Revision as of 21:30, 10 August 2019

• 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

August 3

Spanish translation of D. H. Lawrence's The Plumed Serpent

Hello, I'd like to know whether D. H. Lawrence's The Plumed Serpent was translated into Spanish, and if so when the Spanish translation was published and who the translator was. Bibliographic details (or a link to a library record listing them) would be great. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

--Viennese Waltz 11:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful, but that's a 2009 version of the novel. Surely it was published in Spanish before then? Searching the Advanced Book Exchange, the oldest Spanish copy listed was published in 1940. I don't know whether that was the first Spanish edition, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

edit: ah yes, that's the one you found. --Viennese Waltz 11:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You can read the 2009 translation at . 2A00:23C5:CDA6:4900:DCD9:81FA:D378:8463 (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

In fact the 2009 translation appears to be a reprint of a 2000 translation. 2A00:23C5:CDA6:4900:DCD9:81FA:D378:8463 (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

August 4

Right to arms and extrajudicial killing

Have US courts or legal experts considered whether the right to keep and bear arms under Second Amendment trumps the issue of lynching-styled extrajudicial killing (or whether the two issues conflict with each other)? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

What has the Second Amendment got to do with lynchings? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The sheer tonnage of bulsh*tty "thought" produced nowadays by "experts" make it almost certain that someone got published, say, that Second Amendment is the right to lynch. Gem fr (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Ropes constitute "arms"? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Lynching in the United States doesn't even mention the 2nd. And I see no reason why it should.

OTOH one interesting instance of "lynch" in https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk%3ASecond_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution%2FArchive_1

Gem fr (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

That point being that if you have a gun, you might be less likely to get lynched. So of course the Second Amendment "trumps" extrajudicial killing. I'm trying to imagine how that could even come up in a court case. Would the prospective lynching party complain that a guy used a gun to defend himself? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

In any case, the right to bear arms does exist, while the right to lynch doesn't, so much so that it is even a crime. So the matter, if brought to court, would be as simple as legal matter can be (but, who knows... ) Gem fr (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Short answer: They absolutely have. The answer generally is that, while the right to bear arms is expressly and explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, specific crimes like extrajudicial killings are not mentioned expressly and explicitly in the Constitution. In other words, there are no baked-in federal protections against extrajudicial killings specifically. The federal government is probably free to prohibit such killings (insofar as they affect interstate commerce), but they could not use the threat of extrajudicial killings to curtail the right to bear arms any more than they could any other justification. In other words, if a specific law were to unconstitutionally infringe on the right to bear arms, the fact that the justification for that law stems from a desire to curtail extrajudicial killings would make no difference. Similarly, if a specific law constitutionally impacted the right to bear arms, substituting a different justification for a desire to prevent extrajudicial killings would not render it unconstitutional. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 00:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • No one can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Extrajudicial killing is, by definition, not due process of law. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
    • No one can face such a deprivation by the government. Extrajudicial killings in the United States are more often carried out by private individuals than the government. However, to the extent a law were made to regulate governmental usage of arms so as to protect individuals from deprivations of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, then such law probably would survive a second amendment challenge by the government. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 00:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Murder is illegal everywhere in America. How is a lynching not murder? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
        • It's illegal everywhere (mostly under state law, but also under federal law in some unusual circumstances). But the reason it's illegal isn't because of the due process clause. It's illegal either because of carry-over from English common law or (I think in all jurisdictions now) because there's a statute making it illegal. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 00:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
          • Either way, it's illegal. And even if you were to count a rope as an "arm", it is illegal to used "arms" to commit murder. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
            • Either way, it's illegal. That's not the point though. The point is that there is no constitutional protection against extrajudicial killing such that there would need to be a harmonization with the Second Amendment. To repeat what I said above: If a specific law were to unconstitutionally infringe on the right to bear arms, the fact that the justification for that law stems from a desire to curtail extrajudicial killings would make no difference. Similarly, if a specific law constitutionally impacted the right to bear arms, substituting a different justification for a desire to prevent extrajudicial killings would not render it unconstitutional. Not all things that are illegal have a constitutional dimension to their illegality. Murder at least lacks a clear constitutional dimension. I would argue that there might be a substantive due process argument that a state must have a law prohibiting the unlawful killing of another under certain circumstances, and within that there may be a constitutional minimum to the conduct that must be prohibited. But that wouldn't rise to the level of justifying what would otherwise be an unconstitutional curtailment of second amendment rights.
              And even if you were to count a rope as an "arm", it is illegal to used "arms" to commit murder. Well no, it's illegal to commit murder, no matter how you commit it. In some jurisdictions there may be an enhancement for using a weapon to do it, or a separate crime of unlawful use of a firearm or use of a firearm in the commission of a felony that would be charged alongside the murder. Anyway, I took OP's use of "lynching" as a general reference to extrajudicial killings, which need not be the stereotypical rope thrown over a tree limb. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 02:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
              • I mean that while you have the right to keep and bear arms, however "arms" are defined, using those arms to commit murder (or any other crime) is illegal, i.e. is not protected by the 2nd Amendment. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
                • The statement repeated by Baseball Bugs seems so uncontroversial that it is hard to see why Mendaliv demurs "Well no,.." but possibly means "Well yes,..". DroneB (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
                  • Mendaliv's point seems to be that the murder itself is the crime, not the means by which the murder is accomplished. That is true, as far as I know, and can be distinguished from cases in which the means by which a crime is accomplished is a separate offense in itself. It's a fine point, and tricky to express in a way that won't be misread. --Trovatore (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
                    • Quite. The ending of the life of another without legal justification is the prohibited act. Using arms to achieve that (versus a rock, drowning, poison, a pillow, etc.) is more often a matter of aggravation or degree than the principal act prohibited. To use the formulation favored by G. Robert Blakey, in a law which prohibits killing another by using firearms, the “using firearms” would be described as surrounding circumstances rather than conduct or result. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• I'm failing to follow the non-sequitur introduced by the OP. Killing a person outside of legal means is usually manslaughter or murder, and is entirely unrelated to someone's right to own a gun. I don't see where the right to own a gun does or does not affect the legality of murder. --Jayron32 18:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Killing a person outside of legal means is related to someone's right to own a gun in 2 obvious ways:

