Revision as of 18:56, 19 February 2016

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

• WP:RD/H

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

February 14

Congressional lame duck period in 1960

(by edit request) ―Mandruss ☎ 00:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

According to this article, John F. Kennedy was elected POTUS while serving in the US Senate, but didn't resign from the Senate because he "had no lame-duck period to worry about". This is contrast with Barack Obama, who resigned from the Senate a week or so after the 2008 election. My question: why didn't JFK have to worry about a lame duck period? Also, if one of the POTUS candidates currently serving in the US Senate (there are several) gets elected President, will there be some de-facto requirement that they not be re-sworn into their Senate seats at the start of the 114th Congress on January 3, 2017? That would let them stay in the Senate potentially until the Presidential inauguration on January 20. This is relevant because of the potential change in partisan control of the Senate affecting Senate rules, e.g. the nuclear option stopping a possible filibuster of a new SCOTUS nominee, depending on which Senators are present to vote when the new Congress starts. Thanks. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The actual quote from the article is that Kennedy "had no lame-duck session to worry about". Congress was not scheduled to be in-session between the election and the change-over to the next Congress, and so Kennedy wasn't "on duty" in official capacity. You can see at our list of United States Congresses that the 86th Congress (that in question for Kennedy) was only in session between January and September of each year. — Lomn 00:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC),

As for the second part of your question, it depends on who you are talking about... Rubio's Senate term expires this year... so no matter what happens with his Presidential bid, his successor as a Senator from Florida will take office on January 3. Cruz and Sanders, however, are in the middle of their respective terms... and so either of them could continue to serve as a (Texas / Vermont) Senator until January 20 should one of them become President. I doubt the would... but they could. Blueboar (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Kennedy ... advised Gov. Foster Furcolo of Massachusetts to appoint Smith to fill the vacated seat "in the interest of promoting party unity." (From Smith's article.) Obama apparently made no such suggestion to his Governor; perhaps he thought that appointment by Rod Blagojevich would be no favor. I'm not sure this explains anything, but there it is. —Tamfang (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Obama's choice was known to the governor. See Rod Blagojevich corruption charges#Obama's involvement. Rmhermen (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Animal Shelters vs Homeless Shelters in US

How many more animal shelters are there in the US than there are homeless shelters and how much more resources do animal shelters have than homeless shelters or vice versa?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Something like 3,500 animal shelters. At least this many homeless shelters. Given that virtually no homeless shelters kill their strays after a few days, and that animals don't need clothes and almost never get psychiatric help, I'd say it's quite vice versa on the resource part. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:30, February 14, 2016 (UTC)

"Murder of a federal employee" and mens rea

When Jared Lee Loughner committed his massacre at Gabrielle Giffords' "congress on your corner" event, one of his random victims was federal district court judge John Roll. Federal prosecutors filed charges over his death of "Murder of a federal employee".

My question is this: When Lounger shot Judge Roll, it appears that he was totally unaware of him being a federal judge a.k.a. "federal employee". Judge Roll was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

To be convicted of the charge, would Lounger have needed to know that the person he was murdering was indeed a federal employee? If a person murdered a federal employee in ignorance of their status as such (and this fact was not in dispute), would they still be guilty of the federal offence? Or would they "only" be able to be charged with a "regular" state-based charge of murder? Eliyohub (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Good question. The answer is no. The statute that Loughner was charged under was title 18, United States Code, section 1114. Specific knowledge of the official status of the victim is not an element of the offense that the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. "It is well established that knowledge of a victim's status and identity as a federal officer is not a required element for a homicide conviction under § 1114." United States v. McVeigh, 940 F.Supp. 1571 (D. Colo. 1996) (read), affirmed 38 F. App'x. 534 (10th Cir. 2002). See also McEwen v. United States, 390 F.2d 47 (9th Cir. 1968) (read), United States v. Ganter, 436 F.2d 364 (7th Cir. 1970) (read). Neutrality 05:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

But doesn't that ruling negate the actual purpose of the statute? I assume that the purpose of the statute is to protect federal employees while they are performing their official duties. No? If a federal judge was randomly murdered while he was shopping at the mall or eating at McDonald's, would the same rule apply? Doesn't the employee have to be "working" (i.e., performing their official duties)? In the Gabrielle Giffords's case, the Judge was not actually "at work", correct? This is confusing. Why would a federal employee receive "extra" protection even when not at work, when not performing his work duties? What is the supposed purpose of this statute? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the purpose of the statute is only to extend Federal authority as far as Article III can be stretched. —Tamfang (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Deterrence is only one of the justifications for criminal law. Another is retribution: That when a wrongdoer is adequately punished, those wronged (including the victim's families and coworkers) will be less inclined to seek additional retribution. That's just one example of a traditional justification. Additionally, bear in mind that the vast majority of cases where this statute will be applied is with the intentional murder of a federal employee while that person is carrying out his or her duties. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 08:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Your reply does not make sense to me. If a person does not know that what he is doing is, in fact, a crime, then what exactly is there to "punish"? What exactly would one be seeking retribution for? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Mendaliv, I agree that most uses of this statute probably involve cases where the victim was targeted due to their official position. But it still raises the question in my mind as to why congress decided that all murders of federal officials (even e.g. a domestic murder or random victim of a gun massacre, as in this case) should be treated as federal-level crimes, even when the murder had demonstrably and provably nothing to do with the victims status, role, or duties as a federal official? And even cases where the perp can prove that he didn't even know that his victim was a federal official? Eliyohub (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Why should it matter? Why should it be the victim's responsibility to say, "Don't shoot me, I'm a federal employee"? There's an old adage that "ignorance of the law is no excuse." A guy could rob a bank and then claim he didn't know it was illegal to rob a bank. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but ignorance of the facts can be an excuse. In any case, my issue is why such cases should be a federal issue, when their status as a federal employee has nothing to do with their murder. Murder is a serious crime in any state, regardless. My issue is jurisdiction. Eliyohub (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I have a theory, but I don't know how realistic it is. Perhaps the feds wanted to make sure that it could get murders (at least, some murders) out of the state's hands and into the fed's hands, exactly for jurisdictional purposes. If a certain state did have the death penalty, then the feds would not be too worried or bothered with prosecuting the case. If a certain state did not have the death penalty, then the feds can step in and prosecute in order to seek the death penalty. For example, let's say that the Oklahoma Bomber (Timothy McVeigh) committed his murders in a state that did not have the death penalty . (I don't know if Oklahoma does or does not; I suspect it does.) Then, the hands of the feds would be tied, and the "worst" that McVeigh could get (under Oklahoma state law) is life (no death penalty). While bringing the murder under federal jurisdiction, this allows the feds to put the death penalty on the table. This is just a theory on my part. I guess it depends on what type of Congress passed the law, a Democratic or Republican Congress. Who knows? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

That passes my sniff test. Feds do that sort of thing all the time when they want to assert jurisdiction over something that's otherwise a state law matter. It's not even necessarily an issue of wanting to apply the death penalty, but to get potentially ineffective state prosecutors out of the way, or otherwise ensure uniformity of prosecutions. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 13:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'd tend to agree. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

It's the deterrent factor. If the feds don't pursue prosecution, others might get the idea to kill other federal employees and then claim they didn't know the victim was a fed. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Deterrence has nothing to do with it. How can I be deterred from doing something wrong when I don't know that I am doing something wrong? Makes no sense. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

In some cases it might make no difference (someone is going to go on a killing rampage anyway), in others it might - e.g. if someone was planning the attack and picking a target, the law would deter them especially hard from picking a place where government employees are likely to be. That knowledge is not one of the elements avoids any possibility the attacker might plead "I did not know". It seems draconian but it is probably meant to be.

