Humanities desk
< February 14	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 16 >

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

February 15

British Queen consorts

Ok. King George VI of the United Kingdom was the titular Duke of Normandy on the Channel Islands. Was his wife, Queen Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, titular Duchess of Normandy? Also was she Lady consort of the Isle of Mann? I'm using a pass King of the U.K. because the current British consort is a man and traditionally not considered consorts of Duchies or Lordships. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After searching fruitlessly through Duke of Normandy for verification of this, but finding it in Duchy of Normandy - I'd say the answer is: Yes, QE (the future Queen Mother) was the Duchess of Normandy. There's nothing unusual about this duchy as far as I can see, in this respect. I cannot help you with your Isle of Man query. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick-ish look yielded this page[1] which says: 'This Manx Prayer Book (the "New Version" of 1763) contains no prayer for the High Court of Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland; but, instead of it, there is a prayer for the members of the House of Keys, together with a prayer for the Lord and Lady of the Isle, as clauses in the Litany, and in the prayer for the Royal family, viz.: “And with them the Lord and Lady, and Rulers of this Isle.”' The Lord and Lady in question being George III and Queen Charlotte. I can't see that there would have been any change since then. No luck with the Channel Islands though. Alansplodge (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, QEII is known as the DUKE of Normandy in the Channel Islands, and LORD of Mann. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Queen_Elizabeth_II#Europe

I wonder what Prince Phillip is known as in those places... --Kvasir (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind that the claim to the ducal title, if not abandoned by treaty in 1259, was merged in the claim to the French crown in 1340. Its purported survival since then, much as it may please the islanders, is baloney. —Tamfang (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the husband of a dame has no special title other than whatever he has in his own right. That's also true for the husband of a female life peer, who are always at baroness level. There may be some hereditary baronetcies, baronies, marquessates, earldoms, or viscountcies that are hereditable by females in their own right (I very much doubt it ever applied to dukedoms) - but if so, their husbands have no special title. Phillip is a duke in his own right anyway, so QEII is the Duke of Normandy and Lord of Mann, and Phillip is Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh. That's what I reckon.-- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most (all?) Scottish peerages (created before 1707) can pass to women, just like the Crown; at least one dukedom has done so. There was a time when English peerages of all levels (including the dukedom of Norfolk) did likewise, and I don't know what happened to change that. —Tamfang (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is F5?

The article F (musical note) mentions F5, but does not make at all clear where it is on the piano keyboard or in the treble clef. Is it the F above middle C, or one or two octaves above that? Edison (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the second F above middle C (C4). Middle C is 261.626 Hz, F4 is 349.228 Hz, F5 is one octave above that (698.457 Hz), where C5 is 523.251 Hz, all from the various articles. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 03:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Piano key frequencies might come in handy. Gabbe (talk) 08:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Head of State Citizenship