• a motive: "how dare you claim a right to bear arm, as if you were a citizen, you negro? we KKK hang you for this"
• a deterrent: "I am all in for lynching the man, except he has a gun and ready to defend his life"

neither affect the illegality of lynching, of course Gem fr (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Still, in your first case you've committed murder. If you murder someone for other reasons than the reason you gave you've also committed murder. Courts also don't decide such things as deterrence. It isn't their place. Their place is to decide whether you've committed murder. Your right (or not) to own a gun is unrelated to that. There's no possible way where the mere right to own an object (or not, as it were) would enter into whether or not you killed a person illegally. --Jayron32 19:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Courts also don't decide such things as deterrence. It isn't their place. Their place is to decide whether you've committed murder. Point of clarification: In determining the penalty, factors such as deterrence may indeed be relevant. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Sentencing guidelines come from the legislative branch, not the court system. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

ever heard about case law / precedent? Gem fr (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The sentencing guidelines aren't binding (see United States v. Booker and Blakely v. Washington). The court (and jury, if a jury is involved in the sentencing phase) has significant discretion as to the sentence for a particular crime. And that's where they consider a variety of factors, including the need for punishment resulting from the evil the crime caused, the deterrence effect of the penalty, the rehabilitation potential of the person being sentenced, and the need to remove that person from society in order to protect society. I would recommend taking a look at Wayne LaFave's Substantive Criminal Law for more information on the justifications for criminalization and penalization and their philosophical underpinnings. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 03:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

If you look at the other "contributions" from the OP, it becomes likely that this one post was intended to generate debate. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

For a short period in the 1950s, murder "by shooting or causing an explosion" carried the death penalty, but most others didn't. I say "most" because even today some offences are capital (e.g. any man who was intimate with Diana while she was married to Charles could have been executed). 2A00:23C4:7916:5100:B5:BE45:9F68:23D1 (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

... but wouldn't have been. That possibility was abolished a year after her death. Dbfirs 20:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

