Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 July 2

= July 2 =

How does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights apply to criminals?
Do the rights expressed in the non-binding Universal Declaration of Human Rights (wikisource) apply to criminals? Certain articles, such as 9, 10, and 11 seem to be written with criminals in mind. However articles 3 and 13 seem to grant "liberty" and "freedom of movement" to everybody. No articles explain a process by which a person may forfeit "the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration", and article 2 seems quite explicit about "everyone" being "entitled" to them "without distinction of any kind" and regardless of any "status". Is there a generally accepted explanation of how these rights should be applied to criminals? --NilsTycho (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Article 9 says: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile." That implies that non-arbitrary detention is allowed. Article 30 says: "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein." That implies that States are allowed to take action against people infringing the rights of others. Those two Articles are as close as the declaration seems to get to saying you are allowed to punish criminals by withdrawing their human rights, but it is surprisingly unclear, I agree. --Tango (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A judge is an arbiter... 81.131.22.240 (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hence the keyword "non-binding". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't catch your meaning. Do you mean that because the Declaration is non-binding, it therefore need not explicitly deal with corner cases? Or do you mean that because the Declaration is non-binding, it is not hypocritical to ratify the Declaration with one hand while restricting the rights of criminals with the other? I'm not really concerned with the fact that the Declaration is not legally binding, I'm curious as to the intention of the drafters. --NilsTycho (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Moral rights for long-dead people?
In countries where moral rights such as attribution are perpetual, does this apply (in practice) only to relatively recently-dead individuals? For example, I know that France is one of these countries; could I somehow get in trouble if I published in France something written by Julius Cæsar or Napoleon Bonaparte without attributing them? I'd just curious; I have no way of publishing anything here in the USA, let alone in any other countries. Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A... very legal question I wouldn't dare answer. I have no idea about foreign law. And the French love their moral rights (personal opinion). In the U.S., the most clear version of moral rights is the Visual Artists Rights Act. It's rather limited, but the more important U.S. based rights (in my opinion) are contained in commercial statutes, namely the Lanham Act, which, among other things, protects federally against misleading business practices, like saying you're Picasso (common law fraud might do that too...). Keep in mind too that "publishing" has very interesting definitions, and while the U.S. used to care a lot about whether and when something was published, it doesn't care in the same way now, for most purposes, but other countries do. The U.S. still cares about publication and notice and all of those other technicalities, but the implications are nuanced and rather random. For your question, whether or not something you do inside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States warrants the courts of another country to exercise domain over you is particularly complicated, something I wouldn't even begin to speculate on. Ask a lawyer for details, but if this is a history question, our moral rights article, copyright article, and the others I referenced above are very good places to start. Shadowjams (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no real need to ask a lawyer; as I said, I have no ability to violate these individuals' moral rights, so this isn't at all a request for legal advice. Nyttend (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Copyright sometimes persists 50 to 100 years after the author's death. One can be sued for Defamation in the form of libel or slander of a deceased person, in both cases by any living heirs. The question "could I somehow get in trouble" is indeed a request for a legal opinion which the Ref. Desk. will not give. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

