it worth persuing may be another matter (if I later find out it's a regular pattern with her, this will likely affect the chance I will try). Similar to the way I would feel, if I agree to receive and perform oral sex on a random woman and wake up to find her pegging me. But perhaps that's just me.... Nil Einne (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Or the way I feel when I agree to perform and receive oral sex on a random woman only for her to back out once I've finished doing my part... 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- You have a habit of making such agreements with random women? Someguy1221 (talk) 09:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, the most involved discussion I've seen of these issues in general was in a TV series [18] which postulated the scenario of a "reproductive abuser" intentionally putting holes in condoms to deceive women. In principle there are many situations in which these things come up. Women who lie about taking birth control pills so they can write themselves a meal ticket. Men who lie or omit information about HIV or hepatitis. In some of these situations people can be sent to jail for very long terms - more often nobody can touch them. Wnt (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- My brother found his girlfriend putting holes in their condoms. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, the most involved discussion I've seen of these issues in general was in a TV series [18] which postulated the scenario of a "reproductive abuser" intentionally putting holes in condoms to deceive women. In principle there are many situations in which these things come up. Women who lie about taking birth control pills so they can write themselves a meal ticket. Men who lie or omit information about HIV or hepatitis. In some of these situations people can be sent to jail for very long terms - more often nobody can touch them. Wnt (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- You have a habit of making such agreements with random women? Someguy1221 (talk) 09:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think of scribd as a spam site, which contains nothing but content copied from somewhere else locked up under a mass of annoying scripts that make it difficult to read, let alone use. As such I note the document appears to be from [19]. The document isn't very clear on specifics, but seems consistent with the impression I've gotten so far that basically Assange is accused of shucking the condom when the women weren't paying attention, tricking them into having a sort of sex they didn't want, and thereby committing all these other improper actions because they were being subjected to an act they didn't want, plus also a claim that he initiated sex again later on ? when they were sleeping (literally) with him. It's all very confusing, and of course there's a tendency of some of us to be suspicious of whether this situation was procured by some means. Wnt (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Or the way I feel when I agree to perform and receive oral sex on a random woman only for her to back out once I've finished doing my part... 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for their input! Count Iblis (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Also see [20] which provides as detailed a timeline as I've seen. Wnt (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Democracy in India
India claims to be a democracy; how democratic is it actually in practice? --168.7.236.49 (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- There are free and contested multiparty elections. See Constitution of India, Politics in India and Elections in India You'll have to be more specific if you have a more specific concern, because we avoid opinion and do not engage in general debates at the Reference Desk. μηδείς (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- The Democracy Index rates India at 7.3/10, placing it in the category "Flawed Democracy", which is actually pretty good compared to other Asian coutries. - Lindert (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- NB France only gets 7.7 - still in the "flawed" bracket - so not that far behind some in the west. Alansplodge (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- See Corruption in India for some of the reasons why its democracy is considered flawed. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- A wonderful and enlightening fictional take on democracy in India is the book The White Tiger, published a few years ago and winner of the Man Booker Prize. Excellent book, and it helped me understand the depth of the problems of India's democracy, which are not limited merely to corruption. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- See Corruption in India for some of the reasons why its democracy is considered flawed. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Joseph Spiess date of birth?