August 6

alleged shooter

I see stuff in the news about the alleged shooters in the recent El Paso and Dayton shootings. The El Paso suspect was arrested and pending outcome of a criminal trial, he's presumably (cough) innocent, so I understand why the newspapers have to refer to him as "alleged". If and when he is convicted, they get to call him a shooter instead of an alleged shooter. The Dayton suspect, on the other hand, is dead, though perhaps still pursuing an acting career doing Stanislavskian impressions of Swiss cheese. Barring a cadaver synod he is unlikely to be put on trial. So will he always only be an alleged shooter, or is there a grace period (30 days?) after which he becomes a shooter, or what? Not seeking legal advice yada yada. Just wondering. Thanks. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 03:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, you're looking at it from the libel perspective from the suspect, but in reality in most situations it's entirely possible that the police are wrong about the suspect, or that there are additional perpetrators. In short, my understanding is that this soon after a crime there is still going to be an investigation by police even though the prime suspect is dead. When that investigation concludes, there may be a formal release or disclosure of what happened. I have no idea what standards the media use, but that's my take on what the law and order side of it is—even when the case seems obvious to us, the police still have things they have to do to ensure that obvious result is in fact correct. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 04:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Obviously conviction requires a trial, and a trial of a dead person is a posthumous trial. Although these have been done occasionally, they are extremely rare and usually for show. It's actually very hard to find anyone actually talking about whether these can happen outside of Russia, but the Warren Report does explicitly state that "under our system there is no provision for a posthumous trial." The eponymous Earl Warren helped write that, and I think it's safe to assume he knew what he was talking about. Okay, so criminally, the accused is never convicted. In some contexts it is possible for a deceased individual to be found responsible for something at civil trial (this is handled by probate law), but not quite the same thing. As for how the media handles this, that's really just up to them. You cannot libel the dead, but by personal observation I feel that media tends to wait until there has been some kind of official investigative conclusion before declaring that the deceased accused was responsible. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Mendaliv and Someguy1221, thanks for the answers, which were clarifying and helpful. It makes sense that there will still be an LE investigation that will eventually close with a finding. Someguy1221, I remember Ken Lay was tried and convicted for his part in the Enron scam, then died of a heart attack while an appeal was pending, so his conviction was vacated (per his biography) by abatement ab initio which meant that the government/Lay's creditors/whoever were not able to collect the financial restitution that Lay was supposed to pay. Lay's estate got to keep some tens of millions because of that iirc. A posthumous appelate proceeding could have helped I guess. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 05:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The government et al. were unable to to collect restitution via criminal penalty. This does not prevent recovery via civil lawsuit, whether by the government or an individual. However, it's a lot harder. See, in the event of a criminal conviction, not only can restitution be part of the penalty, the conviction turns the guilt of the accused into a matter of fact that may be introduced in a civil lawsuit. That is, if you hit someone with a car, and you are convicted in court of hitting that person with your car, your victim doesn't have to prove that you hit him with your car when he sues you. Since Lay's criminal case got tossed, that means whoever does the civil suit has to prove it all over again. And by god did they try. The main lawsuit against the Lay estate lasted until 2011, five years after his death. Specifically it ended in a settlement , but damn if I can't find any details about how much money was actually left by then. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Lay's biography really should be updated with it. If you want to do it that would be great. Otherwise I'll toss it on my todo list but I'm not editing much these days so it's likely to sit there for a while. I guess Lay isn't going anywhere though. And hmm, it occurs to me that the government is trying to collect something like $12 billion from El Chapo, who also has appeals pending, so I hope they are keeping him well protected. With Jeffrey Epstein it is probably more complicated. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 07:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Btw, did the side doing the civil lawsuit against the Lay estate only have to meet a civil instead of criminal standard of evidence, like in the wrongful death suit against OJ Simpson after Simpson's criminal acquittal? Was that easier? Could the Lay litigants re-use the evidence from Lay's criminal trial? Just wondering. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 08:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely, it would've been a civil suit and therefore subject to civil burdens of proof. Just bear in mind though that it's not a civil suit to establish the criminal charges. Like in the Simpson case, the criminal charge was murder, but the civil suit was for wrongful death. I'm not sure how the Lay cases were structured, but something similar would've been the case. As to whether it's easier, I'd say probably. The standard of proof would definitely be lower, but in criminal prosecutions in practice there's a huge advantage to being the prosecution (which is why the standard of proof is so high).
Could the Lay litigants re-use the evidence from Lay's criminal trial? Probably. I don't know about the practical issues of getting possession of the evidence, but as long as it was available and in the public record they could probably use it. One of the problems though, in white collar financial cases like that, there's a lot that hinges on expert analysis of financial records, and so in order to use that analysis, you'd need to have the expert available to testify. Now, that's not too hard to do in theory; you can just subpoena the guy if he doesn't want to testify, but you really don't want to do that if you can help it since it's a great way to piss off an expert witness. The other problem is that you can't just skip the discovery parts of it. So this guy is gonna have to be available for depositions. Oh, and of course, you're going to be paying through the nose for all this service he's providing. It's entirely possible the plaintiffs' attorneys would prefer to use their own experts. The tl;dr of it, I'd say, is that while you could probably import a lot of the evidence, you wouldn't be able to skip discovery, so the time and cost savings would probably not be all that great. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 08:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

