Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 September 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.

September 2

Grave candle or lanterns

I stubbed an article on Grave candle. It's a major custom in a number of Christian countries; certainly in Poland, Germany and Scandinavia. I am finding very few sources, so I wonder if the English names I added to the article (grave/death candle/lanterns) are not the most common ones? Any alternative names and sources you can suggest would be helpful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Might have something to do with candlelight vigil (or memorial). Not exactly an alternate name for the candles themselves, but a See Also, perhaps. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Votive_candle springs to mind but their use is not limited to graves but "To "light a candle for someone" indicates one's intention to say a prayer for another person, and the candle symbolizes that prayer."196.214.78.114 (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• This may be of interest to you. It is a Swedish doctoral dissertation in ethnology from 1965 on the subject of placing lights at graves and related recent (20th century) traditions. It's in Swedish, but has a German summary, making it more accessible to international readers. You can probably find it in many libraries outside Sweden, but there are numerous second-hand copies to be found at http://www.antikvariat.net from about 150 SEK. --Hegvald (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

See de:Grablicht, this translates to "grave light". UK manufacturers sell these as "grave candles", "graveside memorial candles" or "cemetery lights" (...) --88.217.7.111 (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Third-party interference in diplomatic immunity

Imagine three countries: A and B are at war with each other, while C is at peace with both. What effect do international treaties on diplomatic immunity have on A's interference with diplomacy between B and C? This is prompted by the Belfast Blitz article, which notes that "the German Legation in Dublin remained open throughout the war". Presumably the UK expelled all German diplomats in September 1939, so it didn't need to worry about protecting any of them anymore. Imagine that a British naval vessel stopped a German ship carrying the German Ambassador between Ireland and France mid-war — what could the British do to the ambassador? Diplomatic immunity doesn't appear to address the issue. the closest thing I can imagine is the Trent Affair, but (1) that was during the American Civil War, 1½ centuries ago; and (2) Trent was a British ship, not one from the Confederacy; and (3) the legal nature of the Confederacy complicates the situation, while nobody will argue that German or Irish diplomats in 1942 were from an illegitimate self-declared country. Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Before the German ambassador presented his diplomatic papers to the Irish president he was not an ambassador and the British could intern him as an enemy alien civilian. If the German ambassador had already presented his papers and was returning after visiting Germany then I don't know.
Sleigh (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here. Diplomatic immunity provides certain protections from a host country's laws. Britain isn't the host country in this scenario, so why couldn't they treat him like any other enemy on an enemy ship? Clarityfiend (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That's what I figured, but on the other hand, I can imagine that it would be highly inconvenient for Ireland if the functions of an embassy in their capital could be impaired by a third party. Accordingly, I wondered if there might be some treaty provision that extends immunity in this case. Perhaps I should have proposed an even more difficult situation: how would the British embassy in Bern have operated during 1941, for example? I can't imagine how the country could have served as an important protecting power if Allied diplomats couldn't reach the country. Nyttend (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

They must have managed somehow, since David Kelly was replaced as ambassador from the UK in 1942 by Sir Clifford Norton. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations was only adopted in 1961, so was not yet in effect during World War II, but it codified existing diplomatic practice. It covers such a situation in article 40.1: "If a diplomatic agent passes through or is in the territory of a third State, which has granted him a passport visa if such visa was necessary, while proceeding to take up or to return to his post, or when returning to his own country, the third State shall accord him inviolability and such other immunities as may be required to ensure his transit or return. The same shall apply in the case of any members of his family enjoying privileges and immunities who are accompanying the diplomatic agent, or travelling separately to join him or to return to their country." [1] In effect, the UK intervening against the person of a German diplomat accredited to a country with which it has relations (Ireland) would be a violation of the convention. The question is whether Germany would have any means to seek redress, since the two countries were already at war. What the UK could have legally done is prevented the diplomat from legally transiting through its territory; any arrest would then have to be conducted outside UK territory, which raises other issues. --Xuxl (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Nothing known about the man who ended WWII?