"vamos chile mierda"
Where does that phrase come from? Chileans seem to use it a lot to describe their country in positive ways. I can't imagine how calling one's country "mierda" could be prideful. But their soccer supporters use it a lot, and that phrase was all over Twitter after the recent earthquake to urge Chileans to unite. I believe even El Pais of Spain used that phrase to start off an article about Chilean recovery efforts (or something else about foreign relations, I can't remember...). -- hello, i'm a member  |  talk to me!  02:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Its a bit like saying "go Chile, for f**ck's sake". 'Mierda' in this context should not understood literally. Not sure were this particular expression stems from though. One could also say "Vamos Chile, carajo" ('Go Chile, damm it'). --Soman (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably not relevant, but in UK slang, "go like shit" means to go very fast. Alansplodge (talk) 11:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And "he's the shit" means the exact opposite of "he's a shit", which confused my French friend. 81.131.22.240 (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Which of course brings up why being "pissed off" isn't the exact opposite as being "pissed on" in fact, they are closer to synonyms if you think about it... If I am pissed on, I am also usually pissed off... -- Jayron  32  16:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Be aware that this is a slang saying. Slang does not always obey common gramatical rules (such as words meaning what they actually mean, when taken in isolation), and translations of slangs are easy to make mistakes, specially when done in a literal way MBelgrano (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Jokes also do not follow standard grammar rules, but are funnier when the teller pretends that they do for comedic effect. -- Jayron  32  00:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The function of mierda here is emphasis. It's a modifier for the whole preceding phrase. Steewi (talk) 04:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Korean and Mayan war
Age of Empires mentions a Korean and Mayan war in Texas. But what is this war? I'm having trouble finding any other mention about it. jc iindyysgvxc  (my contributions) 02:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've never played it (and there is no mention of such a war in the article), but as far as I'm aware it's a lot like the Civilization and Total War games, so you can create all kinds of unhistorical scenarios. (In Civ I my Russians once conquered the world in the third millennium BC.) It's just a game. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a joke; the manual writers were trying to be ironic. For those who don't have the game — one feature included in the Age of Empires II expansion pack is the ability to play a game on a Texas map, and the expansion's miniature manual says something such as "Relive the classic Mayan and Korean skirmish over the Lone Star State".  Nyttend (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Bernardino Luini
I'm trying to find a picture of a painting by Bernardino Luini. Its name should be Ninfa dei boschi. I've searched it with Google, but I think I haven't find the real painting. Any idea?--151.51.61.119 (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, the only mentions of this painting are in connection with an urban legend about the painting exhibiting paranormal activity. As part of the legend, the painting disappeared, and the museum curators claim they know nothing about it. I wouldn't be surprised if the painting never existed. --NilsTycho (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

American Foreign Policy
I read somewhere that the ultimate aim of the American Foreign Policy to India is disintegration of the Indian state as a single nation, is that correct ? Jon Ascton   (talk)  13:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No. -- Jayron  32  16:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To expand a bit on Jayron's answer: No, not at all. —Kevin Myers 16:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * May be during the cold war years, when we were in the opposite sides. I believe Selig Harrison has written something about this (i am not sure)--Sodabottle (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding conflicts in North-Eastern India, there have been accusations of videshi hath ('foreign hand'), CIA involvement, etc.. For example regarding the role of Western missionaries in influencing militant groups. But even if that would be correct, it would not mean "disintegration of the Indian state as a single nation", just like the separation of Bangladesh did not mean the end of Pakistan as a single nation. --Soman (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sodabottle, I don't recall ever hearing that India was a cold war opponent of the USA. Do you have a cite for that?  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It wasn't a Cold War opponent of the US. It was officially neutral, basically the founders of the Non-Aligned Movement. That meant that sometimes it sidled up with the USSR to get what it wanted, sometimes to the US. Clever policy, to be sure—keep everybody feeling you could switch sides at any moment, and everybody plays pretty nice with you and puts up with a lot. (Cf. Joe Lieberman.) In practice they got more out of the USSR than they did out of the US at many points, which did strain things a bit. (See India – United States relations.) But they were never officially on the other side or officially considered as such. Which doesn't, of course, mean that the CIA or whomever didn't have all sorts of schemes in place—they had those even for allies, much less neutrals or enemies. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say that India wasn't so much of an opponent of US, but certainly belonged to the other camp. The Bangladesh Liberation War for example, US and China backed Pakistan whilst Soviet Union backed India (and Bangladesh). The relationship has been pretty much coloured by the fact that Pakistan was (and largely remains) a US puppet state, tied up in schemes like CENTO. --Soman (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