I'm putting together some details for a brief article about Joseph Spiess who patented a rigid airship some months before Ferdinand von Zeppelin recorded his first musings on the subject. He finally got around to building his airship which had its first flight in 1913; the first and only rigid airship ever built in France. He donated it to the French Army on the eve of WWI, but they weren't really interested and it was scrapped soon afterwards. He's buried in the Cimetière du Père Lachaise whose website gives a date of birth of 1839, however another website says 1856. Can anybody confirm either date? French Wikipedia gives him no mention at all, even on their Fr:Ballon dirigeable page. Alansplodge (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- From the third photo down on this site, it would appear that 1838 is the recorded birth date on his grave. Sazea (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- This website says 1838, which is also inscribed on the tombstone (see image 3 of 4). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks both of you. Alansplodge (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't suppose anyone can find what he did for a living? He obviously didn't make any money from airships as he gave his only one away to the army as a present. It tends to suggest that he had a considerable income from somewhere else. Also, he was a Chevalier of the Legion d’Honneur. Is there a French equivalent of the London Gazette online that might say why and when he was honoured? Alansplodge (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
August 17
Sales pitch
Having just moved back to university for the school year I was lucky enough to be able to transfer my job as a cashier at Sam's Club from my hometown to here. As part of being a cashier at Sam's you have to sales pitch to members variously either to upgrade to the "Plus membership" (benefits: [21]) or to apply for a Sam's line of credit (either from Sam's itself or via Discover Card), with the primary sales point there being that if your order is $50 or more you'd save $20 instantly if you were approved. In my hometown I was able to preform relatively well, selling an average of one plus upgrade a week and four credits a week working 30 hours. The downside is that while this was pretty good for my club, the one I have transferred to is in a larger city (about twice the size) and is likely to be more strict on wanting the 4+ upgrades and 5+ credits a week that we're technically supposed to get. On top of this I will be working substantially fewer hours (probably between 10 and 20 a week). To help me reach these levels, what would be the most effective ways to sales pitch members on either upgrading their membership or applying for a Sam's line of credit? What would people be most receptive to hearing that would make them want to do one of these two things? Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm definitely not in your demographic, as any store that requires a membership fee sounds like a total scam to me. Also, if I was a member and was trying to bring a 55 gallon barrel of mayo to the checkout with a forklift, the last thing I would want to hear is a sales pitch. However, I suggest you aim your sales pitch at the talkative ones, because they might be more willing to listen (and heck, they deserve it). The money back offer if not satisfied is about the only selling point I see for the Plus card. It promises "more savings" but doesn't put numbers on any of it, except the pharmacy part. My spidey-sense scam alert is tingling again. As for the line of credit, how about low interest rates ? Will I lose my house to pay off that barrel of mayo ? StuRat (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- But StuRat, think of the savings!! If the deposed Crown Prince of Nigeria sent you an unsolicited email offering you 10% of his family fortune in exchange for your bank account details, would you think that's a scam too? 149.135.147.66 (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- So once Sam's Club gets your financial details Stu, they're going to close up their 600 locations and be gone like a thief in the night? The OP is legitimately asking a sales question. And in that vein... Stu is right in that the talkative ones will probably have a better return for you. Also, since you say this is a college town, you might be able to get college kids with the line of credit pitch. I know that when I was in school, reps from Discover, Visa, etc had tables set up in the quad to get college kids to sign up for credit cards and they were doing a brisk business of it. I'd pick a couple big perks that the customer could get from the deal and mention that first right out of the gate. So no, "How'd you like to sign up for..." Instead, go with "You could save blah blah if you sign up for..." Dismas|(talk) 10:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's not that they'd close, it's that you'd never save as much as you spent on the membership fee. If it costs $100 a year to be a member, and you save only 1% per visit, you'd need to spend $10,000 there each year just to break even. Then you have to consider that a lot of the oversized items you buy at such places are bound to spoil before you can use them, and that discount sales at other stores no longer benefit you as much, because it then makes it that much harder to break even at Sam's Club. So, before I would sign up for such a plan, I'd need to be convinced that their prices are always much lower than every other store's sales prices. A simple claim that they have lower prices won't do it, as every store claims that. I'd need proof, and to know exactly how much lower the average item is, not a few they select.
- We could also apply game theory and ask why they would require a membership fee ? This would appear to be a negative for them, as it limits their customer base. So, there must be a corresponding positive, like that many people never recoup the membership fee. This makes it look more like Scam's Club than a grocery store. (I'm reminded of the old Entertainment Book, where you paid $50 for $5000 worth of coupons. Sounds like a great deal, until you consider that most of those coupons are for, at most, 25% off items you'd never want, which are priced at twice the competition's prices.) No, spending money to get future discounts just doesn't make a lot of sense. StuRat (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- If Wikipedia can tell you the magic formula to get an extra customer every week, surely others will find out about it and soon your Gods will decree that you must sell an extra subscription every week. It's not like you can make your pitch in private. Unless you thought you'd get pity sign-ups from naive refdesk readers, in which case I can only say that by now you know that's a hopeless cause. :) You have to understand - humans are excess. Humans are waste product. Your bosses need an excuse to fire some people every week so the rest stay in terror. The homeless have to be ground up to make specialty dog food for celebrities. It's an immutable law of nature, decreed by the Gods themselves, beyond all human capacity to reason or dispute or oppose. Wnt (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Question about the psychological/sociological perception of someone to a given situation in a Culture
Is colonial mentality a disgusting thing to be look down upon or it is not necesarily so for it is an individual's preference of living not to be criticized? (Let us exclude for this moment the economic effects and choose only from any of the notions above, please answer directly.)I am searching of how the world views such situation, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalayo (talk • contribs) 05:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions". How's that for a direct answer? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Did you actually understand the question? If so, please translate. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- I understood enough of it to know that it was asking for opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- That much is certain. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Yet another Assange question... Why Ecuador?