Posted by mistake in the language desk, transferred from there. --KnightMove (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC) The Japanese surrender in World War II was to a controversial extent influenced by the false testimony of Marcus McDilda, a captured American pilot (the sources disagree on whether a P-51 or a B-29 pilot) who under torture said that the Americans would have 100 atomic bombs ready for action. It seems that absolutely nothing is known about McDilda save for his name and this episode. But how is this possible? There should be some record about his biographical data in military files?! --KnightMove (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "nothing"? There appears to be at least something. Surtsicna (talk) 10:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This might get a better response at the humanities desk. Dismas|^(talk) 10:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Information is available online. I found his full name (Marcus Elmo McDilda) and dates (15 December 1921 - 16 August 1998) without too much difficulty, and the first source in the Google search suggested by Surtsicna has a posting from his son. Whether his actions - and any reporting of them in sources - are sufficient to justify an article to himself might be more debatable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You're all right. Thank you and sorry. --KnightMove (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Now checking: The posting from his son states that he passed away in 2008, which means this must be a different person? --KnightMove (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You're quite right. My apologies. However, it's an unusual name, and there was a Marcus Elmo McDilda with those dates. There was also a Marcus E. McDilda who was included on the US Navy Muster Rolls on the Hollandia on 20 February 1945, and whose mother's address is given as Dunnellon, Florida - which ties in with the son's posting. That and numerous other records about a Marcus E. McDilda from Florida are accessible through Ancestry.com (subscription required). There are posts on this site where someone else (*Tootsie Plunkette" - obviously mad usernames aren't restricted to us...) has concluded that the McDilda who died in 1998 was the airman concerned and has confirmed his Florida origins from offline sources (aka "books"). It seems unlikely that McDilda's son would have erred about his father's death date, but equally it seems unlikely that there were two people in the same area with identical or nearly identical names who died ten years apart. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

There are 78 McDilda's in Find-a-Grave, so it's unusual but not unknown. It would be interesting to find out more about this story, i.e. whether it's true. If you could find his obituary, that could be useful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The McDilda claim needs reliable sources for verification. Lots of people have made grandiose claims of how they or their family member did something which had significant effects in a long-ago war. maybe McDilda told a friend, who told a reporter, who published a little feature on it, which was uncritically reprinted by other reporters and book writers. I would be interested to see if any source from the Japanese or US military authorities reported it, and if they did so within a few years of 1945. I have grave doubts about the veracity. Edison (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Our articles involved all take that for a fact. Of the books found by Google supporting the story, the first was released in 1971... while you could be right, nobody seems to question the story up to now, and a hoax is not unanimously and durably established as a fact that easily. Is there an indication that it's not factual? --KnightMove (talk) 10:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Early child welfare charitable institutions

I was intrigued by a friend's comment that in the UK, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (1824) was founded prior to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (1884) and the first UK child protection laws (1889), suggesting that animal care was an earlier or more advanced arrival in UK social organizations and public awareness.

I got curious and came across bodies like the Thomas Coram Foundation for Children (1739) and the Foundling Hospital (1741). But it's not clear if these are comparable to the RSPCA in terms of "scope when launched" or similar.

How would one compare the emergence of early child and animal welfare institutions, charities and chartered bodies? If one looks at the RSPCA around the time it was founded, and then at child welfare bodies when they were founded (so far as possible), would this claim stand scrutiny? Is it really fair or a "like-with-like" comparison to assert that animal welfare bodies came first? It sounds possible but dubious.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the answer to your question is, but early British children's charities seem to either concentrate on looking after abandoned or homeless children, or on educating children from working families (most of the Public schools originally fell into this category; Christ's Hospital (1552) still fulfils this function amongst others). I believe that the first child protection legislation were the Factory Acts, the first of which was introduced in 1802. The 1809 act prevented children under 9 years working in factories and that children aged 9–16 years were limited to 12 hours' work per day. Various Factory Acts thereafter progressively reduced the working day for children and introduced an element of compulsory education. There doesn't seem to have been a specific charity lobbying for these reforms, but there was real public pressure driven by high profile philanthropists, outstandingly Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 7th Earl of Shaftesbury of Eros fame.

