Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 February 7

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 7

Do servicemen have multiples of the same uniform?

Do servicemen (soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and anyone I left out) have multiples of the same uniform? Specifically do they have multiple identical dress or duty uniforms for when one is at the cleaners? I freely admit little to no knowledge of the military, and am more interested in how consistent and clean looks would be achieved with only one uniform on hand if that is the case.

Those in healthcare who wear scrubs have multiples. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

All servicemen only work every two days. One day, they are in their uniforms, and the following day it is washed while they relax in civilian attire. 109.128.127.87 (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Very funny. Servicemen are issued a set of uniforms when they enter the military, and are given a monthly clothing allowance to help them augment their wardrobes over time. Here's some information about the clothing allowance:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The short answer is yes. For example, US Army current issue includes four sets of ACUs.[2] Of the seven uniformed services of the United States, you left out the United States Coast Guard, United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Does that include officers? It was my impression that while enlisted personnel in the US military was issued uniforms, officers had to pay for their own because of some old custom that has stuck around. Googlemeister (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

To my knowledge, my brother only had one dress uniform though he had several sets of BDUs. He didn't have to wear his dress uniform very often, so there was little point in having more than one. Dismas|^(talk) 11:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The clothing bag issue varies over time. In 1978 I was issued two sets of dress greens, four sets of khakis and four sets of cotton fatigues. By the mid-1980s, it was one set of dress greens, four BDUs and two PFUs (personal fitness uniform). ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

A lot depends on where you are stationed and what your duties are... I would imagine that a Marine stationed to the Washington Barracks and posted to White House guard duty will need more than one set of his dress uniform... on the other hand a Marine stationed to Afghanistan probably does not need a dress uniform at all. Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It broadly depends what uniform you mean, but in general yes...

Working dress, day to day stuff, then one would have several, in the same way anyone would have several outfits used on different days. For more specialist clothing then that's less likely.

Brit context here: I have one set of formal Mess_dress, two sets of service dress (Jacket/ Trousers/ frame cap etc), 5 sets of barrack dress (shirt/trousers) about 10 sets of combat clothing in various patterns; DPM, Desert, Multi-Terrain Pattern (Crye multicam), a couple of sets of fire-retardant coveralls, 6 pairs of assorted combat boots, two pairs of cavalry boots for wear with service dress or barrack dress.

So lots of kit, of various ages, some supplied, some acquired, some purchased.

ALR (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

An anecdote of original research: When I was in the Marines, this is what I had: 1 set of dress blues, 1 pair of black shoes, 2 pairs of green slacks, 2 short-sleeve green shirts, 1 long-sleeve green shirt, 1 green jacket (those all combine for the brave and charlie uniforms), 2 pairs of combat boots, 5 pairs of camo pants, and 2 camo blouses. My primary uniform throughout service was the camo uniform, but once at work, I removed the blouse. So, I wore the same blouse all week, but a new pair of pants. I had workout boots that got sweaty and nasty. I had normal boots that stayed clean. I only wore the bravo once. I wore charlies when on guard duty a couple times - so I had two short sleeve shirts for that. I only wore the dress blues on special occasions, so no need for more than one. -- kainaw™ 17:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Plead error

In context of law, what is "plead error" or what does it mean? For example:

"...The Court would consider, in the light of the subsequent course of events, that Thailand is now precluded by her conduct from asserting that she did not accept it [the disputing map]. She has, for fifty years, enjoyed such benefits as the Treaty of 1904 conferred on her, if only the benefit of a stable frontier. France, through her Cambodia, relied on Thailand's acceptance of the map Since neither side can plead error, it is immaterial whether or not this reliance was based on a belief that the map was correct. It is not now open to Thailand, while continuing to claim and enjoy the benefits of the settlement, to deny that she was ever a consenting party to it."