Simple enough, why Ecuador? Did Assange shop around as best he could to find a gov't that was sympathetic to him or what? Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 06:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Doesn't Rafael Correa have a tendency to pick a fight with the U.S., similar to some other current left-leaning Latin American leaders like Hugo Chavez? If so, then that would probably be a part of the reason as to why Assange chose Ecuador. Futurist110 (talk) 07:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- See Reactions_to_the_United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak#South_America. Deputy Foreign Minister Kintto Lucas offered him residency there, which was later retracted pending further consideration, and then apparently considered and accepted. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both. I see there are some answers at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Julian_Assange_and_Ecuador as well. Thanks again, Dismas|(talk) 08:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Most married monarchs
Who is the most married European male monarch and who is the most married European female monarch (officially recognized monogamous unions). I am looking for someone beyond Henry VIII (6) or Ivan the Terrible (8).--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's widely ackownledged that Henry VIII was not monogamous. 149.135.147.67 (talk) 09:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- He was only married to one woman at a time.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, but he frequently had mistresses on the side. 149.135.147.46 (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Mistresses are not wives.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 10:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think the OP is wanting to exclude polygamous unions such as apply in certain Eastern countries. I doubt if these have ever been a feature of European marriage customs, so the mention of "monogamous" served only to confuse the issue. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 09:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 10:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- There have been cases of official polygamy by European monarchs, such as Philip II of Macedon (father of Alexander the Great). The most married female monarch I have found so far is Mary, Queen of Scots (3 times). - Lindert (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, but he frequently had mistresses on the side. 149.135.147.46 (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- He was only married to one woman at a time.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
| Non-European monarchs are out of scope |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Regarding the above hatted discussion, Cleopatra VII was Greek, even though she ruled Egypt, hence arguably European. --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- You could say she was European (in a sense) and that she was a monarch, but not a 'European Monarch' imo. If we used that logic, G.W. Bush would be a European president (because of his obviously European ancestry). - Lindert (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- So, Cleopatra was a European-African monarch, just like Obama is an African-American president. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- You could say she was European (in a sense) and that she was a monarch, but not a 'European Monarch' imo. If we used that logic, G.W. Bush would be a European president (because of his obviously European ancestry). - Lindert (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
New benchmark; I found Joan I of Naples (4 times). Are there any female rulers who married for more than four times?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Religious implications of extraterrestrial contact
How would extraterrestrial contact affect Earth's major religions? Wouldn't it disprove at least the Abrahamic religions? --168.7.232.125 (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't really see how, actually. AFAIK there's nothing in Jewish, Christian or Islamic scriptures that excludes the possibility of God having created life elsewhere. If intelligent life were discovered, this would however create significant moral dilemmas; e.g. does 'thou shall not kill/murder' also apply to non-human intelligent life? - Lindert (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- That God would know of the existence of alien civilizations and fail to mention them, or how humans should react with them, would be added to the rather long list of other things God would presumably know about, but failed to mention, like the extreme age of the Earth and universe, that the Earth rotates about the Sun, the existence of dinosaurs, etc. The more of these you add up, the more it becomes apparent that the Bible/Koran/Torah wasn't written by an omniscient being, but by people with rather limited knowledge of the universe. StuRat (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Or that it wasn't important to the relationship between humankindand God (although some insist otherwise). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Nobody ever claimed the Bible was written by an omniscient being, Stu. Moses is said to have written most of the early books of the Old Testament; the New Testament had multiple authors, including Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul etc. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 21:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've met a couple of people who claimed the Bible was written by an omniscient being, but they were real nutters. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- As have I. They usually say that the authors of the Bible were inspired by God, so those are God's words, not their own. Presumably this logic would then be extended to say anyone who translated the Bible or decided which books to include or omit was also inspired by God. Thus, they consider the Bible to be the perfect word of God, "even the bits that contradict the other bits" - Ned Flanders. StuRat (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- What would be really interesting would be to find out the religious views, if any, of the ETs. For example, Mormonism is based on the idea that Jesus made an appearance in North America. What if creatures from a planet around Alpha Centauri said Jesus had visited them also. (Or any religious figure you'd care to mention.) That would raise some eyebrows. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Huh that's an interesting twist. The OP made it sound like their existence would disprove religions, when in fact, it may confirm it, if they appear with a similar religion. Who knows. Look, did evolution disprove religion? No, although there are still some people who don't believe in it. I think it'd be the same here. No reason to disprove anything, but you'll have your bunch who will turn a blind eye to it (which is just silly). --Activism1234 14:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- I happen to know that Catholic thinkers have pondered this, at least. If nobody has dug you up relevant links by the evening (when I have more time), I'll see what I can get you. 86.157.148.121 (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- You might want to watch the movie Contact (film). It deals with your exact question. As for my take, religous people have always rationalized their beliefs. Presumably they would do the same with the discovery of aliens. Evolution for example disproved the book of Genesis, and that alone should have disproved Abrahamic religions, but of course people began to make stuff up, reject the book of Genesis (but accept the rest of the bible which makes the bible make even less sense), rationalized their religion and of course out right deny evolution. I recall there was a time when scientists claimed they may have found the body of jesus, and christians were saying that even if they did find his body, they believed his soul was resurrected. So as you can see, people always rationalize. See cognitive dissonance. 