Some more charities to add to your list are the Waifs and Strays Society (1881) and Dr Barnardo's Homes (1866). People are still quick to point out that the RSPCA is "Royal" whereas the NSPCC is merely "National" - I'm not certain of the reason for this. Alansplodge (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

RSPCA was established by Royal Charter, whereas NSPCC started as an unincorporated association and had a constitution. Not sure of its current legal status. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The question is, why no Royal Charter for the NSPCC? Official indifference or perhaps they just didn't want one? Alansplodge (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The NSPCC is governed by a Royal Charter and has been since 1895. The question is why its title does not include the word "Royal". According to our article: "It did not change its title to "Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children" or similar, as the name NSPCC was already well established, and to avoid confusion with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), which had already existed for more than fifty years." Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks - that has answered my question perfectly. I'm not sure about the OP's question though ;-) 12:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah - sorry about that, I hadn't read far enough down the source I have. *blushes* --TammyMoet (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Richard Martin had proposed a Bill to give protection to domestic animals, it became law in 1822, two years later he founded the RSPCA to see that the act was properly enforced. That doesn't animal welfare was put before child welfare; I doubt that kicking a child to death in public would have gone unpunished in those days, even without the NSPCC. Ssscienccce (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The importance of environmental conservation and animal rights in non-White cultures

So like, I don't mean to be racist or anything, but have you noticed that non-European, non-White peoples do not make as much of a priority for environmental protection and animal welfare as Europeans and their descendants? It seems like animal rights and the environment can be seen as exclusively white preoccupations.

I know that the United States and Western Europe had a poor environmental track record during the early Industrial revolution, but even then there was a strong nature-loving literary movement (Walden Pond and all that), as well as President T. Roosevelt having championed conservation over one hundred years ago. Compare this to the USSR and the current industrializing nations, who don't seem to care how badly they trash the environment.

Furthermore, animal welfare historically and currently never has had a foothold in non-white cultures, has it? One of the strongest state policies that supported animal rights was in Nazi Germany. So, does anyone know more about the seeming nonchalance with which non-whites regard the environment and animals? Am I wrong? I'd like to research this more. Thanks. Herzlicheboy (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

See Category:Protected areas by country.—Wavelength (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, you are very wrong. In general, animal welfare and environmental protection have been luxury concerns. People start caring about it when their basic needs are met. As for "white" respect for nature, you cite some very few exceptions, and you seem to have a weird definition of "white" if you exclude the USSR. For examples of "white" environmentalism, look no further than Buffalo Bill, acid rain or Deepwater Horizon. On the other hand, Only after the last tree has been cut down / Only after the last river has been poisoned / Only after the last fish has been caught / Then will you find that money cannot be eaten is a Cree sentiment. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

See Category:Conservation by country.—Wavelength (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that environmental protection and animal rights are luxury concerns. There was a strong conservationist movement in the West even during the early part of the industrial revolution, even when the Western modern "needs" were just beginning to have been "met." Furthermore, if you read Charles Dickens's characterization of the industrial landscape of England in the 1830's and 1840's, it is obvious that he was not too pleased with the destruction of the natural environment and landscape. Herzlicheboy (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You might want to think who formed the "strong conservationist movement" in the West. There were rather few miners or sharecroppers among it, and more well-off romantics of the upper middle class or gentry. And I'd like to see a source for "strong". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The upper middle class and the gentry are those who control society, correct? Herzlicheboy (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying you're disproving your own statement? Since the upper middle class and gentry controlled society yet animal rights and environmental protection were limited to say the least at the time, this seems to imply the support even among this group wasn't that strong. Nil Einne (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Animal welfare a Western concern? You mean the same people who came up with industrial production methods like battery cage for eggs and fur, intensive pig farming and factory farming in general? And as mentioned already, the ex-USSR is "white", and European as well. Ssscienccce (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Life release was practiced by Buddhists long before Greenpeace and Animal Liberation Front existed. Ssscienccce (talk) 12:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the rest you appear to be cherry pick a few examples, have a rather confusing understanding of "white" and are missing the many counter examples. For starters, it's clear people's enviromental and animal rights beliefs are heavily cultural dependent often in skewed ways.

