Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of humanities.

Welcome to the humanities reference desk.
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

  • Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question.
  • Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Post your question to only one desk.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. We'll answer here within a few days.
  • 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.

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:
Help desk
Village pump
Help manual

July 26[edit]

What is the sounding (and written) range of contrabass clarinet?[edit]

What is the sounding (and written) range of contrabass clarinet? Different sites are giving different ranges. (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

According to our article (Contrabass clarinet)→
Range of Bb contrabass clarinet + LA(3) at 440 Hz
It also mentions that there are two types "EE♭ (aka:contra-alto) contrabass clarinet" & "BB♭ contrabass clarinet". --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:807B:66FA:B5EC:A602 (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Parkinson's shuffle[edit]

I believe there is a particular word which describes the failure to lift the feet by people with Parkinson's disease. I think it may begin with C but I don't remember it. Can anybody help please? Kittybrewster 11:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Anything in Parkinsonian gait? --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Nothing. Kittybrewster 07:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Breakdown of victims of Islamic extremism, by category[edit]

Excuse the inflammatory nature of this question, but it is, IMHO, a fair one.

When a Muslim kills in the name of their religion (something I accept only a minority of Muslims do) the victim by definition falls into one of three categories. My guess is that they rank in this order:

  1. Fellow Muslims, whose version of Islam differs or is perceived to differ from that of the killer, or whose behaviour the killer sees as deserving death in Islam's eyes (shia vs sunni being perhaps the most common, but also religious vs secularised, fundamentalist vs moderate, "honour killings" motivated by Islamic beliefs, etc)
  2. "Infidels", or, (to quote the indictment against Abu Hamza al-Masri), "persons not of the Islamic faith" (Westerners, Christians, Hindus, Yazidis, etc) - but excluding Jews
  3. Jews (but excluding those killed in Israel or the West Bank by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict)

I exclude direct local victims of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as it has dynamics of its own, with the two peoples forced to engage with each other on a daily basis. Please DO however include Jews killed by Muslims (be they arab or non-arab or even Palestinian) outside Israel and the Palestinian territories. Please also DO include Israelis killed in Israel by Hizballah or other non-Palestinian arabs, who unlike the Palestinians, DO have the option of avoiding contact with Jews.

Can anyone point me to sources which would give me a breakdown on the number of victims which fall into each of these three distinct groups (intra-Muslim, "Infidels" and Jews), either in terms of raw numbers or percentages? Eliyohub (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The OP chooses to guess that victims of extremist murder are to be ranked in terms of some extremist's own pseudo-religious rhetoric. I suggest that someone close the whole question to prevent arguments proceeding on these unproductive categories. AllBestFaith (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree it should be closed, not to prevent arguments proceeding but simply because it is (as the OP himself notes) an inflammatory question that serves no useful purpose, even if answerable. --Viennese Waltz 15:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • This seems to be a source. --Jayron32 15:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Historically, Jews and Christians were granted special status above other "infidels", in that they were considered to be "people of the book", that is, since all 3 are Abrahamic religions. However, recent fighting over Palestine has lowered the status of Jews in many Muslim eyes. For Christians, you'd need to go back to the Crusades to find a real reason for hatred, but leaders of terrorist organizations know they need to be seen as attacking "the big guys" to get recruits, so claim the Crusades are ongoing. StuRat (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Presumptive nominee - convention as formality[edit]

When is the last time the party's nominee for U.S. president was not known going into the convention? ―Mandruss  16:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I would say Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1968 would be the last example of this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
There was also the closely contested 1980 Democratic National Convention, where Kennedy tried (and failed) to change rules to allow delegates committed to Carter released from their commitments. While the vote actually went off as planned, there was some possibility of a contested convention had Kennedy gotten the rule changes he sought. --Jayron32 17:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
According to Brokered_convention#Conventions_close_to_being_contested, it was 1984 for the Democrats and 1976 for the Republicans. The previous section of the article has the last brokered conventions for both parties in 1952.--Wikimedes (talk) 06:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

British political familial connections[edit]