148.168.40.4 (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Who rejected Genesis outright? Never heard of that, and not saying it's not true, but would be interesting to learn more about. Also, you're making a really gross and far-fetched assumption that it should've disproved religion outright, which is hardly the case. --Activism1234 15:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- The usual argument in logic is that if any part of a logic statement is false, then the entire statement is false. StuRat (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- First and foremost, my arguments are mostly in regards to christianity, not all religions. Lots of christians reject the bible entirely but still believe in jesus and believe he is the messiah. I know lots of christians who also believe in evolution, and are not creationists. There are lots of christians who believe in creation and also believe in evolution. Basically any permutation you can think of, they exist. There are even some rare christians who are also atheists, not sure how that works but they exist. Your last statement basically proves the point I was making lol. As StuRat mentioned, if a belief in god is based on the teachings of the bible, disproving any of the claims the bible makes on the feats god purportedly has done also disproves the god the bible teaches about. Now you can still believe in god, it just won't be the same god described in the bible. It is, by definition, a different god since the god you believe in couldn't have done the feats the bible claims he has done. 148.168.40.4 (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK, but how does that apply to evolution? Which feat does that supposedly reject? Anyone who picks and chooses what to believe from a sacred text is to me plain ignorant, but I don't see why someone can't be a religious person in any of the Abrahamic religions and yet still believe in evolution... --Activism1234 21:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- You could be an atheist yet still believe in most of the teachings of Christ, like caring for the poor, not judging others, turning the other cheek, and, of course, looking like a hippie. :-) StuRat (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly. Now whether or not he actually taught those things or had those characteristics is a completely different story. We have no eyewittness accounts, and we don't know who wrote the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as there are no autographed manuscripts. However most historians agree that whoever wrote them were not eyewittnesses and were reporting on hearsay. The oldest of them were dated to a few decades after jesus died. But even if they were eyewittnesses, that hardly means anything since they could easily have been lying, delusional, misinterpreting, misremembering, etc. Taking into account how people have a tendency to deify celeberties and think they are perfect, it's likely that a similar phenomena was taking place in those accounts. 148.168.40.4 (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason to doubt that those were the teachings of Christ, since they were the most contemporary accounts we have. By contrast, both earlier Jewish teachings and later Catholic teachings tend to disagree, especially on the "not judging others" and "turning the other cheek" parts. StuRat (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- An account written a few decades after jesus died is not a contemporary account. Plus they were written by his supporters who revered him. 148.168.40.4 (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- But why would they make up those beliefs and ascribe them to Jesus if he didn't believe them ? If their own beliefs were that different from his, they would find somebody else to deify. StuRat (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- How many Elvis Presley fans say he didn't do any drugs? On wikipedia even, someone once wrote that Hilary Clinton was valedictorian of her highschool and it remained on wikipedia for months until a news report stated it was wrong. ScienceApe (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- But Elvis and Hilary Clinton were famous for other things. Jesus was only famous because his followers choose to write about him. That would be like saying Elvis never sang a song but his followers all got together to claim he was a famous singer, or that Hillary never married Bill Clinton but her supporters got together to start the rumor that she did. If Elvis never played rock and roll, he wouldn't have any supporters, at least not any rock and roll fans. Mind you, I believe that all those miracles were invented (or faked at the time). Here the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" rule applies. However, the beliefs of Jesus, while a bit unusual, were not extraordinary, so I tend to believe what was written about them. StuRat (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Jesus wasn't famous for being a nice person. He was famous because purportedly he was the son of god. Obviously if you believe that, you're going to say nice things about him. The point I was making was that fanatics of any individual tend to deify them. Watch the following, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_21XD74JKHw ScienceApe (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- The attributes attributed to Jesus would make him look more like a nut than a nice guy, to most people, at that time. StuRat (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Which is why the ones who believed he was a nut didn't have anything nice to say about him or his followers. But his followers obviously idolized him when he was probably just a nut. Look at modern day cult leaders. All of their followers idolize them, but everyone else sees them for the nutters they are. ScienceApe (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- The 'not judging others' part is often taken woefully out of context. Jesus routinely judged people, which many did not like.: "[The world] hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil". Jesus preached 'repent or perish' and offended quite a few with his You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell? and by calling people who asked him a question an evil and adulterous generation. The consistent interpretation of 'don't judge' is found in John 7:24: "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." - Lindert (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Again, see cargo cult. μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Actual answer to the actual question. These links should give you an idea of the general Catholic view on the question, and give you further places to look if you want to read further. Report on an amusing booklet published by the Catholic Truth Society. An article based on an interview with the head of the Vatican Observatory, which goes a little into the actual theological musings this topic prompts. There's more, but that's probably enough for one faith.