For example, for much of the anglophone Western world, it's some sort of terrible sin to kill whales or dolphins, and the arguments for this are generally poor (the only real ones seem to be the possible pain due to the method of slaughter or intelligence). There is a similar perhaps wider adversion to the consumption dog meat with even fewer real reasons (it generally doesn't really matter if the animals were raised and killed arguably more humanely than many factory farmed animals). For many Jewish people and followers of Islam, for meat to be kosher or halal, it has to be slaughtered in a certain way which depending on interpretation prevents the use of stunning or thoracic (chest) stick. I don't know with your odd definition but I guess you're including Spanish people, for who Bullfighting is often considered an important cultural heritage, for some generally white Americans the rodeo is similar and it was only very recently that the practice of intentionall chasing foxes often with foxhounds which is considered an important cultural heritage to a small number again mostly white British (or perhaps English) people was partially banned. Meanwhile in the US the current black president is frequently considered to have a better environmental record than the previous white one.

Sssciencce already mentioned Buddhism, we also have Jainism who's follower may even avoid cooking at night to avoid killing insects. And India probably has [[|Vegetarianism and religion|the highest per capita rate]] of vegetarianism in the world. While this may partially be because of wealth and the rising middle class throughout the world and their demand for meat is often cited as a concern for a variety of reasons relating to the environment and animal rights, it seems clear for a large variety of reasons (including comparing developing countries, analysing the reasons and cultural issues etc) it isn't just cost which causes the rate to be so high in India.

Australians seem happy to mine whatever they can and sell it to whoever they can, and there is an occassional push to do so in NZ as well including in conservation land. Despite my heritage I'm not intentionally beating up on Australia but they do have a significant live export for slaughter trade, the reasons for this may partially be downstream market preference for live animals but it also seems possible in some cases it's partially to allow slaughter in methods which wouldn't be acceptable in Australia, well provided they keep it hidden. (And consider the reasons mentioned for NZ no longer doing so aren't directly because of animal welfare concerns.)

Meanwhile it's easy to tell people not to cut down their trees when you've already cut down many of yours, have enough land already for your farming etc needs and it isn't really going to make that big a difference to your economy what you do with them; not so easy to actually put your money where your mouth is and pay people not to cut down trees. (To be clear, there are complicated issues involved which it isn't our place to debate, the point is simply that talk is cheap and these sort of comparisons are fraught with difficulty.)

To use an example, consider that animal welfare and environmental considerations and protections in many developing countries now compared to whatever developed countries you are thinking of ~70 years where in some ways they were similar. Of course only in some ways, they didn't have the level of machinery, industry and capacity for extremely rapid development that exists now and many were still some of the most developed countries of the time. ~70 years ago of course some of these developing countries were still colonies of said developed countries (and how were they treating stuff in the developing countries then)?

And BTW, do you actually understand Mandarin? Hindi? Malay or Indonesian? Any native language common in a developing country other then English and other European ones (which depending on the country may have a fair degree of use but often isn't the only language)? And regardless how many books or whatever have you read from said countries? If as I'm guessing the answer isn't many, how can you know what thinkers in said countries have or haven't said compared to the few historic thinkers you can name like Charles Dickens?

P.S. As a bonus question, do you mostly blame non whites for the utter destruction of Nauru via strip mining even though many of those benefiting were Australians and other 'whites' both financially and from the output (and corruption etc ensured only a few people whatever the colour of the skin from that country benefit)?

Nil Einne (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Organized crime

There are lots of tropes about organized crime in popular film. But what is the truth?

• Mob debts. In theory, people have huge debts to the mafia and are at risk of being killed if they don't come up with some desperate scheme to repay. In practice, they certainly can intimidate people and try to get money by extortion, and run bookmaking operations. But when their model is to take money by force, does the notion of a fixed debt have any real validity? Especially, if a person were truly in fear for their life over debt, why wouldn't they go to police and bring the whole thing crashing down? (I suppose the smart ones assume local police are thoroughly corrupt, but they could move to a different jurisdiction loyal to different mobsters, try to get other agencies involved, etc.)