Thank you. --Aristitleism (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

"To plead X" just means to argue and rely on some evidence / doctrine / law etc - e.g. "to plead insanity" in a murdern trial means to argue and rely on the defence of "insanity" to murder. "Error" sounds like it's a shorthand for some doctrine - of manifest error which can be read by the court? Perhaps you need to give us more context. This reads like a public international law case. It would be helpful to identify the court, the legal system and context. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

1. It's public international law case—Case concerning Preah Vihear 'Thailand v Cambodia' or see the International Court of Justice docket
2. I also thought that it would a shorthand for some legal principle. But I was unable to hazard a guess what it is. --Aristitleism (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking a public international law analogue of "manifest error" in contracts, but some googling led me to this, error vitiating agreements / treaties, which seems to be on point. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

City of London

There are three Baronets of the City of London. Sir John Williams, 1st Baronet, Sir James Sanderson, 1st Baronet and Sir Matthew Blakiston, 1st Baronet. Yet Maurice Glasman is not allowed that territorial designation on being elevated to the Peerage [3]. So why were they? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Are we sure that he was "not allowed" the designation? I am under the impression that the person granted the Baronetcy has input into what his title is... so I would assume he requested to be "of Stoke Newington and Stamford Hill" instead of "of the City of London". Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I suspect the report is accurate. The City of London would seem to me a bit excessive for a mere baronet or a (devalued modern-day) baron. And there are several examoles of people taking a ward, eg Peter Levene, Baron Levene of Portsoken. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

His assertions about why he apparently couldn't have that territorial designation (the City not being subject to the Crown, etc.) are demonstrably incorrect: as this list of creations shows, peerages have been created with territorial designations referring to the City on numerous occasions. That list is in fact not entirely up to date - the most recent such creation was for Margaret Wheeler, who was created Baroness Wheeler, of Blackfriars in the City of London, in 2010. One possibility is that he wasn't allowed to have "of the City of London" rather than "of X in the City of London". There are rules as to what can and cannot be used, but they're not published, so we have to guess at them somewhat, and they seem to change over time. However, it appears from the list that local authorities in London now can't be used on their own: the last "of the London Borough of X" was in 1978, the only "of the City of London" was in 1973, and the last "of the City of Westminster" was in 1981. He was presumably told that if he wanted to refer to the City he'd have to pick somewhere in it. As his only connection to the City seems to be that he doesn't like it, perhaps he decided he didn't feel like doing that, and chose some other places instead. In any event, even without this data those assertions are extremely suspect - territorial designations merely indicate where a peer (or baronet) comes from or is associated with, and don't imply any form of overlordship whatsoever (hence the permissibility - and reasonably widespread use - of places outside the UK with which the peer has some connection). Proteus (Talk) 14:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting and erudite as ever. And I see that Leslie O'Brien (1973) was created Baron O'Brien of Lothbury, of the City of London. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to correct something you said earlier as well, a Baronet is not part of the peerage. The lowest ranked peer is still a Baron. --Jayron32 16:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have read territorial designation but I am still not sure if Duke of Edinburgh is a territorial designation as well, or is it considered something else? --Lgriot (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking for statistics on Life Imprisonment in Florida

(1) In 2009 in Florida, USA, how many were sentenced to Life in Prison? (2) Of these in question (1), how many were 1st degree felonies, 2nd degree felonies, etc.?

Thank your for your time.64.129.215.254 (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I googled sentencing statistics florida and found this page and by clicking one of the "x" graphics, I eventually got to this page, which says in their 2008-2009 fiscal year, about 1,693 people were admitted to prison with a sentence length of 20 years or more. (For their statistics, for some reason, if someone is sentenced to life in prison, they code it as though it were a 50 year sentence.) I didn't see the 1,693 sentences broken out by different crimes, but this page breaks out all the admissions by the crime, so you might be able to puzzle out the answer to your question. Note that Florida seems to group its statistics by fiscal years, so these pages are for part of 2008 and part of 2009, not the full 2009 calendar year. One sad note: this page states that out of all the newly admitted prisoners, about 75% were functionally illiterate. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

about annasophia robb

can i please have annasophia robbs email and phone number please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.94.34.155 (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No. Firstly, because we don't have it, and secondly, even if we did, we wouldn't give it to you. Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia, not a telephone/e-mail directory - I doubt very much Ms Robb would want to be contacted by random fans anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Since you asked nicely, the answer is a polite no. 129.120.195.10 (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The article gives the URL for a presumably official website. Check that website and see if they have any "contact us" info. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You could contact her representatives at http://pro.imdb.com/name/nm1455681/agent?d=nm_ovrview_contact, but you have to register to do that, and they charge a fee after maintaining an account for something like 14 days Corvus cornix_talk 00:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You can still find her on Myspace, however, after she deleted her Facebook account in 2009. Not sure which one is legitimate, however. ~AH1^(TCU) 03:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is Sweden more likely than UK to extradite Julian Assange?