England name

Hi, why did England eventually end up being named after the Angles, rather than say the Saxons, Picts, Celts, Jutes, etc. The Angles only seem to have settled in Anglia, and seemed to have arrived around the same time, or after, as the other tribes. We refer to pre-conquest England as Anglo-Saxon, so how did England instead of Saxonland, for instance, come to dominate? Was the naming of the country/kingdom controversial at the time as the majority of the population were not Angles? —Andrew 08:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

History of Anglo-Saxon England and England#Toponymy will be of help. Naming have some logic, but not so much as it the result can be predicted or explained afterward. Gem fr (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Because then we'd live in Sexland and speak Sexish. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I’d be cool with that - we’d be even more liberal than the Nordic countries - in one respect, at least —Andrew 13:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It appears they were using "Angle" first. Maybe just because A comes before S? And another oddity: How did the A's of Anglo-Saxon turn into E's? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

According to article Angles, it's due to "i-mutation" (a.k.a. umlaut). AnonMoos (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

According to traditional lore, the Jutes settled in a rather small area around Kent, so they weren't really in the running (while the Picts weren't in England at all). There is a Celtic name for England -- Logres -- but that would have been an exonym for speakers of the Anglo-Saxon or Old English language. Not sure why Angles were given the preference to Saxons onomastically, except maybe that people called Saxons were very prominent on the European mainland after the Germanic settlement of England, while Angles weren't... AnonMoos (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Alfred the Great promoted the use of the name "Anglecynn" to unify his people. See Sarah Foot "The Making of Angelcynn: English Identity before the Norman Conquest" in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society Vol. 6 (1996), pp. 25-49. DuncanHill (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

While it may be somewhat ironic that a king of Wessex (thus of a Saxon kingdom specifically) would name his land after the Angles (whose lands were East Anglia/Mercia/Northumberland) it is important to note that the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain happened some four centuries before Alfred the Great. There's a lot of time for names to change and vary and for language to drift. --Jayron32 16:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• I’d have thought given they settled around London, which I assume was as politically important then as it’s always been, that might have given the Jutes a bit more influence? —Andrew 16:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

To judge from conventional maps (File:Anglo_saxon_jute_575ad.jpg etc.), they settled to one side of London, on the south bank. Anyway, London was kind of at a low point during that period -- not really any kind of capital of any large or important realm until the 10th century... AnonMoos (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Alfred, and many other kings of Wessex and later kings of England, tended to base their courts at Winchester, which would have been the seat of political power. Anglo-Saxon kings were crowned there (and usually based their courts there) all the way through the Norman Conquest. --Jayron32 12:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Pope Gregory I's famous quip: Non Angli, sed angeli ("Not Angels Angles but angels") is the generally quoted reason why the Saxons preferred to be called English. The anecdote comes to us from the Venerable Bede, whose epic history completed in 731 was called Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum ("Ecclesiastical History of the English People") including Angles Jutes and Saxons. Alansplodge (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

By the way, Celtic speakers still refer to us as Saxons: Welsh say Sais for a person and Saison for the language, and we all know about Sassenach in Scotland. In 1602, Richard Carew found that asking a local any question in Cornwall would elicit the reply: Meea navidna caw zasawzneck ("I speak no Saxonage"), even though it was obvious that they knew exactly what was being said. Alansplodge (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Alan, I think you mean "not Angles, but angels" in your translation... or, as 1066 and All That has it, 'not angels, but Anglicans' AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, now corrected. Alansplodge (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Anyway, better to be named after the Angles than after the Circles, Lines, Points, Squares or Miscellaneous Geometric Concepts.  :) -- Jack of Oz 23:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It's not uncommon to find obtuse Angles. Alansplodge (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    • The famous Page 3 babes are a-cute Angles. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    • You squared a fair point, no way we can circle the wagon against that punch line. Gem fr (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Don't forget their famous queen, Polly Hedron. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

... (Not to be confused with Kings of the Angles -- which is not to be confused with Los Angles: a terrible place to drive —too many sharp corners.) 107.15.157.44 (talk) 03:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Preferring Angles to Circles in rebellion against the traditions of Flatland? —Tamfang (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