• The above particularly applies to movie plots in which mobsters claim that someone has "inherited" a debt from some relation who has had an unfortunate accident. Can these be confirmed as pure fiction?

• Which brings to mind: while there are gang wars, even occasional personal car bombs, does anyone ever go after mafias with genuine terrorist techniques? Clear out the whole crew with truck bombs and chemical weapons, etc.?

• Often mafias are presented as operating openly - there are even video documentaries of mass meetings of certain gangs on days associated with their founding or the Caesar cipher of their name. Are there any sites that present directory information of where they're located, how they work, in obnoxious detail? (I'm thinking a mafia webcam might not be safe but it would certainly be amusing)

• In the movies, people are spotted "wearing a wire" taped to their body. I assume that this is some dutiful Hollywood obfuscation comparable to the "keep them on the line while we trace the call" nonsense. In theory, the "wire" could be as tiny as smart dust. But in practice: is the surveillance equipment they actually use possible to recognize with a thorough search, or is it completely beyond all but the most high-tech scrutiny?

Wnt (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Wnt, I would be more than happy to answer some of your questions, based on some of my reading and some offhand personal knowledge in dealing with the criminal element:

• Mob Debts: Yes, people in real life do become heavily indebted to mobsters, but usually through gambling debts and loan sharking. In those cases, the debtor could be badly beaten, or be forced to cede over any real estate or percentage of business interests he has. In fact, that is the main way the mafia has infiltrated legitimate businesses. And yes, people who are genuinely in fear of mafia retaliation over gambling or loan shark debts sometimes do seek protection from law enforcement.

• Inheritance of debts: Never heard of it. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but I cannot think of a single case of it. That would be like a loan shark debtor having a "cosigner" or something, and I don't think I've ever heard of it in real life.

• Terrorist attacks on mobsters: I have never heard of any in real life. Since the gang wars of the 1920's and 1930's, the mafia/mob is seen as the top dogs. The exception to that was Boston, where the Irish gangsters under Whitey Bulger were considered at least co-equal, if not superior (thanks in part to FBI support). However, in fiction, what you described is the plot of the 1980 film "The Long Good Friday," where the IRA placed several bombs in a London East-end mobster's (Bob Hoskins) hangouts.

• Information on meetings, etc: Gangsters haven't operated openly since the mid-twentieth century. The whole essence of the mafia is a "secret society." However, the "legitimate world" has gotten quite a lot of information on the workings and meetings of the mafia through informers and "bugs" (hidden listening devices planted in a mafia hangout). These bugs can be placed by law enforcement illegally (without a court order/warrant) strictly for background information purposes, or legally (through a court order based on probable cause). Placement of these bugs involves the law enforcement agents breaking into the locations at night and hiding these listening devices. Such bugs were instrumental in convicting John Gotti in 1992 and Jerry Angiulo of Boston in the early 1980's. The details of such "bugging" operations can be found in trial transcripts and the memoirs of FBI agents. In addition, what you described as the mass-meetings do sound like Salvatore Maranzano's mass meeting he held at the conclusion of the Castellammarese War in 1931, and the infamous Apalachin Meeting in upstate New York in 1957.

• Wearing a wire: A lot of the talk about wearing a wire comes from mob stories from the 1960's to the 1980's, where informers were actually wearing a "wire," or sometimes even a small tape recorder strapped to their bodies. In modern times, yes, the cops actually do have pretty high-tech hidden cameras with high-definition color video and audio. The cops are pretty secretive about this stuff, but if you have access to any surveillance/spy catalogues of companies that market their products mostly to law enforcement, you can see exactly what kind of equipment they use.