- Incidentally, to those who buy in to a historical narrative that imagines all Christians were 6-day, Young Earth Creationist, Fundamentalist Literalists for most of history, until Darwin came along and the faith had to be allegorised, I can only recommend a read of St Augustine's On the literal meaning of Genesis (early 5th century), and perhaps a consideration of the history of Biblical hermeneutics, Allegorical interpretation, Allegory in the Middle Ages, etc? Allegory is not some new thing that came along and replaced literalism recently: quite the opposite, although I cannot find a decent Wikipedia article on the rise of Biblical literalism in the 19th century non-conformists. 86.157.148.121 (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes people have been rationalizing the bible before Darwin. Lots of people knew or suspected that the Earth was a lot older than what the bible said it was. Doesn't change the fact that they were rationalizing it to fit reality. ScienceApe (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- In the case of Augustine, that's not really accurate. He specifically defended the traditional dating of creation according to the Septuagint, against those that advocated an older earth. He just believed God created everything in an instant c. 7500 years ago, but that Moses used 'creation days' as a literary device to describe that. There was no 'reality' that forced him to conclude this apart from the biblical text itself (even though I personally don't find his interpretation compelling). - Lindert (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Religious implications of extraterrestrial contact (arbitrary break)
- Having not read the novel, is the article summary accurate? An alien race following a morality "written on their hearts" which conformed with Catholic morality, even in the absence of religion, would actually fit with Catholic teaching, rather than conflicting with it. 86.157.148.121 (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- But the conflict is whether or not Jesus died for the sins of non-humans, and if not, they cannot be considered to have souls. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
One could argue that God or gods in general are extraterrestrial anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The OP may be interested in Theistic evolution, and for more in-depth, Islamic views on evolution (Christian views is included in the theistic article). However, if you're still confused, as these articles basically just say that scholar X says that evolution doesn't contradict the Bible, but doesn't explain how that's possible, Orthodox scientists respond to Darwin, which seems to me to actually go in-depth at why they feel that way and how they reconcile the two beliefs, as well as using ancient commentary rather than just changing a view. Hope it helps, even if you don't believe it, still interesting. --Activism1234 23:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have to second A Case of Conscience. It, The Sparrow, The Mote in God's Eye and Speaker for the Dead are some of the best first-contact and four of the best all-round sci-fi novels ever written. The latter two novels don't go very far into religious questions, though, especially not Mote. The Sparrow is about a priest sent on a first-contact mission by the Vatican while the UN dithers. There is nothing wrong about the article on Conscience, except perhaps that it underplays the novel's classical status. μηδείς (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Why would a business operate this way?