In Australia there was (is?) a "rape in company" offence, where a sexual assault that happens in the presence of any person - even an innocent passer-by - is dealt with much, much more harshly than an ordinary one. It makes no sense that someone's culpability is dependent on whether someone else walks by, but the law was intended to address public fears about a "spate" of gang rapes. It's draconian and illogical, but there are reasons why the government might decide to enact a law that is draconian and illogical, and in that sense there is a political logic to it.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to search for this, but it's worth considering that the U.S. went through a civil war in the 1800s, and even in the 1960s there was deep dissension between state and local officials. It would be quite easy to imagine the federal government sending a black agent to Alabama in 1960, having him turn up dead by someone who says they "thought he was a trespasser", "didn't know he was a federal agent", and seeing the killer get off scot-free after a state jury trial. Still, I'm only speculating. Wnt (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but this federal legislation might have come after the JFK assassination, as it was a surprise to many that killing the president was not a federal crime. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I remember hearing that. And that's quite remarkable. Especially given the fact that there were indeed several assassinations and/or attempts well before Kennedy. How did this loophole go unnoticed? Perhaps, at that time, the criminals were quickly dispatched with (found guilty, executed, killed, etc.)? And, so, it never occurred to anyone as being a practical necessity? Who knows? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

In a way, it's like the extraterritorial jurisdiction where some countries can try a crime committed against one of their citizens, even if that crime took place in another country and by a non-citizen. In other words, if a US bank robber in the US shoots a Frenchman, he can be tried in a French court. It makes no difference if he knew about the nationality or not. Sjö (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. I never knew about that. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Overturning an adoption decree

Recently, I was reading a story were a couple had their child removed from their care due to suspicions of abuse and neglect. They kept turning up in hospital with their baby having broken bones. The child was removed to foster care, and subsequently adopted by the foster parents.

Later, it was found that the child suffered from a medical condition which causes brittle bones. The biological parents are now fighting to regain their child.

This is not the first time where children with undiagnosed medical conditions have ended up being taken from their parents and put up for adoption on suspicion of abuse or neglect, despite the best efforts of the biological parents to obtain appropriate medical care for the child. I pass no blame on anyone. The issue is the aftermath, when a diagnosis is finally reached.

Now, I observe that there are two separate hurdles for them to achieve this. Firstly, having the adoption decree overturned / set aside / whatever the legal term is. Subsequently and distinctly, getting a court order returning the child to their care (this would involve questions of the child's best interests, etc, and may be difficult). My question is purely regarding the first step, not the second.

If it can be proven in court that an adoption decree was made on the basis of incorrect or incomplete evidence which was unavailable to the judge issuing the initial decree, (and the decree would NOT have been issued had the initial judge known the full truth), can the decree be revoked or overturned? Is there any precedent, case law or statuary law on the subject? Eliyohub (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

This would depend entirely on the jurisdiction. Did you have a particular country or state in mind? Neutrality 05:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In common law jurisdictions, it happens sometimes that a litigant comes into possession of new information after a ruling that would have fundamentally changed the outcome of the case. Some old writs used to address this, such as audita querela and coram nobis, but nowadays you can sometimes seek a motion to overturn a judgment on the grounds that there is new evidence. The usual rule for this is that the evidence or defense has to truly be new, not merely that you failed to discover it in time. Often this burden is met because the opposing party unlawfully prevented the discovery of that evidence. My understanding is that something like having a new expert opinion that contradicts the previous expert opinions wouldn't be good enough: After all, why wasn't that expert called during the original trial? This sort of motion works as a check—albeit a fairly weak check—against the finality and predictability that res judicata provides. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 05:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the general info, it is helpful and interesting. But I'm specifically interested in adoption. Can anyone dig up a case report or ruling where a judge was asked to overturn an adoption decree under my sort of scenario, and how he / she ruled? Eliyohub (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Is rape about power and control? Or about sex? Or both?

I have often heard that "rape is not about sex, it's about power and control" (or some variation thereof). In a way, I guess, that makes some sense. But, oftentimes, when there is a crime with many victims, why is it that the young pretty girls get singled out for rape and the others (e.g., older or less attractive females; males; etc.) are not? There must be some element of sex involved, no? Can someone please explain this seeming contradiction? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I was reading this article, Vizconde murders, which is what made me think of my question. But, I want to focus on my original question, above. And not the specifics of these Vizconde murders. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, without a specific citation (especially since you're withdrawing the only one you gave), you're asking us to argue against a premise that has not been adequately established. --Golbez (talk) 08:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

You're claiming it's the young who get raped. That's not true. Read the victims list of the Boston Strangler, for example. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall the facts of the Boston Strangler case. But I think he attacked/raped one victim at a time. My question was when there are multiple victims. Is it simply a coincidence that the young pretty girls get raped and not the other victims? The Boston Strangler case is not relevant to my question. I don't want the discussion to veer off on tangential points, but I am quite sure I can give plenty of examples: (1) the Vizconde murders mentioned above; (2) the Hi-Fi murders; (3) I think that Richard Ramirez serial killer; and (4) The Monster of Florence. I am sure there is a long list. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure that "young pretty girls get singled out for rape." "Pretty" is pretty subjective, and although "young" can be defined more objectively, the upper and lower limits of it are also fuzzy.

Add to the top of this that what constitutes rape is also not set on stone. Having sex with your own wife, paying for sex, having sex with minors, not getting a clear explicit 'yes' can be considered rape or not. It all depends on the country and ideology of those involved.