Former Conservative minister Virginia Bottomley is certainly well-connected by birth and marriage. I want to clarify two potential connections. Her father was William John Garnett (1921-1997), industrial relations campaigner. Was he related to David Garnett ("Bunny", 1892-1981, of the Bloomsbury Group) and his long line of illustrious forefathers? That seems a tenuous link. The second query, however, is more pointed: various sources state that one of her cousins is Julian Hunt, Baron Hunt of Chesterton, father of Tristram Hunt, MP, both of them Labour politicians. Is Bottomley related to these Hunts? Other sources claim that she is cousin to Jeremy Hunt, the Tory health minister who survived last month's shuffle. Is there any reliable statement - for example, an interview with any of them in a newspaper of record - to the effect that they are related, and how? There are an awful lot of unreliable sources, and I suspect they are circularly reporting our articles. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

According to this website, which is generally pretty reliable, John Garnett's father, James Clerk Maxwell Garnett, also had a daughter Pauline Garnett, who married Roland Hunt, and Pauline and Roland were Lord Hunt of Chesterton's parents. That would make Lady Bottomley of Nettlestone a first cousin of Lord Hunt of Chesterton and a first cousin once removed of Tristram Hunt. There doesn't seem to be any obvious link documented there between her and either David Garnett or Jeremy Hunt. Proteus (Talk) 10:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


So Erdogan or the other one in USA: who is the good guy, and who is the bad guy? I cant fathom from the news Im reading.-- (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Have you read our article on the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt? Reducing the matter to that of the "good/bad guy" is beyond the remit of the ref desk. — Lomn 00:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Define "good guy" and "bad guy". The one is an ally, the other is living in the US. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Are we talking of the official British perspective? Where government policy is friendly to Erdogan, but our newly appointed Foreign Secretary (of an interesting Turkish ancestry himself) publicly penned a deeply insulting limerick against Erdogan? Erdogan, who does not take kindly to journalists seen as criticising him. It is indeed complicated.
The Ataturk state of Turkey was resolutely secular. Erdogan has recently pushed this back and encouraged Islamification of the Turkish political society and government. His dealings with and oil buying from ISIS have been questioned, particularly by those Russians who like to question things with bombing strikes. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the political philosophy that has driven Turkish politics prior to recent decades, see Kemalism, an overtly secular philosophy. While led by a cleric, the Gülen movement is still in many ways aligned to Kemalism, and is diametrically opposed to the Islamist and authoritarian reforms of the Erdogan government. --Jayron32 12:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Another possibility is that they're both bad. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend (e.g. Stalin). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

July 27[edit]

Rape Conviction Question[edit]

If a person who is accused of rape wins in criminal court but loses in civil court, are this person's employers and potential employers going to be capable of finding out about this person's rape conviction in civil court? Futurist110 (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