What nations other than the US require heads of state to be natural-born citizens (or, if this is more common, which nations do not require it)? I know it's not a requirement in Canada (Queen Elizabeth II isn't Canadian born), and I don't think the prime minister needs to be. Aaronite (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added: Why is it even an issue?Aaronite (talk) 06:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., the requirement was put in place expressly to prevent European nobility from moving to the U.S., establishing citizenship via residence, and then taking over the presidency and turning it into a sort of monarchical position. The term "natural born citizen" has not been defined by any sort of law, either express statutory law or case law, though the issue has been raised about a few presidents, namely Chester Alan Arthur and Barack Obama, however in both cases all officially availible records indicate they meet most normal definitions of "natural born citizen". The courts have heard a few cases on the matter, but have only basically noted that the term ONLY applies in cases of eligibility for the President of the United States, while also simultaneously not defining what it means, even in that context. See Natural born citizen of the United States for a more thorough discussion. In common terms, it is understood merely to mean "a citizen since birth", but even that is poorly understood; as there are several different ways that could happen. Anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen since birth, as is anyone born anywhere in the world to two parents who are both U.S. citizens, as is anyone born anywhere in the world to at least one parent who is a citizen and whom has resided for at least five years in the United States at any time prior to the birth of their child. See [2] for the relevent statute. --Jayron32 06:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When was the requirement brought in? I'm certain that Washington wasn't born a citizen of the United States. DuncanHill (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The constitution says natural born or citizen at the time of coming into force of the constitution. Peter jackson (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every nation I know of that elects heads of state requires them to be natural-born citizens (though the definition of 'natural born' varies from nation to nation). This is largely pragmatic: it's to prevent a different nation from entering a candidate, getting him/her elected, and setting up a puppet government. Natural-born citizens are assumed to have stronger loyalties to the nation than naturalized citizens or non-citizens. Canada and the other british colonies are a special case (since they still owe some tentative national allegiance to Great Britain), but even in canada I doubt that it's legal for members of parliament to be non-Canadians. --Ludwigs2 06:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed, Ludwigs. Most countries don't have natural-born-citizen requirements for their elected officials. Which countries are you thinking of? DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If by "non-Canadians" you mean "non-citizens", then I guess you're right. Countries typically require that you be able to vote before you can sit in parliament. If you mean "born outside Canada", see [3] and [4]. Gabbe (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really true. Adolf Hitler was born in Austria and was elected as head of state of Germany. I'm sure we could dig up more examples, but that one sprung to mind right away. --Jayron32 06:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantic (?) correction: Hitler was not elected head of state -- he lost the German presidential election, 1932. He was appointed chancellor, that is, head of government by president Hindenburg in 1933 and unilaterally took over Hindenburg's powers when he died later that year. The Nazis later held an unfree plebiscite on whether people approved of that action, which of course passed by a wide margin. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know of no monarchy that has a requirement that the monarch be born within the territory of a certain country. To be a monarch it typically suffices to be related to the previous monarch, regardless of where you were born. Regarding heads of government and/or elected heads of state, I think the US is pretty rare in requiring them to be "natural born". The President of Argentina has to be either born in Argentina or to Argentinian parents if born abroad. In other countries there are lots of examples of foreign-born politicial heads: Presidents of Israel have been born in Russia, Ireland and Iran. Dominique de Villepin was born in Morocco (albeit a French protectorate at the time), Éamon de Valera was born in New York, Billy Hughes was born in London, etc. Gabbe (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australia doesn't mind its Prime Ministers being born overseas; but they have to become Australian citizens before entering Parliament. To have had a "natural born citizen"-type requirement would have excluded most of the early PMs and politicians. It's interesting that Australians (and other citizens of Commonwealth realms) can still become members of the UK Parliament without adopting UK citizenship, but the UK is considered a foreign power as far as our Parliament is concerned, so any UK citizen (or citizen of any other country) who migrates here must become an Aussie citizen before attempting to represent other Aussies. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, in British law, citizens of Commonwealth member states, and the Republic of Ireland, are not foreigners. DuncanHill (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As we've discussed before a monarch typically doesn't even have citizenship so the idea of a monarch being a 'natural born citizen' is of course in many ways nonsense. And of course for most of the Commonwealth realms other then the UK, the head of state doesn't even live in the country and in extreme cases (rare nowadays but still possible) the head of state may not have even visited all countries they are head of state of. In a similar vein, while the governor general is generally not considered the head of state, I'm not sure whether there is any legal requirement for citizenship however it is rather unlikely a non citizen will be appointed nowadays given the widespread controversy it will cause and indeed Michaëlle Jean (who was born in Haiti) the current GG of Canada held French and Canadian dual citizenship but gave up her French citizenship due to the controversy it caused. As various people have mentioned, when it comes to heads of governments in countries with a parliamentary system, there's often no additional citizenship requirement to be the Prime Minister/head of government beyond that required to become a member of parliament and this usually requires citizenship but not 'natural born citizenship'. Of course in a number of countries, gaining citizenship is not easy (e.g. Foreign-born Japanese). And even if there's no legal requirement, a non natural born citizen may still face strong opposition and difficulty because of it, e.g. Sonia Gandhi. Note that New Zealand allows residents to vote in all elections, but still requires citizenship for MPs. P.S. Abhisit Vejjajiva was born and educated in the UK although to a prominent Thai family so may have been a citizen from birth. Nil Einne (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no citizenship requirement for the Australian Governor-General. After the creation of Australian citizenship in 1949, we had 3 more non-Australians become G-G (Slim, Dunrossil, De L'Isle), before Casey in 1965 became the first of an unbroken line of Australians. Were there an Australian citizenship requirement, the notion that Prince William or Prince Charles might be appointed our G-G could never have arisen. Those plans died a natural death, but it wasn't because they weren't Australian citizens. Technically, there's nothing in the law to prevent Barack Obama from being appointed the Governor-General of Australia. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Provided he swore to be faithful and bear true allegiance to HM the Q. [5]. DuncanHill (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A monarch may not have citizenship, but a potential monarch ... —Tamfang (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of enclaves and exclaves#Temporary enclaves: "In 1943, the maternity ward at the Ottawa Civic Hospital in Canada was temporarily extraterritorial so that Princess Juliana's daughter Princess Margriet would only have Dutch (by parent's nationality) and not dual nationality, because of being born on Canadian soil. Dual nationality would have excluded her from the royal succession." —Tamfang (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is off-topic, but the hospital article is in the category "Former Dutch colonies". To me that does not really make sense. 83.81.42.44 (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Alexander Hamilton was never considered for the Presidency of the US, because he was not born in the territory which became the United States. Note also that Michaëlle Jean, the current Governor-General of Canada, was not born in Canada. Woogee (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your latter point was noted above, by Nil Einne. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the US Constitution permitted foreign-born individuals to become president if they were US citizens at the time of its adoption, Hamilton was eligible. Nyttend (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, where in the US Constitution is that clause located? Woogee (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article II: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;". (emphasis added) Hamilton would have qualified. --Jayron32 02:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in Requirements for becoming a president. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to why this was even an issue: the U.S. Constitution was written only 15 years after the First Partition of Poland. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was an elective monarchy were the king was elected by the nobility. The only requirements were to be Catholic and of at least noble birth. Most elective kings of Poland were foreign monarchs or members of foreign dynasties. This allowed neighboring powers to exert increasing influence on Polish internal affairs. In effect, Poland gradually became ruled by a network of foreign ambassadors and spies who bribed Polish nobles to vote or obstruct parliamentary sessions according to their instructions. The first half of the 18th century was a period of rivalry between Saxony, Russia, Sweden and France trying to put their own protégés on the Polish throne. In 1764, Empress Catherine II of Russia succeeded in making her former lover a king of Poland. By 1787, Poland, once a regional power, had become a truncated Russian protectorate. It was wiped off the map altogether eight years later.