And let's not forget the fact that normal socially acceptable sex is often about power and control too, but there are sanctioned and not sanctioned ways of getting it. In each case we can ask ourselves how free are those involved. --Scicurious (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Rapists are very far from a homogeneous bunch. They can have a wide variety of motives, methods, tactics, and victim preferences. Issues of power, anger, entitlement, masochismo, sadism and yes, desire for sex, can all come into the picture. Likewise, the choice of victim can be broad, and isn't always a "young pretty girl" by any means. In many prisons, prisoners often rape other prisoners, obviously of the same sex, not out of sex drive, but as a means of establishing their dominance within the prison. Eliyohub (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I regret asking the question. People are being argumentative for the sake of argumentation. Why is everyone producing examples that have nothing to do with what I asked? Prison rape has nothing to do with what I asked. Nor does the Boston Strangler, etc. How about some focus? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

If you're asking about multiple rapes by one rapist, but not one at a time, I'm fairly sure that happens equally (never) to the young and old. They're monsters, but not the two-headed kind (careful clicking that). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:29, February 14, 2016 (UTC)

OK, so maybe my question wasn't clear? (I guess?) I am saying: a criminal goes into some criminal situation where there are many victims (for example, a bank robbery; some type of hostage situation; a home-invasion with many people at home; etc., etc., etc.). There are a lot of people there (multiple victims). During this crime, the criminal decides to also commit a rape (of, say, one of the bank customers; or one of the people at the home-invasion; or one of the hostages at the hostage situation; etc., etc., etc.). He has a lot of victims to choose from. Invariable, he picks the young pretty female. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Says who? Except for made-for-TV dramas? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Says who? I just gave 5 examples above. None of which are made-for-TV dramas. What part did you not understand? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

See confirmation bias. Also, your examples are not particularly convincing. In the Vizconde murders, apparently the whole motivation was to rape one particular women, and the rest were incidentals. In the Monster of Florence, there is no mentioning of rape at all. In the cases Richard Ramirez committed rape, he seems to have raped the only women at the crime scene. That leaves the Hi-Fi murders, and there were only two women there, so it's only even odds. I may have missed the 5th example. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I simply threw out those 4 or 5 examples off the top of my head. I am sure I can cite a thousand more. When a crime somehow turns to rape and there are multiple victims to choose from, your contention is that the rapists prey on the older women; the less attractive women; and the males? They do not disproportionately prey on the young attractive females? Oh, OK. Guess I have been living on Mars. Not sure where I got my crazy idea. Your'e probably right. It's usually the 85-year-old male that gets raped, while the pretty 20-year-old girl is left alone. Again, not sure what I was thinking. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you are affirming the consequent here. Women get raped in preference to men because most men are heterosexual, and most rapes are committed by men (for both physiological and social reasons). It's quite possible (even likely due to the risk profile) that young women are more likely to be victims, but so far you have not given good reasons for that. And again, finding "thousands" of additional cases when there are about 1 million rapes per year in the US alone is not strong evidence. If you look for particular cases (or even if you only have a particular image in mind when searching), you will find fitting cases. To get a proper overview you must systematically look at a representative sample, not combing the data for only once case. Look at the Richard Ramirez case. You remembered it as an example supporting your hypothesis. But apparently Ramirez raped or attempted to rape a pre-adolescent girl, a 56 year old disabled women, a 61 year old women, and so on - only two of the victims fall into what is typically considered the "young and pretty" demographics (and I don't know anything about the attractiveness of either). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I am no expert on the Ramirez case; I only recalled some vague facts. I thought there were several instances in which he killed the man (husband/boyfriend), then raped the woman. I am pretty sure that was the case. I assume the others he raped were when there was only one female victim to "choose" from (not several) during that incident/episode. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

And in the Hi-Fi murders, it's your contention that they "randomly" selected one of the two females (the young pretty 18-year-old over the middle-aged mom)? And they also "randomly" selected the female over the other 4 or 5 males present? Seems like highly improbable odds that they would select a female when there were a lot more males in the room. If your theory held up. How did they "randomly" pick a female, when there were (numerically) more males in the room? That's my whole point. You really think it was random? Random that they selected a female over a male? And, at that, random that they selected the younger prettier girl over the older middle aged mature woman? Yeah, ok. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, according to our narrative (which is all I know), by the time she was raped, she had already been made to swallow Drano, had blisters all over her lips and lower face, and was spitting blood. Not exactly "attractive" to normal minds. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Further proving -- not refuting -- my point. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

In your Vizconde example, only the older girl was raped. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:05, February 14, 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that was my whole point. Why are you mentioning that? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Because you seem to have said they always choose the younger ones. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:23, February 15, 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I meant "the younger, prettier" ones (assuming we are talking post-puberty). In general, normal males are sexually attracted to younger pretty females. Like, for example, the girl who was 18 or 19 or so when this murder occurred. In general, "normal" males are not sexually attracted to six-year-old girls (the younger sister, in this case). So, I meant "younger", when we consider the victims post-puberty. I was assuming that pre-puberty was not under consideration. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

And I was assuming we were talking about murderous, home-invading rapists, not normal men. Among the latter, quite a few skip over the riper potential victims that you or I would be more inclined to politely seduce. All a matter of personal taste. If there is a general rule for all men, it's that we'll stick to screwing whatever turns our cranks. Andrei Chikatilo twice failed to get it up, for a 9-year-old and a 17-year-old. Both times, he managed after their insides were outside. That was his deal. Doesn't make him less of a sexual predator. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:24, February 15, 2016 (UTC)

Different influences on criminal sexual behavior can be found in the article Causes of sexual violence. --Modocc (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I think once upon a time I took a criminology elective, though by now I must admit I'm not really sure of that. But if I did, then I think they made a big deal about the distinction between a psychopath and a sociopath. Almost certainly an incorrect way of explaining this is that some people simply have zero impulse control, frontal lobe shot off in the war or something, and they see a pretty woman and they just think go for it, nobody home to say no - something psychologically wrong with them. Others have been taught that a woman who shames the clan needs to be punished, a woman who embarrasses them needs to be put in her place or whatever - something wrong with society that has misguided their sense of right and wrong. (But that's not how I see sociopath defined, so maybe it was psychogenic and sociogenic? Doing a search, I see a bunch of so-close-but-that-ain't-it references... I'm just throwing these words out for consideration, without claiming to have any genuine understanding. Wnt (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

It's because ""rape is not about sex, it's about power and control" is an over-simplistic slogan that does not describe the entire thesis. Rape is "about" many things, as is sex, as is power and control. Some of those things overlap, others do not. As I understand it, the original slogan was intentionally over-simplistic to draw attention to the "power and control" part of the thesis; it was never intended to be read literally. Same with "there is no such thing as race" - it's a slogan and it is not intended to be read as "there is literally no difference between a white person and a black person at all". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@PalaceGuard008: Thanks. Yours was a particularly helpful reply. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Why do some people make the mistake of acknowledging (sp?) the concept of death?