There probably won't be anything to prevent their finding out about it, but there's no civil version of the sex offender registry if that's what you have in mind. —Tamfang (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Depending on the particular jurisdiction, there is usually an option in a civil court case to apply for an order to prevent publication of the outcome. It would be up to the court to decide about that. With no such order the press and other media would be free to publicise the result and name the person involved. There would be no automatic notification process, nor would a civil court judgement appear if there were any checks on criminal records. Wymspen (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Is a person in civil court found guilty of rape? A conviction is for a crime, and that is handled in criminal court. What is handled in civil court is not at the same threshold of law and evidence and is more for monetary purposes. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Several things spring to mind here:
  1. A civil finding of liability is not a criminal conviction. As others have said, it will not show up on a criminal record check, nor will the individual be on the sex offenders register.
  2. In the UK, I could imagine that if the Disclosure and Barring Service got wind of the court's finding, they may be entitled to use the information to put in place the relevant measures to refuse the individual clearance to work with children or vulnerable adults. However, only organizations who employ people to work with these groups would have access to such decisions.
  3. If the case was reported in the media, there's every chance an employer or potential employer could find the information, whether by reading the media, or a simple google search of the person's name bringing up a link to the media article. What Whympsn says about the power of courts to make non-publication orders is true. However the only times I could imagine this being done was at the request of the plaintiff (the rape victim) in a case where naming the defendant would enable identification of the victim (such as an incest case). I could possibly also imagine a court suppressing publication if the defendant was a minor at the time of the rape. But in general, the media would otherwise be free to report the court's finding, with the potential result of an employer or potential employer stumbling on this information.
  4. Note that any court judgement that a person owes another person money will show up in a Credit report, meaning if the person applies for credit (a mortgage, loan, or credit card, for example) the institution he is applying to will be able to see this information, which would definitely include the sum of damages awarded. However, I don't know if this includes why the person was ordered to pay ("rape"), or if it would simply be a record that the person was ordered by court X on date Y to pay a debt in the sum of $x (whatever sum the victim-plaintiff was awarded by the court). So yes, being found civilly liable for rape could cause problems in getting any sort of credit or loan, particularly if the sum of damages awarded was large, but potentially even if it was small. As far as the bank or other institution sees it, someone had to take this guy to court to force him to pay up, which obviously reflects badly on his credit-worthiness. (BTW this applies to any "debt judgement" by a court that the debtor owes the money, and the creditor has had to resort to legal action to force him to pay up - regardless if it's an unpaid bill for goods or services, or a damages award for rape or anything else).
Hope this ramble helps. Others feel free to correct any errors I have made. Eliyohub (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I felt free to correct your inconsistent indentation. —Tamfang (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Assuming that you are referring to practice in the United States, the court judgment will be a matter of public record, so employers will be able to learn about it. (As Sir Joseph notes, this would not be a conviction, but simply a finding of civil liability for the sexual assault, presumably resulting in monetary damages and perhaps a court order to stay away from the plaintiff.) Settlements, however, can be made confidential, although if the settlement were entered into after the court case was filed, employers would be able to tell that there was some kind of settlement. John M Baker (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
They would be able to learn about it if they went trawling through court records. However, whilst many employers routinely do criminal record checks, how many would in fact go searching for civil judgements? Credit rating agencies do routinely collect info about civil judgements, but would the average employer be likely to actually look for or stumble across what would otherwise presumably be rather obscure information? Eliyohub (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
It would depend how obscure it was. In the US in particular, it doesn't seem that rare that these sort of things show up as publicly accessible and indexed on search engines. And I'm fairly sure searching someone's name on the internet isn't exactly rare nowadays as part of the employment process. Note also that credit reports are commonly a part of the employment process in the US although I'm not sure how much info about civil judgements shows up in the info provided to putative employers [1] [2] [3]. This video is IMO particularly illustrative of credit reports and associated agencies (like background check agencies) in the US [4]. Nil Einne (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I have filled out plenty of job applications in the US, both with major corporations and the government. None have ever asked if I have had a civil judgment against me. I would suggest that if someone is aware of such a question, they post it. There are employers who ask to do credit checks. But that is not the same thing. μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
True, but that doesn't answer the question as to whether the judgement will come up on your credit record. In the UK, it definitely can. See [5], [6], or [7]. Note that from what I can see, the credit record does not show why it was decided that you owe the money - simply how much you were ordered to pay, when the order was made, and whether the judgement has been "satisfied" (translation: you have in fact paid up the money you owed). Though the credit record does seem to note the court case serial number, so if an employer did want to delve deeper, they could look up details about the specific case (though this may vary in difficulty). Also, if the court orders you to pay and you do in fact pay promptly (within 30 days), it may not end up on the record. However, if the creditor / plaintiff is forced to take further action to enforce payment of the court order, it will show. From a credit record perspective, you have at this point defaulted on a debt. The fact that you may have been ordered to pay the victim / plaintiff millions you don't have is irrelevant. Not sure how things work in the US or other countries, though I wouldn't be surprised if they were similar. Eliyohub (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Nordic Royal Orders[edit]


I'm currently trying to do a page on my great grandfather who was a politician and a Knight first class of "Order of the Dannebrog" and "Order of Vasa". However, I can't publish the article without finding any digital reference to this being the case. I've spent two hours trying to find a complete list of recipients of these titles online, but have so far been unsuccessful. Do you know if the two respective orders keep any online archives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runi Oregaard (talkcontribs) 12:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has articles about the Danish Order of the Dannebrog and Swedish Order of Vasa. I added a heading to the question. AllBestFaith (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Also note that sources do not have to be online they can be from printed sources as long as they are considered reliable. MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Being a recipient of those two awards may not be sufficient to satisfy the notability requirements. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
But the reason for being a recipient of those awards might be sufficient grounds for notability, if there was adequate press coverage. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese shoes[edit]


What's the name of these traditional Chinese shoes? They seem to be quite stereotypical appearing in various martial art films as well. Thanx.-- (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