American founding fathers were clearly impressed by these developments. When discussing the provisions for future elections of the PotUS, Gouverneur Morris argued that "the mode least favorable to intrigue and corruption, that in which the unbiassed voice of the people will be most attended to, and that which is least likely to terminate in violence and usurpation, ought to be adopted. To impress conviction on this subject, the case of Poland was not unaptly cited. Great and ambitious Princes took part in the election of a Polish King. Money, threats, and force were employed; violence, bloodshed, and oppression ensued; and now that country is parcelled out among the neighboring Potentates, one of whom was but a petty Prince two centuries ago."

Charles Pinckney also warned that "we shall soon have the scenes of the Polish Diets and elections re-acted here, and in not many years the fate of Poland may be that of United America."

James Madison, too, observed that "altho' the elected Magistrate [in Poland] has very little real power, his election has at all times produced the most eager interference of foreign princes, and has at length slid entirely into foreign hands", adding Germany and the Roman pontificate as other examples of foreign interference in elections where people other than natural-born citizens could run for the highest office. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine herself was Prussian. Woogee (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I missed it, but I would have thought the key to the OP was the difference between head of state and head of government. Any Commonwealth country that recognizes the Queen as its head of state (and, of course, many, many other nations) probably has some restrictions on who can be head of government. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know the difference between the two, but I mean both when asking. And in commonwealth nations, I'm getting the impression that the requirement is generally citizenship, but only occasionally natural-born. Aaronite (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, the office of Prime Minister barely exists legally, so there are no laws restricting who can hold it. Peter jackson (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So theoretically I could hold it, even though (not being a British citizen) I'm not an MP? Nyttend (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, non-MPs have been Prime Minister when a member of the House of Lords has been PM, for example, Lord Salisbury. However, having a peer as PM or as a minister causes difficulties if they need to address the House of Commons.