I hope this helps. Disclaimer: I'm not a cop. I can't stand cops. lol. Herzlicheboy (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

So, you've had personal knowledge in dealing with the criminal element, and you can't stand cops. I'm beginning to get the picture. You're the world's first criminal encyclopedist who's also a feature film. We should have a category for that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Emma or Ælfgifu

Is this woman Emma of Normandy or Ælfgifu of Northampton? The image description says Ælfgifu but Cnut's article says Emma until recently when I changed it.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

If you look around the woman's head it says "ÆLGYFU REGINA", where Regina is Latin for Queen. The text is broken up, but that's how they did it back then. Falastur2 ^Talk 22:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually I'm inclined to think it's Emma rather than Ælfgifu. For those not au fait with the intricacies of Anglo-Saxon royalty (which includes me, as I had to look it this up on Wikipedia), apparently Emma was also, rather confusingly, known as Ælfgifu; as the Emma article says: "She was given an English name, Ælfgifu, which was used instead of her Norman name on formal occasions or on charters". I see the caption on the Cnut page for the image reads "Angels crown Cnut as he and Ælfgifu present a large gold cross to Hyde Abbey." and in the Hyde Abbey article, it also says that Emma also donated the (purported) head of Saint Valentine to the abbey, which makes me think that it's Emma rather than Ælfgifu of Northampton. I'll look around for sources. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

(quick update) The image is originally from the The New Minster Liber Vitae of 1031 and this from a blog connected to the British Library goes with Emma of Normandy. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Another link, this time to the British Library record for the New Minster Liber Vitae, which again goes with Emma. Of course, the book dates from the 1030s, and Ælfgifu of Northampton had been replaced by Emma in 1016; also, as the marriage between Ælfgifu and Cnut was of the handfast variety - without benefit of clergy, as they used to say - while it might have been recognized as legally valid, it was not recognized by the Church. An image of the two of them together in a book that was probably kept on the altar of the Abbey would have been problematic, to say the least. So, long story short, Emma. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Another diplomacy question

The news headlines about Diana Nyad's Cuba-to-Florida swim make me wonder: what kind of diplomatic hurdles did she need to clear? Presumably there's some kind of standard way that immigration officials deal with non-traditional methods of border crossing (i.e. by those who want to be legal, not counting illegal immigration), such as her Bahamas-to-Florida swim, but presumably this situation was complicated by the poor state of US-Cuba relations. I'm curious, but more importantly, sources on this question could helpfully improve her article. Nyttend (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This article from three years ago[2] makes some comments about it, and it's probably still true. Compared with where things were a few decades ago, passage to and from Cuba is rather easier now - but it still requires negotiation and permission from both governments. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

This and this refer to crossing by boat from Canada to the US but essentially, when entering the US the captain of the craft must report to US Customs officials. The second link says it just requires a phone call. I would assume that Nyad would officially be listed as a passenger of her support boat even though she didn't spend any time in it. Dismas|^(talk) 01:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Given the publicity, I doubt there's any issue on the US side. The issue would be, how does she get permission to start from a Cuban beach? The answer is there has to be some special negotiation between the two governments. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't see why. She's not Cuban. Cuba wouldn't legally care where she was going when she left. Her departing Cuba on its own has no significance at all to the US government. So no need for "special negotiation". HiLo48 (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Before she could leave Cuba she had to enter Cuba. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

True, but my understanding is that that would worry America more than Cuba. HiLo48 (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

In many countries, you need a valid exit stamp to leave. That could be arranged in advance in the case of such an endeavor (i.e. going to the nearest customs office, having all the team members passports stamped, and then leaving from a beach within a specific time period rather than from a port or airport); failure to comply could result in various problems if the persons ever wanted to re-enter that country legally. And it's not entering Cuba that's a problem for a U.S. citizen; it's returning to the States if you hadn't obtained the proper authorizations from the U.S. government beforehand. See this document from the U.S. State Department [3] --Xuxl (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

In the article I found from 3 years ago, the Cuban government had some misgivings about the symbolism of someone swimming away from Cuba. They would have preferred that Nyad swim toward Cuba. I expect when it became obvious how difficult such a swim is, their fears about "copycats" might have diminished. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

How stupid do you think the Cubans are? It's been done before. I suspect they've known for a lot more than three years how difficult it is. HiLo48 (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this is a sporting exhibition, not a case of immigration. It's not like someone swam to Cuba, walked ashore, and applied for their national health care. Herzlicheboy (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)