Are there different laws in both countries? 80.58.205.34 (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been following too closely to this since Assange turned himself in to the UK authorities, but at that time it was Sweden who wanted the UK to extradite him to Sweden. Are you asking if Sweden would be more likely than the UK to extradite him to the US if the US files some sort of national security charges against him...? WikiDao ☯ 19:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The front page of MSNBC as I write this has a big headline, "Assange Afraid of 'Execution' if Extradited", with the subhead, "Wikileaks' founder, at left, asserts that if he is extradited to Sweden to face rape charges, he would eventually end up in U.S., where he could face the death penalty." The original poster is presumably asking why Assange seems to have a greater fear of being extradited to the US from Sweden, as opposed to being extradited to the US from the UK. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

What capital crime is Assange alleged to have committed? Or does he just have a guilty conscience? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that depends on what political pundit you listen to. Some are claiming that his actions in publishing classified government documents on Wikileaks is treason, a potentially capital crime in the US. It's a dubious claim but, given the behavior of the US government over the past decade, I can't blame him being nervous about the prospect. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Peculiar idea, though; Australia might perhaps make such a charge, but you can't commit treason against another country, only your own. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Right. Unless Assange is a US citizen, treason doesn't figure into it. He's just cooking stuff up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Assange isn't cooking it up, political pundits here in the USA are. And, given how we invented "enemy combatants" & put them in Guantanamo, I wouldn't blame him being nervous about us picking him up regardless of extradition treaties. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This CNN blog says the fear is that he'd be imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay or executed for espionage if extradited to the US. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

We won't let him off that easy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

As a non-US-citizen, he could not be executed for treason or, I believe, espionage. However, if the Wikileaks releases caused any US govt employee to be killed, even overseas, he could conceivably be charged under terrorism statutes that carry a possible death penalty. Looie496 (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, you are not Glenn Beck and this is not Fox news. It would be great to use wikipedia without having to know anything at all about your views on those, like Assange or the occupants of Gitmo, who you seem to hold in low esteem. The rest of us manage to refrain from treating the RDs as a forum for our opinions. I'd be grateful if you would do the same. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That's funny. Tell us another one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait... How do we know that Bugs isn't Glen Beck?  :>) Blueboar (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

For one thing, I'm seeing it spelled both "Glen" and "Glenn" here, and I don't know which is correct. Where's Cuddly3 when we need him/her/whatever? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

A large number of countries which have abolished the death penalty will not extradite people to another country if it's possible that they will be executed (Extradition#Restrictions mentions that the European Court of Human Rights has determined that it would violate the European Convention on Human Rights to do so, at least in a previous case). I'm not sure what the current law is like in either the UK or Sweden, but I think it's unlikely he'd be extradited from either country to face capital charges. (On non-capital charges? I have no clue.) -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Errr, the question was: Why is Sweden more likely than UK to extradite Julian Assange? Not why he doesn't want to be deported to the US (which is pretty obvious, considering the trouble he had made.). The answer is I don't know, maybe a deportation agreement makes his situation more instable there. Maybe he doesn't care, but doesn't want to be judged for rape in Sweden (but is too chicken to admit). Quest09 (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The OP needs to understand that Assange is invoking extreme hyperbole in the hope that some America-hating Europeans will buy into it and keep him free from the consequences of his actions. The OP may not realize it, but he's asking a "loaded question", i.e. a question that assumes a premise that may well be false. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The second question is OK, are there different laws? But, the first could be better formulated as: Why does Assange fight extradition (to Sweden obviously)? The point is that the RD cannot know. We can only speculate about his reasons (although we are supposed to do that. Quest09 (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, you are quite cavalier about dismissing the dangers to Assange's life as being merely a public relations ploy. Just in this news story you can see that Mike Huckabee wants Assange tried and executed; a former aide to the Canadian prime minister wants to dispense with the trial and just have him assassinated; Peter King, the new Chair of the Homeland Security Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, wants him charged under the Espionage Act (which, according to our article, subjects violators to the death penalty); and Sarah Palin stirs up all her gun-bearing nutjob fans by saying that Assange has "blood on his hands".