Australia's Constitution has a specific provision (s. 64) about non-parliamentarians being Ministers of the Crown. It enables any person (and presumably it's not restricted to Australian citizens but this has never been tested and is not likely ever to be tested) to be appointed a Minister, but they must become a member of the House of Reps or the Senate within 3 months or their appointment lapses. It was necessary in 1901, as the country and government came into existence on 1 January but the first parliament was not elected until late March. It's also useful when a sitting Minister loses their own seat at a general election (such as PM John Howard in 2007); the provision allows them to remain a Minister, despite being no longer a member of the parliament, while the transition arrangements are being worked out. It also came in handy in 1967, after Harold Holt drowned. There was an interim PM John McEwen, the leader of the then Country Party. The Liberal Party chose John Gorton to lead the party, but he was a Senator. He was appointed PM while a Senator (our only such case), then he resigned from the Senate in order to contest the by-election for Holt's old seat in the House of Reps - but remained PM while being a member of neither house. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Springs mayor Robert M. Isaac

File:Robert M. Isaac.jpg was deleted with the mistaken idea that a mayor who died two years ago should be easy to find a picture of. That is wrong, it is proving impossible. Anyone have any ideas? --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 09:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one image.--droptone (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was the only image I could find, either, and it was the one we had here, now deleted. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Double Entry Bookkeeping

The various accounts used in double entry bookkeeping seem like a good way to categorise my office filing. Does anyone know where I can find a list preferably online of the accounts used in a typical business, or home? I have seen the double entry bookkeeping article, but it is not specific enough. For example some commercial bookkeeping software has I think lists of such accounts or categories - does anyone know if a copy of them is available anywhere?

My second enquiry is - Double entry bookkeeping updates two (or more) accounts for each transaction. Is there a list anywhere of these pairs? Thanks 89.240.201.172 (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try a basic accounting text book at your local academic book shop. Or, simpler yet, buy your own home/small business accounting software. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accounting and bookkeeping are not the same. 78.147.202.148 (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. What are you trying to say? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having just embarked on a course of evening classes entitled "Bookkeeping and Accounts" (which in itself implies that they're two different things), my take is that Bookkeeping refers to the initial functions of handling a business's payments (cash, cheques, etc) and 'Prime Documents of Financial Transactions' (Invoices, Credit notes, etc, etc) and recording them in 'Primary Accounting Records' (or "Books", such as 'Sales Day Books', 'Purchase Ledgers', etc, etc), while Accountancy is the subsequent function of summarising and interpreting the data in those Prime Documents in order to produce reports such as Trial balances and 'Final Accounts'. Obviously the two areas greatly overlap and others might draw the dividing line elsewhere, such as after Trial balance: I may of course have modified my own opinion by the time I finish the course! 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chart of accounts is good for 1). 78.146.206.38 (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theology: Literary-Historical Method

Does literary-historical method mean the same thing as Historical-critical method? -- Irene1949 (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both take as a starting point the assurance that any text is human in inspiration, structure and phrasing, and will necessarily reflect the cultural milieu in which it was composed.--Wetman (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - but are they two slightly different methods, or just two names for the same method? -- Irene1949 (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just found the article Historical-grammatical method. Now I have three names of methods, and I wonder, if any of them are just different names of the same method. -- Irene1949 (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time traveling

An incredibly stupid question: Say some time traveler started propositioning me. Unsure of her age, I ask for some ID, and notice that her birthdate is several hundred years in the future! Do the courts count the number of years since the birthdate or do they count the biological age of the subject? Am I going to jail? 24.77.27.166 (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the (highly unlikely) event that time travel becomes possible, the courts would interpret the law as biological age, but they would have much more serious consequences of time travel to occupy their time! Dbfirs 18:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are a 20 year old man who gets in a time machine and goes 50 years into the future, you would either be 70 or 20 when you came out, depending on which of your two methods you suggest. If you go 50 years into the past, by one reasoning you would be age of minus thirty! Also, in your circumstance, you would be sexing someone who is not yet to be born, so you should make sure you are not related! Also, if someone came from the past before the introduction of the Gregorian Calendar, there would be another 11 days to work with. Agatha Christie went missing for 11 days, which suggests she may have been travelling in time, possibly in connection with the Gregorian Calendar. But would you want to go back in time and sexing with Agatha Christie. I would be tempted to tell her how her stories finish! She would be so cross! Or pleased. Anyway, I am going back to my workshop to perfect my cold glassy pencil! Ice Pencil Made of Glass (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Note: Indef'd for trolling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

truth is, in the future no one will be allowed to use a time travel machine without a state-issued license, which will only be given at the age of 35 (35 in the future is equivalent to a current 18, given the tendency towards infantile characteristics in human evolution). further, any statutory rape charges would be filed in the complainant's district, which (being several hundred years in the future) would probably exceed the statue of limitations for the crime.