Up at the top of the page, it says "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." Your question very obviously falls under all three categories. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

For a vaguely related twist on this general concept, read the plot description for "Shadow Play (1961 The Twilight Zone episode)". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Multiple viewpoint novels

I'm currently reading Caliban's War, which is told from the viewpoint of several different characters, each providing a different glimpse at a complex and evolving situation. It's similar to what George R. R. Martin is doing with A Song of Ice and Fire. The first time I noticed this as a distinct style was with Harry Turtledove's Worldwar and Southern Victory series, the first of which came out in 1994. He is really using this to give people a real understanding of the different viewpoints, not just a different angle on the same image. The oldest example I can come up with from the top of my head is A Fire Upon the Deep (1992), also very well done, and with the really alien perspectives of the Tines thrown in. Now this list probably gives a sad impression of my reading habits ;-). But I'm interested in this multi-viewpoint technique. Is it unique to SF&F or are there other examples? Are there older examples, within or outside SF? Is there a history of this technique? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this fits what you have in mind--Dave Barry and Alan Zweibel's 2012 comedic novel Lunatics has two protaganists, with alternate chapters written in the first person by one and then the other of them with different points of view on the same evolving events. Not very old, but lt's outside SF&F. Loraof (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if this fits your question:

Your late countryman Günter Grass has employed three different narrators in his novel Dogyears (de 1963 / en 65). They may be recording different / consecutive eras of German history, but they are also recording the evolution of a continuum.

Somewhat earlier, another set of narrators (Mark, Luke, Mathew and John) collaborated in the composition of a noted bestseller. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Grass is not quite what I had in mind - as I understand it, there are three consecutive protagonists, not a whole cast that keeps alternating points of view. But maybe Pulp Fiction is something similar in a movie, although that is also non-chronological and, of course much more compressed. I also think I remember a Japanese movie where a robbery is told and retold from several different viewpoints, but I cannot recall the title. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

You're probably thinking of Rashomon, the classic example, enough for us to have an article on the Rashomon effect. What a stunning movie!John Z (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! Great movie, but not quite the kind I have in mind. Close, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

One method authors use to achieve multiple viewpoints is the use of epistolary techniques. Our article on that form suggests it goes back to at least the late 1400s. I believe Cookatoo's comments are meant in jest, but just to be clear, the gospels are not meant to form distinct viewpoints of an author. Matt Deres (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, yes, The Documents in the Case (1930) had a somewhat similar feel to it. Thanks! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The short lived TV series Boomtown used the technique in its first season. It did not have a large audience but I found it interesting. MarnetteD|Talk 20:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

A non-SF&F example (depending on your definitions, I guess) is The Simpsons episode, Trilogy of Error, which examined the same day from three different perspectives. Matt Deres (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• Much further back (i.e. 1920s), you have the work of Virginia Woolf, who enjoyed exploring perspectives and thought processes. The two best examples of this kind would be the stream-of-consciousness Mrs Dalloway, where the change between narrators is totally free as the narrative hops from one person's mind to another (mostly between the upper class Mrs Dalloway and the shell-shocked soldier Septimus Smith), and The Waves, which is first-person(-ish) and even more strictly structured than G.R.R Martin's stories (each of the six characters speaks a paragraph at a time). The modernists in general loved this technique, which they saw as parallel to cubism in painting - the 1917 poem "Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird" is probably the birth of this technique in the modern era (although the poem is great, it's not directly what you're looking for, since it has no story). Smurrayinchester 09:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Another well-known variation of the technique is the 1973 trilogy of plays by Alan Ayckbourn with the collective title The Norman Conquests, which portray the same events taking place in a house (and garden) over a weekend, but with each of the three set in a different room (or the garden). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (posted by SemanticMantis (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC))

In Take a Girl Like You (1960) by Kingsley Amis the (third person) viewpoint regularly switches between the main male and female characters - at one point rather abruptly in middle of a chapter (for dramatic effect), I seem to remember. Talking It Over (1991) by Julian Barnes has three first-person narrators. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Many SF novels describe things from multiple viewpoints. The earliest I am aware of where this is explicitly used - each chapter begins with the name of the person doing the narrating - is Robert A. Heinlein's "The Number of the Beast" (1980). RomanSpa (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Population of Arabia at the time of Muslim conquests

(by edit request) ―Mandruss ☎ 16:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Does anybody know how many population Arabia had at the time of prophet Muhammad and Muslim Conquests? By Arabia, I mean Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman and other Arab countries of Persian gulf. 46.224.248.52 (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't find specific population estimates for the pre-630s, which is not really a surprise, given how long ago it was. Pre-Islamic Arab society "was tribal and included nomadic, semi-nomadic, and settled populations" (Lecker).

The Atlas of Islamic History says: "Around 600 CE, the population of the Peninsula was divided into three main groups: the inhabitants of the small towns of the Hijaz (Mecca, Yathrib , Ta'if) and of Yemen (Ma'rib, Mukha, San'a'), the settled cultivators in the vicinity of the oases in the Hijaz, Yemen and Oman; and the nomads, the majority of the population." But this is contradicted by Barbara H. Rosenwein, who writes that "by far the majority of the population" of Arabia was not nomadic or semi-nomadic, but sedentary (see here). Neutrality 17:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

We also have Pre-Islamic Arabia, which may or may not be a good starting point. μηδείς (talk) 05:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Identify a Hammond Innes book

I am trying to identify the English title of the Hammond Innes Book Tehlikeli Yük. Google Translate tells me that it translates from the Turkish as "dangerous cargo", but this is not the title of any of his works. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Probably The Wreck of the Mary Deare (1956), for which the title is appropriate. This isn't a positive confirmation, however. Tevildo (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

(ec) According to the French Misplaced Pages article on fr:Hammond Innes, the novel The Wreck of the 'Mary Deare' (1956) was translated into French as Cargaison dangereuse, so that's probably the one. The Turkish translation was published in 1962 , so that would also fit the timeframe. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The Hurl Stone, England

The Hurl Stone, in Northumberland, England, near Chillingham and Alnwick, appears to be an upright stone column or 12 to 15 feet high in various sources, set in a cut stone base, standing in a high meadow.I'm surprised it has no article. It appearsby its weathering to be many hundreds of years old. Has any archeologist investigated its origins? In 1863 George Tate published a story saying that explorers crawled through an underground passage and "..as they were passing under the Hurl Stone, they heard fairy harp music and the pattering of tiny feet dancing, and shrill sweet voices chanting: "Wind about and turn again, And thrice around the Hurl Stane." Does such an underground passage exist? Other online sources suggested that legendarily it was "hurled" there by a giant, or that the devil hurled it at St. Cuthbert, or that it had been a cross which lost its crossbeam to a lightning strike. An 1825 book' also called it a "stone cross." An 1862 book said it was listed as a boundary marker in "the endowment deed of the vicarage of Chillingham" and also said it was believed to be a spot favored by fairies. How far back would this deed date? Are there any modern reliable sources with significant and definitive coverage of it? Edison (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

As it is a scheduled monument, there are details available online from Historic England List entry for the Hurl Stone, which describes it as the "shaft of a standing cross of medieval date". DuncanHill (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

As for Chillingham vicarage, here is a reference to a date of about 1220, but we should remember that in 1828 the vicarage transferred t the old Manor House see here). DuncanHill (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