August 7

Falkland Islands

What makes the Falkland Islands so appealing for the United Kingdom and Argentina that they were willing to fight a war over the territory? 147.41.128.38 (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

For both, the use of the islands as a cargo terminal and anchorage for warships in that part of the southern hemisphere were surely part of it, as would be the fisheries and other resources within the exclusive economic zone. For Argentina, the proximity to it would also have strategic importance, as well as raise issues related to competing claims over things like fisheries. The UK's additional interests would probably mostly stem from protection over overseas subjects, which is a matter of great importance to most developed nations with overseas dependencies. Most people living in the Falkland Islands are of Scottish and Welsh descent, and don't see themselves as Argentinians, thus the question of self-determination enters into it. But looking at it from a highly cynical view, you could definitely explain it in terms of economics and importance for naval force projection in the region (particularly for the UK). —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 05:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

On Argentina's part, some combination of pride (unwilling to let go of an old claim) and diversionary foreign policy. Wars are sometimes deliberately started or at least threatened just to drum up support for a flagging regime. On the UK's part, it's a necessary show of force. That is, if the one-time largest empire on Earth can't defend a little island from some upstart military junta in South America, what other countries might start considering invading the UK's overseas territory? Economically the Falklands makes a considerable profit from the fishing trade, although this was after the invasion, as prior the local fish had been exploited to near-extinction. It was also determined more recently that the area around the islands may have oil reserves of 60 billion barrels, which at today's price would be worth around $3 trillion. It's not easy to access, though - deepwater oil costs ballpark $30 a barrel to extract, but that's still a load of money, especially as easier reserves deplete. But again, at the time of the fighting? Not a major factor. I suspect if the island's economy had never materialized, it might not be any different. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

There is a further as-yet undiscussed factor. The Falklands were the headline issue for both sides, being de facto long-populated by ethnically British inhabitants but with a shaky de jure case, popular in Argentina, for a Spanish and by inheritance Argentinian territorial claim. However, Argentinia also attempted to seize South Georgia Island, part of the British Overseas Territory South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands on which Argintina also has claims. This territory overall has considerable strategic importance (because of nuclear submarine routes) and potentially large economic value from its fishing and (sea floor) mineral resources. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.24.56 (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages has an article titled Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute which has a LOT of information on the historical background behind the various claims over the islands. It would be a useful starting point for the OP to research the answers to their question. If that one article doesn't contain enough information, there are several links to related articles, to external sources, and to references that may help. On the general question, Britain wants to maintain the Falklands for many of the same reason other European and Western colonial powers have retained territories in far-flung places, like the U.S. in places like Guam and Midway Island, or France with its various outre-mer territories. To maintain economic control over a local resource (oil, fish, etc.). To maintain a place for commercial or military vessels to base themselves if needed. To project power to remote locations around the world. Many of these are "just-in-case" reasons; i.e. there may not currently be any war going on, but you better believe that Guam would become very useful to the U.S. in case one were to break out in Asia, for example. Or there may not currently be oil reserves nearby to one of these remote islands, but if any were found... After all, control of the Spratly Islands probably wasn't all that big of a deal, until it was... --Jayron32 12:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Nobody has yet linked to it, so here it is: Exclusive economic zone. For that reason, any island has some value. (and I am not saying that is the only value it would have) --Lgriot (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Also back in the 80s people were still seriously talking about other seabed/continental shelf resources like manganese nodules. So having lots of wide EEZ claims around the world were seen as having long-term value... just as soon as the science caught up with it! (nearly 40 years later we're still waiting) —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

When people don't bitch about short-termism (red link? seriously?), they must mock long term thinking, I guess... Gem fr (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

This could be huge in this century and the next, and France must know it. The EEZ for Clipperton Island, an atoll so small that it would extremely hard to survive on it without supplies being delivered regularly, is 431,273 sq km, much larger than the entire EEZ of Metropolitan France (only 333,691 sq km). --Lgriot (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The OP may be interested to watch this 60 minute YouTube video by the rather excellent Lindy Beige. --bodnotbod (talk) 10:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Interesting indeed. I wondered why NATO didn't kick in, and answer lies in North_Atlantic_Treaty#Article_6: the treaty covers only member states' territories in Europe and North America, and islands in the North Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer, plus French Algeria. Gem fr (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