AllBestFaith (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Aren't they just spats? Muffled Pocketed 17:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
They are not spats, they are shoes... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
In modern Chinese the traditional style is usually just called "cloth shoes", 布鞋, which are differentiated from "modern" shoes by the sole, which is stitched from many layers of cloth. The variety with a thicker upper, stuffed with cotton, for winter wear might be called "cotton shoes", 棉鞋. The type with a soft sole and so suitable for tai chi or martial arts might be marketed as "tai chi shoes" or "(martial arts) training shoes", but they are regarded as a sub-type of "cloth shoes". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

July 28[edit]

What happened to homes owned by single loners who were conscripted into the military during WW2?[edit]

As I understand it, during World War 2 in the UK most able bodied men were conscripted into the military. It is reasonable to assume that some of those men owned their own homes, and of those who did own their own house some would have lived in it on their own without a family. Lets assume such a man who owned his own home but had no wife or children, no living relatives, and all his friends (if he had any) were also conscripted into the military at the same time he was. What happened to his house? What if he couldn't arrange for anyone to look after it for him? Who paid the bills? Who paid his mortgage? Did it just sit empty while he was at war so he had a home to come back to at the end, or did the bailiffs repossess it? Seems a bit mean to risk life and limb for your country only for the state to come take your house away. (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Weren't the wages paid to servicemen comparable to those paid in civilian employment? There would be no outgoings, unlike today when you may have to pay double council tax if your home is left unoccupied. Out of his military salary the soldier would have had to pay nothing for food, accommodation, fuel etc. (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
No: "A soldier in the Somerset Light Infantry recalled that when he was conscripted in 1939, his pay was two shillings (10 pence) per day, or 14 shillings per week (70 pence), but that his civilian job had paid him £6 (120 shillings per week)", [8] Alansplodge (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I can't speak for the UK, but the United States has the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, which provides servicemen and their property with various protections against civil actions, including foreclosure and eviction, while in active service. A version of this act under a different name was passed during the American Civil War, and the act under this name was in effect during World War I. It was recreated at the start of World War II and has been in effect ever since. I can't find if the UK has a similar law. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Some information about wartime rent control in History of rent control in England and Wales but I couldn't find anything else. Alansplodge (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
But... I have found some partly legible snippets on Google Books concerning the Possession of Mortgaged Land (Emergency Provisions) Act 1939 which seems to address this issue, but exactly how remains unclear to me. Alansplodge (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

July 29[edit]

Any US Presidents who were shot and survived?[edit]

There were some news articles about John Hinckley, who shot Ronald Reagan, being released from a mental hospital after all these years. This makes me wonder if there were any other US Presidents who were shot and didn't die from their wounds (lots of war veterans were presidents, so maybe it happened on the battlefield?).--Captain Breakfast (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