I purchased something at Office Depot and happened to look at the back of the receipt and saw their return policy in tabular format as follows:
| If You Paid With: | Your Refund Will Be: |
|---|---|
| Cash or check greater than 10 days ago | Cash |
| Cash or check less than 10 days ago or Office Depot Gift Card | Office Depot Merchandise Card |
| Credit Card or Debit Card | Same Card |
Why would they give a gift card only usable at Office Depot to someone who paid by cash or check before they gave cash back? I'd venture to say that just about everyone agrees that cash you can use anywhere (including Office Depot) is better than a card you can only use at Office Depot, and it seems a reasonable assumption that if you're going to return it, they'd prefer getting it back sooner rather than later (they allow returns up to 30 days for most supplies with receipt) so there's less chance of any damage the receiving associate may not notice. Anyone who decided an hour after buying that they want to return it and notices this policy may well throw the thing into the bottom of their backpack and wait 10 days if they just want cash and not store credit (probably not for a $1.99 composition pad, but maybe if suddenly they found out they didn't need that $49.99 thingamabob they foolishly bought and they never really shop at Office Depot except for this one time). What's their likely logic? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- That you will either return the item immediately and they get to keep your money (especially if you forget to use the card before it expires), or you will leave the item in the bottom of your backpack until you forget about it and the return period ends, in which case they will also keep your money. Presumably they don't do this with credit cards since those companies demand a more reasonable return policy. StuRat (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, money on gift cards is held in escrow - the business doesn't actually get that money until it is used. eldamorie (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Or the card expires. In any case, they get the interest on it until it is used, any unused portion, and the amount of any purchase made which exceeds the card's value. So, gift cards are quite the bonus for any business and a terrible value for consumers. StuRat (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- (Citation for escrow, please.) Since a check might bounce I can understand why they don't give cash for something paid for by a check. It would be a quick way to get cash by check fraud, otherwise. Sjö (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Right, but that doesn't explain not being willing to refund cash, unless they are worried about counterfeit bills (but, of course, then people could just buy items with counterfeit bills and keep the change, at least until Office Depot starts giving out all change in gift cards, too). StuRat (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- True. It could be an attempt to avoid losing extra money from a scam where a customer pays for a small item with a large bill and claims they received the wrong amount of change, gets an extra twnety or so from the cashier, then returns the item for cash. As far as the escrow thing... this article seems to suggest that gift cards are treated as loans, and that consumer groups have attempted to regulate gift cards as escrow, but have not yet been successful. Of course, that article is four years old so it's possible the situation has changed since then. I was told that gift card funds were held in escrow by managers at retail jobs in the past, its possible that was a company policy or simply a misunderstanding eldamorie (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- In any case, whether it's held in escrow or not only really matters when they go bankrupt. StuRat (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- There have been plenty of cases of companies going bankrupt and their gift vouchers becoming worthless. I've never heard of there being escrow accounts. Here is Snopes on the topic. --Tango (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yet another reason why such things are bad for consumer. When I get a "$2 off your next purchase" coupon with my receipt, I turn right around and buy something worth $2. If I don't, the chance of me redeeming it is 50%, at best. The same would apply if they gave me a voucher or gift card. StuRat (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- re: "everyone agrees that cash you can use anywhere (including Office Depot) is better than a card you can only use at Office Depot"... well, not "everyone"... a cash refund may be great from the customer's POV, but from the business's POV it sucks. A business (such as office depot) wants you to spend your money at their store, and not somewhere else. If they give you cash, you might just walk out of the store and spend it elsewhere (such as at a competing office supply store). So, providing a refund in the form of store credit is simply good business practice. It removes the chance that you will spend the money elsewhere. Blueboar (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- I should have typed "every consumer" which was the intent of my mind when I wrote. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- "Good business practice" seems to neglect the harm that it does to future sales by pissing off their customer base. StuRat (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- It looks like the restriction is to protect against check fraud hence the ten day limit, by the way the table above doesnt reflect the table on the Office Depot website which says no time limitation on cash purchases just on checks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Something to ask about Italia?
Hello, I am going to write a novel about Leonardo da Vinci and history of Italia:
1) Are Italian language in Leonardo da Vinci's era and nowaday same? I mean, did Leonardo da Vinci say "ciao"?
2) What is traditional custom of Italian farmer in that era?
3) Who was the king of Italia in that era?
4) What is the most popular farm animals/plant/forest in Italia?
5) What is the most popular tradional song in Italia?
6) Do you know any countryside in Italia with farmers, a river, a forest, chursts in Italia?
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicknight94 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- One important thing lacking in your understanding is that Italy was not a single nation as it is now (except for the Vatican and San Marino). Many of the current provinces were independent nations then. StuRat (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- 1) The language would have been quite a bit different then. As for "ciao", as our article notes, it originated in Venice. It doesn't say when it spread to Florence, so I don't know if Leonardo would have used it. StuRat (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- The language has of course changed, but not as much as you might think. I find Leonardo's rough contemporary Niccolò Machiavelli to be reasonably readable, maybe about as much as Shakespeare (who was a century later). Has English changed a little faster, in some measurable way? Or is it just a side effect of me knowing contemporary English better and therefore being more sensitive to differences? --Trovatore (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- 2) There are many traditional customs. Perhaps drinking a bottle of wine with a meal is the most stereotypical custom (although this also applies to others, like the French). I'm not positive this would have been the custom among farmers in Florence in Leonardo's time, but I'm sure others can verify whether it was.