however, being told that someone comes from the future probably won't wash in the current-day court system, so I don't think you can use this as a viable defense. --Ludwigs2 18:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, no jurisdiction has laws covering time travel. When a situation comes before a judge that is not covered by existing law, the judge will create new law. They do this by looking at various forms of persuasive authority and the motivation of the existing law. In this case, they probably wouldn't find any persuasive authority, so would look at the motivation of the law. The motivation of laws against sexual intercourse with minors is to protect people too young to make an informed decision. It is clear that it is the proper time of the possible victim, ie. the time that they've experienced, that matters, not the time from the perspective of anyone else, that matters. So, you wouldn't go to jail. --Tango (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, insisting that someone came from the future could be a good step toward mounting an insanity defense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of one of my favorite Asimov short stories - see also A Loint of Paw. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ref. Desk rule against giving legal advice does not apply to incredibly stupid questions. Statutory rape laws are based on the precept that a young person is legally unable to consent to sexual intercourse by reason of their age. However persons of negative age must have negative rights so it is an offence not to have sexual intercourse with them. .dessimsid esaC Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The judges wouldn't have to invent new law. They could just travel back in time to get it changed in advance. Peter jackson (talk) 11:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If time travel worked on the Primer model, then the situation could never arise... AnonMoos (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it could, if the box were switched on long before the traveler's birth. (But then the traveler would spend N subjective years in the box.) —Tamfang (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

M.I.A not allowed into the U.S.A

Hi everyone! I'm a BIG fan of the singer M.I.A and just recently found out she's apparently not allowed in the U.S. Does anyone know why?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 21:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration issues: [6] —Akrabbim^talk 21:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does that post add anything to the OP? —Tamfang (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think thats it... there must be a reason why they wont let her immigrate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 21:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason, but she hasn't publicly announced it at this point, and these things aren't publicly available so we simply don't know yet. She is engaged to an American (Ben Brewer of The Exit), so we'll see if that does anything for her. This is pure speculation, but it may have to do with family ties to a Sri-Lankan militant group. —Akrabbim^talk 21:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Famous artists, musicians, actors, and the like who work temporarily in the US generally do so under the terms of a O-1 visa, which covers "aliens who have extraordinary ability", and grants them a non-immigrant temporary work permit. The most obvious criterion for refusal is if they don't think someone is "extraordinary" enough (and I really don't know where, for musicians, they draw the line). Secondly the embassy (or DoS) will decline if they think the person is likely to overstay, or to work outwith the scope of the visa (if, for example, they felt it likely that in addition to her work as a rap artist, M.I.A. was likely to work as a drywall contractor or an obstetrician). Thirdly they have a (fairly nebulous) bunch of criteria where they disqualify someone as "undesirable". This can be for criminal convictions (these were the grounds under which Amy Winehouse was initially denied a visa), security grounds, and (at least allegedly) politics. But it's very possible that, for a specific case, the lawyers simply failed to provide enough documentation or did some other cack-handed lawyer snafu like not using the correctly-headed stationery or using last year's version of a form. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need a lawyer to fill out a visa application now? FiggyBee (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking not (you don't need a lawyer for anything, right up to your death-row appeal to SCOTUS), but anyone applying for an O-1 already has an existing business arrangement in the US, so they'd really be silly to do the paperwork themselves. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 23:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stating on record(1) things such as "Terrorism is a method, but America has successfully tied all these pockets of independence struggles, revolutions, and extremists into one big notion of terrorism." might have something to do with her visa difficulties. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That could well be sufficient, or possibly the tip of an iceberg. The U.S. government, as with any country's government, can refuse entry to non-citizens for pretty much any reason. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to The Guardian it is related to her political views. In this 2008 article is says she was keen to stay in the USA (they did let her in on a 1-year visa). Obviously, she didn't marry Kanye West and was unable to stay. Astronaut (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]