See List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots#Assassination attempts.
John Flammang Schrank shot Theodore Roosevelt "once in the chest with a .38 caliber revolver. The 50-page text of his campaign speech folded over twice in Roosevelt's breast pocket and a metal glasses case slowed the bullet, saving his life. Schrank was immediately disarmed, captured and might have been lynched had Roosevelt not shouted for Schrank to remain unharmed. After discerning he was not mortally wounded, Roosevelt finished his speech with the bullet still lodged in his chest. Afterwards, he went to a nearby hospital, where the bullet was found between his ribs. Doctors decided it would be too risky to remove it, so the bullet remained in Roosevelt's body for the rest of his life. He spent two weeks recuperating before returning to the campaign trail. Despite his tenacity, Roosevelt ultimately lost his bid for reelection."
-- ToE 04:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Is it true that if he went right away he paradoxically would've died? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
How do you die paradoxically? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Get shot by your grandson from the future, maybe? -- (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Sure. But TR was not shot by his future grandson. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
At that point (1912) he was a former president. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Maybe you are just being smart, but I am not limiting the question to sitting presidents. Past/future presidents ok too (thus my battlefield comment earlier).--Captain Breakfast (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I believe George Bush Sr. was wounded at least once during WWII. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Ronald Reagan is pretty obvious. Muffled Pocketed 10:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
You might want to look up the definition of the word "other" and re-read the OP's initial post. --Jayron32 11:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • James Monroe had been shot and nearly died from a severed artery during the Revolutionary War. Rutherford B. Hayes was shot during the Civil War, injuring his arm pretty severely. --Jayron32 11:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
You mean since the 1840 election. Note: this was reply to a comment that was later deleted. olderwiser 13:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
It was deleted because it was posted by a banned user. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Some of the uncanny similarities between the deaths of Lincoln and Kennedy are listed at Lincoln-Kennedy coincidences urban legend. Here are some more:
Lincoln Kennedy
Republican convention held Chicago '60 Chicago '60
Secretary's name Lincoln
Secretary's warning Do not go to theater Do not go to Dallas
Concessionaire Joseph "Peanuts John" Burroughs Butch Burroughs
Assassin detained by Luther B Baker Marion L Baker
Also, prior to being shot, Lincoln was in Monroe, Maryland. Prior to being shot, Kennedy was in Marilyn Monroe... --Jayron32 15:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Not all of those are real but there's more coincidences like year of entering Congress to balance it out Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The Monroe one is especially silly since Marilyn was already dead in 1963. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Google Images have some entries claiming that John Alexander Kennedy was connected with Lincoln in some way. They were contemporaries, but that was about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Add to the list: Lincoln’s secretary was named Kennedy. Lincoln was shot in Ford's Theater; Kennedy was shot in a Lincoln Ford. Both were shot on a Friday, in the head, by a Southerner and succeeded by a Southerner named Johnson born 100 years later (as was the case in the births of Booth and Oswald). Booth ran from a theater and was caught in a warehouse; Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theater. Both were killed before they could be tried. But, just a coincidence ... DOR (HK) (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I think most of those are in the article. One exception is that Lincoln did not have a secretary named Kennedy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking for an essay[edit]

I had to read an excellent essay about how to write concisely in my English class in college. It's called "Gutter" (if I remember correctly). Now, I'm trying to find it to reference to a friend, but I can't seem to find it anywhere. Can anyone give me a link to it please? I can get access to almost all database through my university access. (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

"Sir... CBE"[edit]

In the article Order of the British Empire it says that just GBEs and KBE/DBEs are entitled "Sir", not CBEs. I remember reading years ago Sir Peter Ustinov's funny description by what bureaucratic procedures he became a knight, and he is usually referred to as "Sir..." on the continent as well. Is there just one letter wrong and, thus, should it read KBE instead of CBE in the article Peter Ustinov ? Or is the article Order of the British Empire not precise in that point, and "Sir Peter, CBE" is correct? Thanks a lot in advance for your help (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

In his article he's also listed as Knight Bachelor. Mikenorton (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
As a Knight Bachelor (1990) he gets to be called Sir, but doesn't get any letter after his name. His CBE dates from 1975. It's the same with Bruce Forsyth and Elton John. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

July 30[edit]

Political convention[edit]

What would have happened if one or both presidential candidates declined (for whatever reason) their respective parties' nomination? (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The party would have to choose someone else. This has been discussed fairly recently in the ref desks, possibly humanities, possibly elsewhere. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
link, anyone? I presume this would release those delegates "pledged" to the declining candidate from their pledges. The rules on whom they'd have to vote for instead vary from state to state, from what I remember? Not quite a perfectly identical question, but see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2016_March_23#In_the_Republican_presidential_primaries_of_2016.2C_what_happens_to_Marco_Rubio.27s_169_delegates.3F. I presume similar rules would apply if the "presumptive nominee" withdrew his or her nomination, wouldn't they? That answer only deals with the Republican party's rules - I don't know how things would work in the Democratic Party if something arose (e.g. a family crisis or a major health scare) which caused presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton to withdraw. Anyone able to enlighten me and the OP on this question?
Also, the question I linked to only deals with the process pre the actual vote. Would the same process apply now that Trump is no longer simply "presumptive" nominee, but has in fact been formally nominated? Or would the nominee's running mate automatically get to step into the nominee's shoes, just as if the nominee was actually president?
Don't let this distract people from the rest of my answer (please do offer facts or opinions on what I've written above), but out of curiousity, I looked up Betfair's "next president" market. Their clear presumption (or rather that of their punters) is that if by some remote chance, something happens to push out Hillary, than (surprise!) the only other serious candidate, Bernie Sanders, will get the gig as Democratic nominee. Joe Biden being the only other layable chance, but only around half as likely as Bernie to be chosen. On the Republican side, things seem far less clear, with ALL candidates barring Paul Ryan essentially being at unlayable odds (and Ryan is very close to that point too). So essentially, if before the election Trump dies, gets hit by a meteor, or withdraws due to some sort of personal or family crisis, the field is pretty open. The punters suggest Paul Ryan would be frontrunner by a nose, but any one of several potential candidates could emerge (or rather re-emerge). Eliyohub (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The Servicemembers civil relief act and unintended consequences[edit]