If these kinds of statements were being made about you in some foreign country, you probably wouldn't be too keen to subject yourself to a jury of its citizens, either. JamesMLane t c 03:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand why Assange doesn't want to be extradited to the U.S., but the calls for execution clearly are purely a public relations ploy by people desperate to be in the news. In practical terms neither Huckabee, Palin, King, or the Prime Minister of Canada's staff really has a say in how Assange is treated. The decisions about prosecution would be made by the current administration, which doesn't exactly take orders from Sarah Palin. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

OP Here (different IP): yes, I see that I asked a loaded question, without intention. I fully understand that Assange is not eager to be deported to the US, no matter how good the weather in Guantánamo might be. But, would indeed Sweden be more prone to deport him? Is there a legal difference with the UK? Don't they apply the same EU laws? 212.169.191.85 (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It's actually a moot point. If he were extradited to Sweden from the UK and then the US tried to extradite him then it would still need approval of the UK. (i.e. you couldn't play pass the parcel with him). It's highly unlikely the US will try to extradite him (this part is my take on it BTW), that is mostly the line of the right wing politicians & media. Usually they say such things, but it is the middle of the road parts of the federal govt. that usually get down to such matters. Bottom line is that any such extradition would end up taking many many years; and they have still not identified an actual crime to charge him with (the army scuppered the right wings original plans to charge him with endangering the lives of soldiers by saying he hasn't :P). It's a right mess. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking over the contents of Extradition Act 2003 and this page, I'm starting to think Mr Assange may have a better chance in Sweden than in the UK (provided he successfully refutes the rape charges, obviously). Sweden won't extradite for military or political offences, or where a death sentence would be imposed, and the charge must be "equivalent to a crime that is punishable under Swedish law by imprisonment for at least one year". Compare it to Britain, which seems bound to hand over just about anyone the US asks for (and did so even before the US had actually ratified the treaty under which it was demanding extradition), and which has in the past contrived to execute someone for treason even though they weren't a citizen. If he can avoid being convicted for rape and sexual assault, he may be well advised to cultivate a taste for Ikea furniture and smörgåsbord. Karenjc 17:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing in our article to suggest that Casement was not a British subject. The controversy over his execution related to the interpretation of the Treason Act with regard to where the acts were committed. DuncanHill (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you believe they have Ikea furniture and smörgåsbord in prison too? Sweden is well known for their comfortable prison system, so, he wouldn't have to be acquited to spend a pleasant time there. Quest09 (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Another example of the UK hanging a non-citizen for treason was William Joyce; the excuse was that he held a (fraudulent) British passport. --Trovatore (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

On the death sentence note, I can't imagine the UK extraditing anyone to face execution. Clearly this would be an incredibly bad move for the UK (whose population would require a cutoff at mass-murderer for any significant number of people to support a death penalty); in the past, the previous government even said so itself. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the political hyperbole here isn't really appropriate. Simply put: The UK is highly unlikely to extradite Assange to a nation that allows capital punishment (aka the USA). Assange feels, however, that Sweden has no problem with doing so, which places his life in danger if extradited to Sweden. Sweden has also allowed prisoners to be sent to Egypt for torture, something Assange's lawyers assert lends credence to his fears.[4] — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

But according to fairly reliable sources, including some leaked by Julian Assange, didn't the UK use extraordinary rendition to Egypt too? Prokhorovka (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy against giving Legal Advice.

I am not seeking legal advice here. But I do sometimes think that questionners are brushed off rather brusquely with the retort, "Wikipedia does not give legal advice", in response to a legal issue query. I entirely agree that Wikipedia is neither equipped nor responsible for giving legal advice. Anyone seeking legal advice should only ever use the services of a fully trained, qualified, practising Lawyer/Solicitor in their local jurisdiction. But I can't help but wonder if a response based on "This is not to be taken as legal advice - it is expressly offered as a legal opinion only" might be more in the spirit of Wikipedia being more helpful to those seeking information. I worked in the law for many years in the UK and it's interesting to note that even our High Court Judges do not make legal judgements (that function is reserved for juries) - the judges only deliver sentences in criminal cases and "Opinions" in civil cases, both of which are subject to challenge in a higher court or tribunal. Just a thought. But on medical questions I wholeheartedly agree that no advice should be offered at all. 84.13.75.152 (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If you are questioning or proposing a change to the RD guidelines, that would probably be better done on the talk page. WikiDao ☯ 19:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

commentary of The Cask of Amontillado

Is there a website where there is a commentary on The Cask of Amontillado?

Well, there's an article on it here at Wikipedia: The Cask of Amontillado. WikiDao ☯ 20:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)