US Postal Insurance vs. Delivery Confirmation
Not sure where to ask this, but this seemed the closest. I was at my local post office mailing a package. I asked to insure the package, which costs an additional fee. The postal worker then asked if I wanted Delivery Confirmation added for additional fee. And I got a bit confused. If I send a package by US Postal Service and I buy their insurance to cover the cost of the item, is purchasing delivery confirmation at an additional fee an unneeded expense? In my head, it seems logical that if someone didn't receive the package, USPS insurance would pay for it. If the recipient received the package, but claimed they hadn't, insurance would also pay me. I'm trying to think of a situation where delivery confirmation would be necessary if insurance is purchased. I think the local post office is trying to make an extra buck off an unsuspecting sucker. --70.167.58.6 (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Assume you send a time-critical document, i.e. a contract termination notice or a legal brief. You may need to be able to prove that it reached the recipient on time. Also, some items may be irreplacable, no matter the cost. Think about a rare book or a family heirloom. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Anything insured over a certain amount ($600 maybe) needs to be signed for when delivered anyway (so the postal worker I talked to said), so delivery confirmation would not be required in that situation. Googlemeister (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

facebook account delete
How do you completely delete your Facebook account? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.233 (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * See "I want to permanently delete my account" on this page. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * But this will not delete all the traces of your presence there. There is still the cached pages of search engines and web archiving services. Don't put anything online if you don't want to stay there forever.--Quest09 (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Or at least don't make it publicly viewable. You can set up Facebook so it won't appear in search engines or on web archives. (Additionally, I'm pretty sure Facebook doesn't show up in archives.org because of its robots.txt settings.) --Mr.98 (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * robots.txt are only respected by respectable search engines. In general, do stick to the rule of not uploading anything that you don't want to be there forever. There's still the possibility that someone steals your pictures and upload them somewhere else. --Quest09 (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You should also be aware that information Facebook shares with 3rd party advertisers may never be fully deleted.Smallman12q (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

How many university graduates speak English?
I can't find any statistics anywhere online, so I'm hoping someone else will be able to do a better job. What proportion of the world's university graduates speak English? (I'm flexible on what standard of English ability should be required.) Thanks. --Tango (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I don't think anyone would be able to answer that question in a satisfactory way. You could could number of people who take TOEFL tests or who graduate from English-medium education or obtain degrees in English language, but that would only be a fraction of the total English-speaking university graduates worldwide. --Soman (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are decent estimates of English speakers in the general population, why can't there be similar estimates for the graduate population? --Tango (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are fantastically shitty estimates of English speakers worldwide. See List of languages by total number of speakers and List of languages by number of native speakers.  The history of the "total number of speakers" article contains older versions which give a better idea of what a complete clusterfuck the data is for questions like this.  There really is very poor data on the number of speakers of languages worldwide.  This is confounded by a) poor sampling methods b) poor defintions of what defines a distinct language (as opposed to multiple dialects of the same language) c) political reasons for inflating or depressing numbers of speakers of certain languages.  There's just no really good data for this, and so for any subset of the data, there is likely to be even worse estimates.  -- Jayron  32  18:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have thought a smaller population would allow for better estimates. It is much easier to sample graduates than the general population. Of course, it requires someone to have actually done a study into it, but people do studies into much stranger things. --Tango (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

James Monroe
Are there any living desendants of US President James Monroe and his wife, Elizabeth Kortright Monroe? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * According to our Wikipedia articles, he had at least 3 grandchildren via his daughter Maria and Samuel L. Gouverneur. They are listed in that article, which can give you some extra names to search the geneology websites under.  There would be no patrilineal descent from Monroe; he only had one son who died as a child.  -- Jayron  32  18:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jayron.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite surprisingly, Ancestry.com seems to have no family tree with descendants of President James Madison. I don't understand this since people grasp at any ancestor who was in any way notable. Edison (talk) 03:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Dolley Madison didn't have any children by President Madison. I asked about James Monroe and his wife, Elizabeth Kortright.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