"Does such an underground passage exist?" No. The legend is that there's a passage from Cateran Hole to the Hen Hole, a deep chasm on the north-west side of the Cheviot Hills, a distance of about 14 miles. 1 2. Meanwhile p.292 of that second reference states "In a charter of A.D. 1270 it is referred to as the 'Stane cross in Clapton-Hed'", which may well be the Chillingham parish charter. I've found no reference to any contemporary studies and, tbh, as it's an isolated menhir with no markings (beyond a mark presumed to be associated with its C19 replanting), there's not a lot to go on. I'm aware of another similar stone about 20 miles south of it (though I can't put my finger on it as I write this ... somehere near Stanton Hall, iirc). There are fwiw better than 100 named stones of interest in Northumberland - see for instance p.531, few if any of which have wikipedia articles. We could squeeze out a Hurl Stone article, but it would be fairly thin. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

With regards to other Misplaced Pages articles about Northumberland standing stones, We have Percy Cross (about which rather more is known) and Duddo Five Stones (which are really old). A direct link to Tagishsimon's list is at The Named Stones of Northumberland; being a list of huge stones, singly and in groups, in situ and detached, to which local names have been given in the County, which interestingly only has "Four Stones" at Duddo (perhaps somebody had borrowed one), also there are eight separate stones called "Grey Mare", "Greymare" or "Graymare" and one called "Grey Nag". Alansplodge (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The perils of a Misplaced Pages addiction: after reading the list linked above, I have spent the evening tinkering with our article on The Laidly Worm of Spindleston Heugh. I can give up any time I want... Alansplodge (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

February 15

Citizenship or residence requirements for SCOTUS Judges

Reading Article Three of the United States Constitution, it doesn't seem to put any citizenship or residency requirements for SCOTUS judge eligibility. Can a non-US citizen, or even a non-US resident technically become a Supreme Court judge? (assuming the president nominates them and the senate confirms them)Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Turns out, they by and large can't (barring a few minor exceptions)... because of laws on who the federal government can pay wages to. It's possible for an American Samoan or a Puerto Rican to become a justice, and in theory you could have a situation where you have a US resident who has learned US law and has applied for citizenship as soon as the option was available (i.e. within six months) but whose application has not yet gone through (and has lasted less than two years) was somehow selected, but it's very hard to see this happening, since they would have an absolute maximum of two years experience in the US judiciary. Edit They could actually have had slightly more legal experience, if they submitted an affidavit that they would apply for citizenship when it became available, but the absolute limit would be seven years work experience in the US. Smurrayinchester 08:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Smurrayinchester, that page is for people who want to be employed by the judiciary, not for judges themselves. There is no requirement that a Justice be a citizen or resident, and making compensation conditional would be unconstitutional. There is no similar requirement that a federal judge be granted residency, so I don't see how a nonresident could do the job, but that would be a separate issue. There is also no requirement that a Justice be a lawyer or have any judicial experience, and there have been several Justices with no prior experience as judges, although I believe they were all lawyers. John M Baker (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

There is also no requirement that a Justice be a lawyer or have any judicial experience, and there have been several Justices with no prior experience as judges, although I believe they were all lawyers. This is true as a technical/semantic/legal matter. But it is not true as a practical matter. In modern times, there is no way that a Senate would confirm an individual with no legal training, education, and/or experience. There is no way that a president would even nominate someone like that. Again, as a practical matter. I am quite sure that when the Constitution was written, there were different "routes" to becoming a lawyer and/or a judge. If I remember correctly, you didn't necessarily go to law school (education back then was far less "rampant" than it is today). I believe that you would "apprentice" under another lawyer, and get your training/education/experience in that manner. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

That was possible up until fairly recently - Robert H. Jackson was the "last Supreme Court justice appointed who did not graduate from any law school". Adam Bishop (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Didn't one of the Bushes nominate a woman who was a personal secretary or something? Although I think she withdrew before it got to the Senate. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Harriet Miers. Let's not exaggerate things, though; although there was some disagreement about how well-qualified Ms. Miers was for the Court, she had several decades of legal experience and had been president of the Texas Bar Association. "Secretary to the President" doesn't mean someone who types his letters. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not mean to suggest that it is practical for a nonlawyer, or for that matter a noncitizen, to become a Supreme Court Justice. All of the Justices have been lawyers, and I believe all have been U.S. citizens, although some were not natural-born citizens. (Similarly, any male Roman Catholic can be named Pope, but somehow they always choose someone who is already a priest.) It would be unlikely today for someone without a law degree to be named to the Supreme Court, although there have been many Justices without one. Jackson was only technically lacking a law degree; he attended law school but was under 21 when he would have graduated, the school's minimum age to award a law degree. However, James F. Byrnes not only did not have a law degree, he also did not attend college or even high school. Stanley Forman Reed, who was appointed earlier than Byrnes or Jackson, was the last sitting Justice without a law degree, although he did attend law school for a while.

Although none of the sitting Justices lack judicial experience, it is quite probable that there will be future Justices who have not previously served as a judge. Some people have suggested that President Obama, for example, might serve on the court in the future; he is a former professor of constitutional law, so his appointment would be quite plausible. Harriet Miers had no judicial experience, although her role as White House counsel was quite a bit more than personal secretary. John M Baker (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

That all sitting Justices had previous judicial experience on lower courts was true until 2010, but Elena Kagan was never a judge before being appointed to the Supreme Court. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

This article suggests that Scalia supported her nomination, which might have helped her case. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, you are correct: Kagan is the one Justice who was not previously a judge. Thank you for the correction. John M Baker (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I see no constitutional bar to sitting any Article III judge who is a non-citizen/non-resident (the concept of "non-citizen resident" status isn't even discussed in the constitution). I'm not sure whether there could be a statutory requirement, though there are statutory controls over the courts in a lot of other ways: Number of justices, and just about everything you can imagine about the nature and organization of the lower courts, are determined by statute. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 15:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Although there is no express constitutional requirement of citizenship, note that an incoming Justice would have to take the constitutional oath of office. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Untied States' "nation building" efforts in Mexico

From what I understand, Mexico is, in some ways, in horrible shape. Cartel violence is prolific, and thousands die every year at their hands. Law enforcement corruption in endemic, and the rule of law is, shall we say, somewhat weak. And the economy suffers from "cliff inequality", whereby the poor are VERY poor.

The upshot is that thousands to millions of Mexicans clamour to be allowed into the United States (or sneak in), whilst the general population suffers. It strikes me that if Mexico could be helped to "Americanize" (its' economy, rule of law and living standards etc), the flow might significantly slow. Personally, I think so many Mexicans want to become Americans that the Mexican Parliament should simply apply to be admitted as the 51st state of the Union.

Some American conservatives seem to have this view that America can simply build a high fence and employ elite border control units, and wash its' hands of what goes on on the other side of the fence. Moral issues aside, history has shown that this simply doesn't work. What goes on in Mexico will always have a major and serious effect on the United States, regardless of the height of border walls, or the size, training and resources of the border patrol units. Border control measures can, at best, be only part of the solution.

