Humanities desk
< May 31	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 2 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 1[edit]

Canadian girls as prostitutes[edit]

I know it may sound weird but what will be the punishment if a guy took lure the Indo-Canadian and Pakistani-Canadian girls into modelling in India and Pakistan and all of sudden, they become prostitutes in Mumbai and Lahore? And his reason will that he did this to hate India and Pakistan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.171 (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, the punishment in India would be 3 to 7 years. This article says the punishment in Pakistan would be up to 25 years. They would also be guilty of an offence in Canada, but I can't find the punishment. I'm still looking. --Tango (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly they would also violate Canadian law - are there offences under Canadian law making it illegal to lure people with false pretences; he might be guilty of fraud or violating employment law or something similar? Also, does Canadian law have any provisions about transporting people for immoral purposes, or laws on human trafficking, etc? --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human trafficking is covered in the Kidnapping section of the Criminal Code of Canada, and includes taking people out of Canada. Penalities range from 14 years to life. WikiJedits (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military Discharge and Land Purchase[edit]

If I have dishonorable discharge from military can I still buy own land in the US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.131.150 (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

added heading -- 128.104.112.106 (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

~

May I ask if there is some reason for you to think that you can not? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters one can not keep firearms. Our article on Military discharge makes no mentions of anything about land owning. It does, however, mention difficulties related to a career later. 62.128.252.85 (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being fired from any job will make it difficult to get a new one. Not being allowed to keep firearms makes sense - you've shown yourself to be untrustworthy in some way. That is no reason to stop you owning land. Unless you have some reason to think there is a law about dishonourably discharged members of the armed forces owning land, I would say there almost certainly isn't. --Tango (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even convicted felons can still own land, although it would be very, very difficult to get a loan to buy it. Livewireo (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do banks check criminal records for loan applicants? I don't think they are allowed to in the UK, they just look at your credit report and might request proof of income. --Tango (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it does affect your income level and ability to get a job, which in turn affect your ability to receive a loan. Livewireo (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, it would generally only affect your ability to get a job while it was an "unspent" conviction (see Rehabilitation of Offenders Act), so it would only be an issue if the offence was fairly recent (last 5-10 years for most offences) or a particularly serious offence (ie. a sentence of more than 2.5 years). Does the US have a similar system? --Tango (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They do not allow "convicted felons" ever to vote, which removes democracy from some portions of society. 89.240.49.168 (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that just convicted felons that are currently serving their sentence? --Tango (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - it is only in America (I think) where someone could be deprived of their right to vote for life even after they've served their sentence. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHAAOE! Felony disenfranchisement. --Tango (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Business Cases[edit]

There was a historical business case where one company created bullwhips and another created railroad ties (or somethign similar). One of the companies failed and the other became a prominent orgnanization. Has anyone heard this case, and do you know which company is which? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MSweeney1354 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of "buggy-whip manufacturer" (a kind of proverbial phrase for a company in danger of going out of business)? AnonMoos (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High resolution scenes of the Bayeux Tapestry[edit]

Is there anywhere I can find them online? So far the only ones I can find are rather bad quality, seeing as I wish to zoom in on them for my video. I don't mind if it's a only a replica, in case that helps. Surely there is no copyright on the tapesty nowadays! : ) Thanks, --217.227.113.100 (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Category:Bayeux Tapestry has a few higher-resolution images. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Side note on copyright - the Bayeux tapestry is in no way under copyright, as you say, but photos and videos of it may be under copyright of the photographer/cameraman. The WP ones are free to use, but check other images first, if you're concerned about copyright. Steewi (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Victorian replica, complete with bowdlerised little shorts over on character's genitalia, is on display in Reading Museum. They should be open to enquiries about photos -- perhaps they have their own sources. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing a proper online museum exhibition a few years ago. It was really facinating with high-res photos, english translations, and so on, but unfortunately I cannot find it at the moment (or maybe it is no longer online, or maybe I'm remembering it wrong). The best I could find for the moment is this page, and if I find the one I remember I'll add another link here Astronaut (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't find it after viewing 100 or so sites. However, this site might have once had what I was looking for, but the author says (at the bottom of the page) "It is with some sadness that I must announce that, after four years of operation, the on-line prototype of my Digital Edition of the Bayeux Tapestry has ended" - you can now buy a CD version for £30 + VAT + P&P. As for copyright issues, I very much doubt the tapestry itself is copyrighted, but almost everywhere you look the images taken by others are copyrighted (with some sites going as far as using javascript trickery to stop you saving the images to your disk). Astronaut (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The BT has naughty bits? Soldiers mooning each other, or what? —Tamfang (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, reading our article gave me an Anglo-Saxon name of an identifiable character near the inscrutable one. I used that to google: "bayeux tapestry Ælfgyva naked". That took me to, inter alia, a brief semi-scholarly discussion of the raunchy conundrums in the Exeter Book of Riddles, illustrated with a NSFW image from the tapestry of a naked man squatting, displaying pendulous generative organs. The author says the character is an enigma. Madeline H. Caviness, on the other hand, posits in Reframing Medieval Art: Difference, Margins, Boundaries that the naked men were there to discredit the chastity of Ælfgyva and thus by implication the line of succession within Anglo-Saxon royalty. Remember that the Tapestry was a work of propaganda, history being written or embroidered by the victors. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]