if a professional marries a client they are mutualy in love have they got rights not to be penalised
Ethically morally it is not allowed in England to have a personal sexual relationship with a client if you are a profesional social worker for example but what if you fall in love and get married have you got any human right to appeal being penalised eg/ losing your job or losing registration status and can you appeal if you are struck off. What then if the power balance is equal and the feeling is mutual and marriage is involved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.202 (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're supposed to end the professional relationship if you wish to start a romantic and/or sexual one. As long as you end the professional relationship (by asking one of your colleagues to take over the case, usually) as soon as you realise you are falling in love and before you act on those feelings, then you should be fine. If you marry them while they are still your client, then you will almost certainly get into trouble. If the other person were particularly vulnerable then you might get into trouble if it seems you have taken advantage of them. Professional conduct is usually governed by a code of conduct within the profession rather than law, so if you want a precise answer for a specific case then you need to consult that code of conduct. The professional body will be able to provide advice - that is part of the job of professional bodies. --Tango (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the gist of the question is whether there is any existing human rights legislation that could be used to "trump" a dismissal for this type of professional misconduct, where someone is deemed to have broken their terms of employment by breaching the type of code of conduct Tango describes. We cannot give any specific legal advice or opinions on legal matters here, and I cannot find any links to similar cases you could look at for your own research.  Some European human rights legislation has been interpreted successfully in various EU countries in test cases against a variety of domestic laws and practices.  We have an article on the European Convention on Human Rights, parts of which have been used in such cases.  But if this is an enquiry about someone's personal circumstances, rather than just a general request to know what the law says, you need to talk to a legal professional.  Such a case would be complicated and high-profile, and would probably involve a challenge to existing UK law, so it is well outside the scope of the reference desk to provide an answer.  Ka renjc 21:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the last part of your question, "what then if the power balance is equal?" By definition, the power balance between a professor and student, or employee and employer, is unequal.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Merciful Death
Which is the English term to denote, in a context of warfare, the act of killing someone in order to prevent a more horrible death or suffering? For example, someone mortally injured in enemy territory and without chances of reaching a place to be healed, someone about to be captured and risking being tortured for a long time, or with knowledge that the enemy shouldn't get, or other such scenarios. An article that mentions this links to Euthanasia, but I'm sure it's a whole different thing MBelgrano (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Coup de grâce. (Yes, I know it isn't English, but it is what we say.) --Tango (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Usually  mis pronounced, when misappropriated by sports commentators, as "koo de grah" rather than "koo de grahss".
 * Slightly more generally, we also refer to "putting someone out of their misery/suffering"; that might apply in a war context where a soldier comes across an enemy soldier who'd been horribly wounded by something the first soldier had nothing to do with, and decides the best thing is just to shoot him. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   22:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless you're this guy, then you get charged with murder... Adam Bishop (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We also say "mercy killing". (I note that the last situation you describe, where the person must be killed to prevent the enemy learning something, is different: there you are sacrificing the person, if it's coherent with the person's morality that they should be killed.) 213.122.27.137 (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Mercy killing" usually refers to euthanasia, though. It could be used in the context of warfare, but it's not the primary usage. --Tango (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The killing of a wounded adversary who is no longer capable of offering resistance is covered in Third Geneva Convention . Would the hypothetical soldier kill his comrade in arms who was wounded equally severely, to prevent the "horrible suffering" or would he give him morphine and send him to a forward surgical station? In the case of Iman Darweesh Al Hams, a wounded 13 year old Palestinian girl, an Israeli officer, "Captain R.," allegedly fired an automatic weapon into the girl's body, emptying the magazine to "confirm the kill" as she lay wounded. The girl had been suspected of carrying weapons or explosives, which turned out to be textbooks. 17 bullets were found in her body. The army chief of staff, General Moshe Yaalon, said repeatedly that the officer acted properly. In a trial, the officer was found not guilty of illegal use of his weapon. Then R. was promoted to Major and paid 82,000 New Israeli Shekels as compensation for his defense expenses and time in jail . In general, a "mercy killing" to prevent "horrible suffering" is considered Homicide or at least Manslaughter in North America (not to be taken as legal advice).  See also Jack Kevorkian. Edison (talk) 05:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As I write this, by co-incidence, my mother is telling about the horrible past things ! Just before 1947 it was rumored that the village where her family then lived may fall on wrong side of the Radcliffe Line the departing British rulers were going to draw. It was decided by the elders that in that case girls will be put to death. An handicapped aunt was also supposed to meet the same fate ! In India such merciful death of women was very common. In some part whole groups of women would burn themselves lest they fall in hands of Islamic invaders. This was called Jauhar Jon Ascton    (talk)  05:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Its rather sick that places and people exist in the world where this kind of thinking even has to be contemplated. 76.22.140.195 (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)