- 3) Leonardo da Vinci was born in the Republic of Florence. The Medici were the de facto leaders there, with Lorenzo de' Medici perhaps the one who most influenced Leonardo. StuRat (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- 4) Grapes and olives were certainly important in Italy then, as they are now, and were back in Roman times. StuRat (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Though note that many, many of the traditional foods that we associate with Italy today would not have been eaten then, because they relied upon new world crops that would not likely have made their way over by then. Tomatoes and potatoes, to pick two important ones, were not common at all in Europe during Leonardo's lifetime. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- 6) There will be many places with each of those things in Italy. However, farms and forest are somewhat incompatible, as land must be cleared of trees to make productive farmland. However, you can find them near each other. StuRat (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Without wanting to be unkind, may I suggest that if you want to write a novel about Leonardo and his time, then you need to do rather deeper research than asking a question at the Wikipedia Reference Desk. --ColinFine (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- I get the impression the story won't be about Leonardo, but will be about a contemporary farmer who just happens to live in his area. StuRat (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, it is a story about a time traveler goes to many era and resolve problems in the era, with help of era's famous people. Leo's era is just one of them.--Lê talk-contributions 23:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- That takes me back, way back, to be specific. StuRat (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I am going to do that. This is just my first step. Thanks you so much :D--Lê talk-contributions 23:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- P/S: When I said "custom", I mean "clothing". Sorry for my poor word.--Lê talk-contributions 23:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ah... I think the word you were looking for was "costume" not "custom"... for that, examine the art work of the period, especially those works which depict commoners. Blueboar (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Check out some books on Italian history at a library, I think that would help your story more unless you are writing a children's book, ie. the Magic Treehouse books.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
unsecured personal debt
Hi (this is just a request for references, not a solution!!)
I have no creditworthiness and will become homeless in a matter of a few months unless I can relocate from one of the poorest areas on the continent I'm in. I have a lot of experience elswhere. I calculated my personal demand for a loan as being almost vertical, as given the alternative of becoming homeless I am vey happy to spend half of my discretionary income on loan repayment. The principal of the loan I require is 2500 euros and is to be spent on nothing but a cheap plane ticket and deposit on a room while I start working elsewhere. Given the calculation above, I am happy to pay between 150% annual interest rate to up to 700% annual interest rate (just as long as I can repay whenever, e.g. after 2 months, after 3 months!) as well as a "loan fee" which increases the effective interest rate even if I repay sooner. I am an American and European citizen. I believe that the amount of interest rate that I can absorb is enough that I should be able to get the loan even in case that I am in a veryí "high-risk"-pool. Basically, I will do anything for access to this capital. What kind of financial or other institution can I turn to to make this a reality? For the purposes of this reference, I would like you to assume the near-vertical elasticity of demand for whatever reason (i.e. the fact that I'm going to be homeless soon) as that has other factors such as missing medical care I get free elsewhere but cannot get unless I'm a millionaire, etc etc. Assuming that my actual demand on the loan is as detailed above - where can I get it? Thanks. (by the way I've tried local banks, who do not give unsecured loans here.) --80.99.254.208 (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- You may be out of luck finding anyone willing to give you an unsecured loan if you tell them you plan to leave the country soon. You might contact the embassy of whichever nation(s) you hold citizenship. They may spring for a ticket home, for any citizens stranded aboard, as you seem to be. Once "home", you could go to a homeless shelter or such, until you save up enough to get you own place. But, of course, if you have any friends or relatives that would lend you money, that's another option. Also, have you considered selling your stuff ? Presumably you can't take it all with you anyway. If you have a computer, that might pay for a standby ticket home. StuRat (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I mean in the target country or one I don't plan to move to. I would not pick up the loan here. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, then you're asking somebody to loan money to somebody out of the nation, in the hopes that they will return and pay it back. Not gonna happen. StuRat (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Secondly, to be honest I don't have the guts to move someplace planning to stay at a homeless shelter. I want to rent a room with the money and accept a job. I can negotiate the latter from here. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Homeless shelters are not all flophouses. Many have individual rooms. Look for one run by a church or the YMCA. (Are you a member of a church ? If so, they might help you out.) Another option is places where you work for your rent. Are you handy with tools ? If so, they might let you stay in exchange for doing maintenance work. If not, then maybe yard work. StuRat (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with the suggestion to go to your nearest embassy and ask for help. Borrowing money is almost never the solution to serious money problems. You would be reliant on finding a job fast - if you didn't manage to find one, then you would end up with the extremely high interest compounding and you would be looking at bankruptcy. There is also the problem Stu mentions of trying to borrow money in one country and pay it back in another - you're not going to be able to do that (if you had an excellent credit rating, you might be able to get a loan from a global bank, but that doesn't sound like an option for you). --Tango (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- 700% interest (non-compound) on 2500 Euro is 17500 Euro/yr or around 4375 Euro/3 months. Add back the original principal and you're claiming to have the work skills to be confident of an ability to pay almost 7000 Euro to someone 3 months after getting this loan even though you're broke now. So you have these marketable enough skills to get relatively high paying work basically instantly, and yet you don't have enough personal or professional contacts to get the travel situation straightened out somehow. That doesn't sound realistic. Your IP address geolocates to Budapest, Hungary. Can I ask what the target country is and where to find that kind of work?