Enough of my rambling, here's the actual question: Have there been any serious attempts on the part of the United States to engage in "nation building" in Mexico? (After all, Mexico's governance matters far more to US security than that of Iraq or Afghanistan). I'm not talking about simple joint law-enforcement training exercises. I mean tackling the really tough stuff about good governance, systemic steps to minimise corruption at all levels (both at the top and at the grassroots), the rule of law throughout the country, and addressing the economic plight of the Mexican poor by developing the necessary areas of the economy to get them proper, decent-paying jobs. Has this ever been tried? Or at least, has any US federal politician tried to seriously push the idea? And if not, why not? (Is it simply hopeless?) Eliyohub (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

According to nation-building, it's done through the power of the state. America would need to conquer Mexico first. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:59, February 15, 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there have been efforts from the U.S. to assist in capacity-building, etc., in Mexico. The most well-known is the Mérida Initiative to fight organized crime (cartels) and violence. The idea is partly Drug War-inspired, but surely another aim is to make the situation in some areas of Mexico less desperate and more stable (hence decreasing illicit immigration). The results are, as you might expect, mixed. For background, see this January 2016 Congressional Research Service report, U.S.-Mexican Security Cooperation: The Mérida Initiative and Beyond and this New York Times article, U.S. Widens Role in Battle Against Mexican Drug Cartels. For a critical view, see Why Is the US Still Spending Billions to Fund Mexico’s Corrupt Drug War? by Jesse Franzblau of The Nation.

Notably, in 2012, Mexico enacted a federal Anti-Corruption Law, similar in many respects to the U.S.'s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Neutrality 16:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Right, no need to run the country to influence and assist. I was maybe taking "engage in" and "serious attempt" too literally, in a "south of Mexico" way. Less planning, more marching. That sort of push hasn't happened recently, at least. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:54, February 15, 2016 (UTC)

There was Operation Uphold Democracy in Haiti in 1994 to 1995. Neutrality 22:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Had a convoluted 2004 sequel, too. I just meant in Mexico. Since 1994, they've been part of the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement, but still not quite invited to the First World. Bit of a geopolitical oddball. Where else could you hold a North–South Summit? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, February 15, 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed that capacity building is its own thing. Thanks, Neutrality and EMPRETEC! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:05, February 16, 2016 (UTC)

The idea of a US-Mexico merger was discussed in a Freakonomics podcast. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

February 16

What Bible is used for the Roman Catholic Mass in the USA?

During the the Roman Catholic Mass in the USA, they often read passages from the Bible. I went to look up one of these passages, namely, Matthew 25:40. See this page: . Apparently, there are many different Bibles, and many different Biblical translations. From that page for the translations of Matthew 25:40, there seem to be at least a dozen or more. Which is the "official" Bible translation that is used for the Roman Catholic Mass in the USA? Which Bible do they use? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

They seem to endorse several translations. See here. Of those, I've heard of the New Revised Standard Version and the New American Bible. Our article on the later one says that it is the only translation approved for use at Mass in the diocese of the United States. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. So when I hear a reading from a Mass (in the USA) it must be coming from the New American Bible. Is that correct? Also: what is the Mass is in Canada? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Canada also uses the New Revised Standard Version. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

BTW, it seems that http://biblehub.com concentrates on protestant versions of the bible (and is heavy on King James). https://www.biblegateway.com/ also has the the two Catholic editions mentioned above. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

To clarify: there are indeed many different translations - vast numbers of them - but relatively few canons in modern use. That is to say, if you pick up a bible at random in a bookshop, the odds are the list of biblical books it contains will be one of a relatively small number. Almost all in the English-speaking world will be either a Protestant canon (no apocrypha), an Anglican canon (apocryphal books in their own section), or a Catholic canon (apocryphal books integrated with the Old Testament). Moreover, the latter two have essentially the same content, differently organised. There are exceptions; the NRSV 'Common Bible' edition contains a number of apocryphal books (and chapters, eg Psalm 151) which are specific to Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox canons and not often found in English translation. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

My main question is: if I want to "follow" (word-for-word) the Biblical readings that are contained within the Roman Catholic Mass (in the USA), what Bible should I purchase? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Unquestionably the New American Bible, then, if what's reported above is accurate. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Boutros Boutros-Ghali: Why the repeated name?

Why did he have the same name twice? If they wanted to name him after his grandfather, couldn't they have just named him "Boutros Ghali?" Is the repetition of the last first name (added) and hyphenation a special Coptic custom when naming a child after an ancestor? It sounds like "John John Kennedy's" childhood nickname. Edison (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

What were his parents' full names? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Apparently his father's first name was Yusef or Yousef, but I could not find their full names

But, why not? Why is this more unusual than William Carlos Williams or Sirhan B. Sirhan or Phillip Phillips or any of a number of other such names. --Jayron32 22:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Did those persons name their children with hyphenation and a repetition of the first name as well? Like William William-Carlos-Williams, or Sirhan Sirhan-Bishara-Sirhan, or Philip Philip-Philips? Any of those cases might be relevant to the question. Otherwise the response seems off-topic. I did not just ask "Is there any other name with the same name in it twice somehow?" Edison (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hard to tell until or if we can find the names of his parents. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

This genealogy site claims his father's name was Youssef Boutros Ghali, not hyphenated. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason for the naming conventions of the west to be applied around the world. Heck even in the west things like this happen. Do you remember this one Bugs? MarnetteD|Talk 23:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is that there can be nuances in one language and/or alphabet that do not come across when translated into English. In this case the Arabic writing does have the same name twice but, natrually, there is no hyphen. MarnetteD|Talk 00:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

List of people with reduplicated names, fwiw --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Also see this old ref desk thread: The question about his name seems to come up repeatedly. --Xuxl (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Is a viable Palestinian State a possibility?

Basically, can Palestine become its own country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheesewu (talk • contribs) 20:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

They've been trying to achieve just exactly that for a long time now. The default assumption, shared by Palestine and her supporters, is that it's possible. There is no authoritative source that could ever prove it's not possible. -- Jack of Oz 21:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well it's possible, of course, given some goodwill, but it seems unlikely to happen in the current political climate. Dbfirs 21:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

What would happen if they did? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheesewu (talk • contribs) 21:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Then they would become their own country. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

... but might not be recognised by some powerful countries. Dbfirs 21:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Might be, or might not be. No way to know ahead of time. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