I well understand the logic behind the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, to allow soldiers to go fight for their country without having to worry about their house being foreclosed upon or being evicted by their landlord whilst they're gone. My question is, wouldn't such a law have unintended consequences?

Which bank would want to extend a mortgage to a serviceman who is liable to be called up on deployment, leaving the bank with an unpaid mortgage constantly growing, and a home they can't foreclose on to deal with it? Ditto with a landlord and a tenancy - who would rent an apartment to someone in the military, if the person is liable to get called up and stop paying the rent, but can't be evicted until their return? For that matter, wouldn't this apply to any creditor dealing with an application for any form credit from an enlisted servicemember (who is not currently on deployment, but is liable to be called up at any time)?

At least the bank extending the mortgage likely has some equity in the house, so it's not totally exposed. When the serviceman returns, if he can't pay up the arrears, the bank can if necessary foreclose and take their cut of the sale. The landlord, on the other hand, is totally exposed. If the serviceman tenant racks up a huge rent bill which he will not be able to afford to pay on return, the landlord may suffer a significant loss.

So my question is, does the servicemans civil relief act have the effect of making people reluctant to extend credit to servicemen? If yes, how is this problem practically dealt with? Can a landlord legally demand a disproportionate bond to cover the rent for the maximum time a serviceman is likely to be on deployment for?

And if the act does not in practice have this effect of making people reluctant to extend credit, why not? How do creditors protect themselves from being left with a mounting debt owed to them, and a debtor they can't sue until his return (at which point the debt may have exceeded the serviceman's assets)? Eliyohub (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

You are assuming the government won't pick up the tab. Is that really how it works ? If so, that falls into the "unfunded mandate" category, which always causes problems.
I also wonder how often unpaid rent or mortgages are really an issue. After all, servicemen and women are paid, and have virtually all their living expense covered while deployed, leaving all the money they would have spent on transportation, clothes, food, entertainment, etc., while home, to be applied towards rent and their mortgage. And they may have additional combat pay.
You might also wonder if renters might take advantage, not pay rent and then move out after their protection under the Act expires. I doubt if many do. After all, all the owed rent then becomes due, doesn't it ? Meaning they could then have their wages garnished to pay back rent, would have their credit rating damaged, would have an extremely negative reference from the landlord when they looked for a new place to live, etc. And if there's no limitation on interest and penalties that can accrue, the total amount would also be far higher than if they just paid the rent. The only way I can see a net gain for the soldier is if they are sure they won't survive. They could then send their pay to whomever they like, instead of to the landlord, and not have to worry about all the negative consequences they would otherwise face. StuRat (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Paul Stahl (soldier)[edit]

Hello. Since the main author hasn't answered for quite a while by now, can anybody here tell what is correct?--Hubon (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

July 31[edit]

Restrictions on which passport a person with multiple citizenships can use[edit]

It's illegal for an American citizen to enter or exit the US using a foreign passport they might hold. I imagine other countries might have the same policy as well. Where can I find a list of such countries?

I wondering whether Turkey has such a law, in particular, due to this recent story[9]. Crudiv1 (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Well our Turkish nationality law#Dual citizenship does say "Dual nationals are not compelled to use a Turkish passport to enter and leave Turkey; it is permitted to travel with a valid foreign passport and the Turkish National ID card" so it seems to me there's less reason to wonder, although it is unsourced. Note that the article you linked to is unclear whether they just had their foreign passports cancelled or they were also forbidden to travel. If it's the later, the legalities of travelling on a foreign passport would seem to be a moot point since leaving Turkey while forbidden would surely already be illegal. (Whether they catch it or not will generally depend more on the efficiency of their data matching and not legalities.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)