Seriously though, if your situation makes sense at all, I'd say to start contacting job prospects in the target country from where you are now, and try to land an interview (or better yet, an actual job offer) from where you are now. Depending on the type of work, if you're as employable as you say, you can possibly get the employer to pick up the travel expenses and pay you a few weeks of salary in advance to get you situated. The whole story sounds doubtful to me though. 66.127.54.117 (talk) 07:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
August 18
Common Law/Modern law
what is the difference between common law and modern law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cluelessnskool (talk • contribs) 05:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Common law is not opposed to modern law, but to statutory law. Common law is a set of precedents in the Anglo-Saxon law system going back to Germanic law precedents such as weregeld (which is long unhonored). Non-common-law systems go back to statutory law which declares itself the sole law, such as the Napoleonic code and the inquisitorial system where judges sit as prosecutors rather than objective mediators between prosecutors and defense counsel. μηδείς (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Might want to double check the historical and substantive function of the magistrate and the justice of the peace in terms of common law lacking an inquisitorial function; but, otherwise pretty good. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Once you prosecute 203 for his blatant plagiary below I will discuss how district attorneys and administrative law judges have replaced magistrates, seen as corrupt royal surrogates, in American law. μηδείς (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Right after I file suit for slander. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- At best, you can claim ignorance, and say you violated WP:OVERLINK due to ignorance, not having read my response at all. But your indentation is a prima facie indication that you read the posts above yours. So good luck with the claim of innocence. :) μηδείς (talk) 07:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- I read your response, but I opted to write my own since I didn't think yours was adequate for several reasons. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- At best, you can claim ignorance, and say you violated WP:OVERLINK due to ignorance, not having read my response at all. But your indentation is a prima facie indication that you read the posts above yours. So good luck with the claim of innocence. :) μηδείς (talk) 07:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Right after I file suit for slander. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Once you prosecute 203 for his blatant plagiary below I will discuss how district attorneys and administrative law judges have replaced magistrates, seen as corrupt royal surrogates, in American law. μηδείς (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Might want to double check the historical and substantive function of the magistrate and the justice of the peace in terms of common law lacking an inquisitorial function; but, otherwise pretty good. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Common law is not opposed to modern law, but to statutory law. Common law is a set of precedents in the Anglo-Saxon law system going back to Germanic law precedents such as weregeld (which is long unhonored). Non-common-law systems go back to statutory law which declares itself the sole law, such as the Napoleonic code and the inquisitorial system where judges sit as prosecutors rather than objective mediators between prosecutors and defense counsel. μηδείς (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) If that's a homework question, it's a bad one, because those aren't opposites. Common laws are those developed by years of tradition and court rulings, as opposed to legislative acts. However, modern laws can be either type, or, more often, a mixture. StuRat (talk) 06:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- The modern law system in most English speaking countries is based on common law and supplemented (or in some cases invalidated) by statutes. Common law is the body of law that is set by precedent. Statutes are the law made by the legislature (congress, parliament, etc.), and approved by the executive (president, Queen, King, governor general, etc). As an example, see how statutory rape contrasts with rape generally. Common law systems also generally incorportate the adversarial system of judicial process, where both parties argue their case to an impartial judge. Common law systems often also incorporate a jury for serious criminal and in some cases also civil matters. Modern law in countries with legal traditions primarily sourced from the Napoleonic code have no common law. Their law is purely statutory. These juridicitons generally use the inquisitorial system of judicial process where the judge or a panel of judges investigates facts on their own. They don't generally have juries, though some do have the similar concept of lay judges. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)