August 9

Time capsule

Pages 2, 8 and 12 of the supplement "Kick-off: a 12-page guide to the new football season in north London" inserted into yesterday's Islington Gazette are datelined "Weekday, 32 Janutember 2999". The other pages are datelined, more prosaically, "Thursday, August 8, 2019". Is this the latest dateline ever recorded? 2A00:23C5:C708:8C00:F177:1593:A994:19B8 (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

this isn't even a dateline, is it? The latest linedate ever recorded to date is "Saturday, August 10, 2019" (that some Kiribati newspaper used right now). Enjoy, the record will be broken in just a few hours. Gem fr (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

As noted by Gem, this is not a legitimate dateline. It is Filler text which has been published by mistake. When something is to be published, the designers of the page will create a "mock up" of the final version often before they have received the text to go into the publication. This is more efficient since the designers can work up a design simultaneous to the text being written, instead of waiting around for the final text before starting their design. The intent is that when the writers submit their pieces, the filler text is replaced by the actual intended text. Occasionally, something is made live without proper double- and triple- checking, and the final version is actually less than final, resulting in bits of filler text being left in. This happens quite often, and doesn't mean that they actually meant to use that text. The use of the nonsensical day and month "Weekday, 32 Janutember" is the giveaway that it was supposed to be replaced. If it was done properly, a proofreader would have noticed the nonsensical date, and sent it back for fixing. --Jayron32 16:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The bad proofreading Jayron describes, of course, is not new; the same situation was responsible for the Etaoin shrdlu phenomenon. A difference, however, is that today one could theoretically instruct a computer to look for this text before sending the page to press, unlike 100 years ago. Nyttend (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

The OP is the banned user Vote X for Change and his post should have been deleted on sight rather than receiving the above good faith replies. It's unfortunate that I wasn't around at the time to delete the question, but we are where we are. --Viennese Waltz 07:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Customs and immigration procedures for people rescued at sea

How do customs and immigration authorities deal with the situation when a foreign national is unexpectedly brought into a country after having been rescued at sea, particularly when the person concerned would not normally qualify to enter or when their passport has been lost? Is there an international treaty or protocol that covers this? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

As far as lost passports, you might look into what was done for Titanic survivors; they were taken to New York, which was already their destination (so "not normally qualify to enter" doesn't apply), but presumably a good number of them lost their papers. Unfortunately this detail is absent from Sinking of the RMS Titanic and Passengers of the RMS Titanic.  Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

When rescued, you are already in a country. Either because you were in territorial waters, or the very moment you are brought inboard (as per ship registration). Pretty sure there are some admiralty laws, mandating help to the ship if now in trouble for rescuing (overload etc.), providing health care and food, etc.

But short of that, I don't expect customs and immigration authorities to care whether you were washed ashore, brought in by the vessel because you bought a ticket, or because the ship rescued you. Your embassy/consulate should help you with required paperwork, so you get any preferential treatment that some treaty mandates (fi: oh, you are European, you are free to go then). Gem fr (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Who is the historian in this video?

Does anyone here know who the historian in this video at 9:45 is? :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r72X5oUPTwM

2600:8802:1200:946:1597:B71D:F677:9C6 (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The youtube version has no credits, but the producer site version has:

https://timeline.pixel.video/watch/35066296

I didn't check, but I guess the name is one of those credited

Gem fr (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Who are these men?

I am pretty confident that the taller standing man second from the left is Henry Howard (diplomat). The photo was taken at the studio of Mathew Brady in Washington in the mid to late 1860s. Can anyone help identify the other three men? Cullen Let's discuss it 23:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The Secretary to the British Legation in 1860 was Walter Douglas Irvine but it doesn't seem to be him in your photo. Secretary to the Legation from 1861 was William Stuart (1824–1896) but I can't find an image. George Sheffield was attache and later Third Secretary, a photo of him is here. He replaced Arthur H. Seymour but no photo of him either. . Best I can do at the moment. Alansplodge (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Henry Howard did not arrive in Washington until 1865, well after Stuart had departed. Since the Brady studio recorded Howard's name but not the others, he was probably the most senior of the group. Those fellows look pretty young to me. Thanks, though. Cullen Let's discuss it 20:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

August 10

Gallup's most admired man and woman poll

Why was Gallup's most admired man and woman poll not run in 1976? , from Gallup's website, notes that it wasn't run that year, but doesn't explain why. Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers
• Misplaced Pages help forums
• Misplaced Pages reference desk