We do have an article on the Palestinian National Authority. Tevildo (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Academically, yes: A country called Palestine could come into being, and it could be made up of territory currently under Israeli control. But I take it from the tone of your question that you want an opinion as to whether it's practically possible. That is, honestly, beyond the scope of the refdesk to answer. Suffice it to say that there are many works on the subject that you may find relevant. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 23:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It already is, depending on who you ask. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to assume you mean within the current borders. That is, the West Bank plus Gaza Strip. I'd say yes, if they cooperated with Israel instead of fighting it, then they could have a viable state. However, they are so economically dependent on Israel, that any strife between them would quickly collapse the Palestinian economy. Note that this level of economic dependency isn't unique, but being dependent on a nation with which they are almost at war is. The Israelis would also need to stop expanding settlements into Palestinian land. StuRat (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The Palestinians might understandably have some reservations about cooperating with a country that occupies their land, discriminates against their citizens, structurally demolishes their economy and once in a while invades and destroys a few more bits of their infrastructure. Cooperation can't be a one way street...Fgf10 (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

If the state somehow became widely recognised and thereafter the Palestinians remain content with the partition and Israel respects its sovereignty, there is no particular reason why it would not be viable. There are other examples of smallish countries in the region that more or less function. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

In fact, the Palestinians were offered a state, but some Ara-fathead decided to hold out for a better deal. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

No, he merely wanted back the land that was stolen from his people. The 'deal' offered to him did not fully do this, so it was rightly rejected. Fgf10 (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

"Merely"? Also, I don't believe "stolen" is the right word when land changes hands by war. But those are tangents. The point is, the opportunity the OP was asking about was there for the taking, so the answer is yes, it at least was a possibility. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

If we somehow magic away the political problems (in Palestine, Israel, and the US), a Palestine state would still be problematic in the short term. The infrastructure and economy are largely in ruins, so they would need large amounts of international aid. Fgf10 (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This question clearly calls for opinions, which is not the purpose of the RefDesks. Notwithstanding this fact, contributors might have taken the opportunity to present what WP:reliable sources have to say on the matter, but that is not what has happened. Rather, with the exception of one internal link to one of our own articles, every single response here has represented personal speculation, now devolving into an argument representing the political stances of the users involved, in blatant violation of WP:NOTAFORUM (as is predictable when Misplaced Pages editors forget that they are not meant to be discussing their personal outlooks). As such, I'm hatting this discussion to put an end to the disruption/accusations of wrongdoing on the part of the political entities being judged here. If anyone feels that they can discuss this matter in a sourced, un-involved, non-forum-like manner, they can feel free to reverse my hatting without complaint from me, but I remind everyone that the Israeli-Palestine topic area is subject to WP:discretionary sanctions and the last thing the desks need is acrimony and long, protracted, non-productive arguments about who is really to blame for the conflict, especially when it isn't even serving an improvement to our encyclopedic content. Source or go home, folks. Snow 04:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Snow Rise, I have unhatted this and moved your opinion to the bottom. It's perfectly possible to answer the question with references to reliable sources, no-one who has responded has any but that does not mean the question is defective. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The OP may find the article at interesting, as it addresses many of his/her questions as to a palestininan state's potential viability. Given that (s)he may wish to view other sample articles from stratfor in the future, I recommend using a mailinator email address to send the article to, rather than his/her normal address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliyohub (talk • contribs) 14:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Ironically enough, that site requires registration. What I would like to know is what Palestine would do or is doing economically? What do they manufacture and sell, to sustain their economy? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

That's an interesting question Baseball Bugs and quite a lot of work has been done on the topic. The World Bank has a couple of interesting papers on building economic sustainability in a future Palestinian state - Google "TOWARDS ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY OF A FUTURE PALESTINIAN STATE: PROMOTING PRIVATE SECTOR-LED GROWTH" and "The Underpinnings of the Future Palestinian State". Googling "Economic viability of future Palestinian state" will also turn up other books and papers of varying degrees of reliability. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

February 17

In Japan, how common is the combination futon and murphy bed?

Murphy beds seem to be ideal for Japanese futons. Japanese would tend to hang the futon in the morning, to occupy less space and air it. However, maybe due to my scarce knowledge of Japan, I don't remember to have seen such combination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scicurious (talk • contribs) 23:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how you can combine them, as a Japanese futon lacks a frame, and Murphy bed requires a frame. The Western futon does have a frame, so is that what you mean ? StuRat (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

You could always somehow attach the bottom of the futons to the frame. It is not a must to let the futon lose on the bed. --Scicurious (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

If the futon was stretched and attached to the frame it wouldn't be a Japanese futon, it would just be a mattress. The point of futon is that it's soft and light and portable, and when in use you are relying on the floor for support. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. That's a bit like saying "why can't we change a bicycle to have 4 wheels instead of 2, an enclosed passenger compartment for multiple passengers and cargo, and an engine". Well, we can, but then it's a car, not a bicycle. StuRat (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

February 18

Christianity, social progressiveness and sex

Please give an overview of different Christian denomination according to their social progressiveness. That is, which denominations are socially progressive on issues like sexual freedom, LGBT, gender equality etc. and which denominations are socially regressive? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Do those whom others regard as "regressive" consider themselves with such a seemingly perjorative tag? Or would they call themselves something else ("conservative", perhaps?) --Dweller (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

See Religion and sexuality#Christianity and Christianity and sexual orientation for our relevant articles. Tevildo (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

There are a lot of denominations - enough to make listing them all unfeasible. And it's very hard to divide them cleanly into 'progressive' and 'conservative' on sexuality. The Church of England, for example, ordains women as priests, and has priests who are openly gay, and who are openly trans. It's also recently relaxed somewhat on the remarriage of divorcees. But it won't allow its priests to enter same-sex marriages, expects priests in same-sex relationships to be celibate, won't perform or (officially) bless same-sex marriages, and provides little centralised advice on things like supporting trans people. And it dedicates a remarkable amount of energy to providing oversight and support for clergy and their congregations who object to the more progressive measures, even when that gives the outward appearance of inconsistency regarding (say) the reality of women's ordination. All that's just one national church within one denomination. Cross the border into Wales, and it's different. Go to a large offshoot like the Methodists, and it's different again. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Tax system

1) How does it work, in any country? In simple terms please.

2) I would like to know what percentage goes to what and what…

3) Also what percentage does a poor, middle, high/rich class individual pay, in any country? -- Apostle (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

There are two different and somewhat unrelated questions - how is the money raised, and how is it spend. The first is usually not considered part of the tax system, but take a look at United States federal budget, which has some numbers for the US, or the less impressive but still useful Federal budget of Germany. Most democratic states should publish their budgets in some details, since fixing budgets is a big part of the parliamentary process. Tax systems are usually complicated beasts, with direct and indirect taxes, and with corporate and private taxes (not to mention tariffs and fees). But for personal income tax, many states have a progressive tax system, where higher incomes are taxed more highly. In Germany, you pay no taxes on the first ca. EUR 8500/year (considered necessary for basic living expenses), then 14% on the first Euro beyond that, with that rate increasing with the income. You pay the maximum rate of 45% on every Euro above EUR 250,730/year. There are several deductions which decrease your taxable income (i.e. commuting costs, work-related books and trainings, tools used for your trade, ...), so actual tax depends not just on income, but also on expenses. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting — doesn't sound as much higher than the US as I would have thought. Do you also pay income tax to the Länder? --Trovatore (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess I mean the maximum doesn't sound as much higher as I would have thought (I think it's 39% in the US). But someone making 250K would pay a marginal 33% federal I think; obviously 45% is a lot higher than that. In California they'd also pay about 9% marginal state income tax. Then there are payroll taxes, the main one being FICA, which has a cap so it doesn't matter so much to the really top earners but it's still significant at 250K. And the Medicare tax has no cap and adds I think another 2% or so to taxes on wages and salaries. --Trovatore (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

No, in Germany we only have a federal income tax (which is partially transferred to the states, iirc). Payroll taxes ("Sozialbeiträge") in Germany are different (but deductible for purposes of income tax), and amount to about 20% in total. They are only paid by employees on their wages, not by, say, independent professionals, and not on other sources of income. They also are not a simple tax, but a kind of insurance, giving good medical coverage (better than most US plans I have seen), decent retirement pensions (not enough to keep your standard of living without additional savings, but not too far off), and unemployment insurance (only about 1.5% of the 20%). There also are different caps for the different kinds of taxes (~70000/year for retirement and unemployment, and ~50000/year for health insurance), both for payment and for receipts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The payroll taxes in the U.S. are a form of social insurance, since they go to social programs. The FUTA covers the federal share of the costs of administering unemployment insurance (UI) and related programs in each state (the state governments also kick in); similarly, the Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax (FICA) goes to fund Social Security and Medicare. Neutrality 20:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you consider military spending to be "social insurance"? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality's comments were about payroll taxes. The military is funded primarily by the income tax. Even though they withhold money from your paycheck to cover it, the income tax is not usually described as a "payroll tax"; that term usually means things like FICA, Medicare, and unemployment insurance — taxes that are taken as a percentage of wages and salaries, not computed based on total income. You can say it's a slightly arbitrary distinction if you like, but I think that's how the term is usually used. --Trovatore (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course, if government funds are fully fungible then it's actually arbitrary where taxes come from. --Jayron32 14:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

There is that. --Trovatore (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

In the UK, the basic system is fairly similar to what Stephan described in Germany. Everybody has a "personal allowance" which is the first slice of income on which no tax is paid - in the current 2015-2016 tax year this is £10,600 for people born after 5 April 1938 and £10,660 for people born before then. After that, income up to £31,785 is charged at 20%, then income up to £150,000 is charged at the "higher rate" of 40%, and income above £150,000 is charged at the "additional rate" of 45%. There are a few variations - blind people have an additional allowance of £2290 on top of their personal allowance, married couples have an allowance and can transfer some of the personal allowance between them if only one has an income. The Scottish Government has the power to vary the national income tax rates by 3% but has never used this power so far. 2015-16 tax rates and allowances. In addition to income tax, we have "National Insurance" which historically was used to provide old-age pensions but now goes into the governments' general taxation pot: NI is rather complicated, but people in paid employment pay "Class 1" NI contributions, which currently is 12% on income between £155 and £815 per week, and 2% on income above £815 per week. Additionally, employers pay 13.8% of their employees' pay on income over £156 per week (reduced by 3.4% if they have a contracted-out pension scheme). Self-employed people pay either "Class 2" or "Class 4" NI contributions depending on their profit level. NI rates. On top of this, we have the "Council Tax" which is a property tax levied by each local authority based on which band your home is placed in - my house is in the cheapest Band A and together with the 25% discount for having only one adult living in it, I paid about £70 a month for 10 months in the current tax year (we get spared the tax in February and March); this is used to pay for local authority services such as schools, waste collection, police, fire and rescue service, etc. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all. I understand. Can someone clarify point (2) please? I'm looking for a percentage template(s) governments use for their daily/weekly/monthly (recurring or so)/ yearly budgetary fund(s). E.g., what percentage for military/police, and so on. -- Apostle (talk) 07:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's a chart for Canada over five years (2005-2009) of federal spending by area . Note that it doesn't include provincial expenditures, which are significant in areas like health and education for example. --Xuxl (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Try this. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks (both) -- Apostle (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Royal mint and legal tender

Two questions posted per edit request at WT:RD. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

1) With regards to this story about Royal Mint legal tender coins that cannot be spent in any reasonable way, and are thus pretty much worthless unless you are in debt to a court in which case the "legal tender" provisions activate; can you give me a definitive list of UK coins that retailers and banks have to accept by law for normal transactions, not just "legal tender" settlement of debts? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyalMintQuestion (talk • contribs) 20:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

2) The Royal Mint is introducing a new £1 coin in 2017. Please can you tell me if the current £1 coins will still be legal tender after this date. Thank you. RoyalMintQuestion (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

See Coins of the pound sterling for the first question, and Twenty pounds (British coin), and One hundred pounds (British coin) for the commemorative coins that aren't usable for normal transactions. This is the official page from the Royal Mint on the new £1 coin - they say "We are currently undertaking further work with the cash handling industry to model the withdrawal process." They do _not_ answer the question "will there be an official record for balancing them on top of each other?", which seems to me to be the most important aspect of the change. Tevildo (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I would anticipate that, as when the 5p, 10p, and 50p coins were reduced in size in the early 1990s, there will be a fairly short period when the old and new coins are in circulation together before the old ones are withdrawn. As I recall, previously the old coins disappeared after about a year, but there are an awful lot of old-style £1 coins in circulation. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The small 50p was introduced in September 1997 and the large one withdrawn in March 1998, incidentally - see this contemporary BBC article. Tevildo (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding question 1, the Royal Mint says that retailers and banks are under no obligation to accept anything that isn't in general circulation, according to their guidelines on the Royal Mint website FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is neither banks or retailers are required to accept any coins or notes for most purposes in most countries. The exception is for debts, where legal tender applies. Our article seems to confirm this includes England and Wales. In other words neither banks nor retailers have to accept even any coins or notes in general circulation or the requested definitive list is basically empty. Most will, particularly banks but they don't have to unless it was agreed beforehand. Perhaps there's some implied agreement in your contract with your bank that they will accept notes and coins in general circulation, but I wouldn't be so sure. And of course even if they do, it's fairly likely there is something in the contract which allows them to charge cash handling fees. In fact, even where legal tender comes in to play, while they may have to accept legal tender, if there was an agreement beforehand it's likely they could pursue you for any costs they incurred by your decision to pay in a manner different from the agreement. I guess you could get in to complexities like whether a retailer is guilty of false advertising or something similar if they only accept £5 notes with serial number LH1XXXXXX but don't mention it anywhere, but that's fairly complicated and of course if they have prominent signs your complaint starts to fall apart (which means this doesn't really create a legal obligation to always accept) Nil Einne (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

February 19

£

Would the British PM change pound to euro if it re-joins EU? I hope not… -- Apostle (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links
• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers
• Misplaced Pages help forums
• Misplaced Pages reference desk