Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 December 7

= December 7 =

French Admiral Serre
Who was the French Admiral Serre who was in Tahiti in 1877? Like his full name, dates of birth/death/time in Tahiti.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is certainly Vice-Admiral (contre-amiral) Paul Serre (1818-1900), as he's the only French naval officer with that surname active during the period. A succint biography can be found here . I can't find dates for his being in Tahiti, but he retired in 1880 according to that page. To find out more, you would need to consult the archives of the French Navy as he doesn't appear to be very notable. --Xuxl (talk) 08:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Très drôle... Google Translate renders his name (in the article linked above) as " Paul GREENHOUSE". :-) Alansplodge (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Really Constance Gordon-Cumming really made a big deal about him during her visit to Tahiti in 1877.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Relatives and Child Support
Have there ever been any cases where a child's grandparent(s) or a child's aunts and/or uncles were forced to pay child support against their will for this child, such as if one of the child's parents died young? If not, are there any laws anywhere that would force grandparents, aunts, and/or uncles to pay child support against their will? Futurist110 (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, we can't provide legal advice. However, I can't think of any circumstance where the grandparents or other relatives would be on the hook for child support to the surviving parent. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Gun Selling Question
Do gun dealers legally have the option to avoid selling guns to people if they want to, even if these people pass a background check and the requirements in order to buy a gun? Futurist110 (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In the United States, with the exception of laws against racial discrimination, any private business owner can refuse to do business with any individual. No one is required to sell you anything.  -- Jayron  32  03:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jayron. I'm aware of the anti-racial discrimination laws, but is there any specific court ruling or law that pertains to your refusal to do business with someone or it is just a general rule/principle? Futurist110 (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I can think of plenty of examples where businesses refuse to do business with patrons for any number of reasons. Vegas casinos can refuse to admit people known to count cards.  Bars can refuse to serve liquor to drunk patrons.  And on and on.  You can't force me to sell you something.  -- Jayron  32  04:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure I can. Just try refusing to sell me a house because of the color of my skin. --jpgordon:==( o ) 05:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Jayron already said "with the exception of laws against racial discrimination". I guess that would extend to discrimination on the basis of gender or religion or marital status or sexual orientation.  Trouble is, proving that that was their reason for refusal might be difficult or impossible; and very costly.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  06:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Racial discrimination is probably easier to prove than those other biases. Ironically, in addition to "de facto segregation" which used to be practiced in white suburbia, in the cities there was something called "Blockbusting", in which a realtor would purposely sell to a minority, in hopes of drumming up business from panicked white folks who would then engage the realtor (he hoped) to sell their houses and leave "before it was too late". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * In the US, at least, it's the opposite. The government has no authority to tell a private business who they can or can't sell to, unless there's a specific regulation. In addition to laws against segregation, there are also laws prohibiting sale of alcohol and tobacco to minors, and there are laws regulating the nature of items you can sell (foods and drugs, for example). That list goes on and on in our well-regulated society. Government-run operations such as license plate distributors probably have rules about who they can sell to and about when they can refuse. But private businesses have a lot more flexibility. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Additionally, in many states in the U.S., retailers can be legally liable for actions taken by customers: the classic example is drunk driving, where a bar or liquor retailer can be charged with crimes if they sell alcohol to a customer who then goes on to cause a drunk driving accident. My understanding is that some states have similar laws for gunshop owners, or at least allow the family of a murder victim to sue the owner of the store where the murderer acquired the weapon, so it would be prudent for retailers to use maximum caution when discriminating that way. Most businesses I know of have a sign (or at least a card that they can show to customers) that says something along the lines of "we reserve the right to refuse service to anybody". eldamorie (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link about people prosecuting gun dealers for legally selling someone a gun and then having this person go on a shooting spree? Was a gun dealer ever successfully prosecuted for something like this and forced to pay financial compensation or get punished/held responsible in some other way? Futurist110 (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is specific regulation in the US of public accommodations which are required to sell to all comers without discrimination according to civil rights statutes. Enforcement is a civil (as opposed to criminal) issue.  A clerk at a Walmart counter where gun models are displayed at a set price might run into trouble denying a sale to a qualified customer.  In a small private shop where prices weren't listed, the proprietor might just decide to tack on a few figures to the price to discourage a sale.  At Walmart the manager would probably override a balky clerk, or, on the other hand, threaten to call the police if he thought there were some valid reason to deny the sale.  In the private shop, you'd basically need to run a sting to show he did sell the gun at a lower price to another customer, then sue--an unlikely scenario. μηδείς (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What if someone is qualified to buy a gun but the gun dealer/manager feels that there is something "fishy" about this costumer (this "fishy" feeling would be a gut feeling without any actual proof, and without any sort of prejudice or racism)? Also, this costumer saw the gun dealer sell someone else the same gun at the same price. Does the gun dealer/manager still have a right to refuse the sale? Also, just curious--if you buy your friend a car, and despite him appearing responsible and successful he decides later on to purposely hit someone with that car, can you be held liable/responsible for giving this car to your friend as a gift? Futurist110 (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The article Public accommodations is rather vague, but in the case of selling a gun to someone, I would be very surprised if a store can't refuse to sell it to someone that seems suspicious. A store being a public acommodation doesn't mean the store has no power to defend itself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have anecdotally heard of gun dealers refusing to sell to individuals who made them nervous for whatever reason, even if they passed the legal requirements. Shadowjams (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Is this theft?
I read a news article here:. The short version is some people beat a guy up, tied him up and stuffed him in the trunk of his own car, then drove off with it. They are being charged with the theft of the car, among other (more obvious) crimes. How does that work? Theft is taking property away from somebody. This guy still had his car. gnfnrf (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems quite questionable he still had his car if he was locked in the trunk and it was being drive by someone else without his permission. Nil Einne (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, he didn't. His car had him.  -- Jayron  32  03:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW you may also be interested in our article Carjacking which mentions theft a few times (particularly in relation to the UK). One thing it doesn't mention is that if the victim remains in the car, it's not theft. I'm not sure the intentions of the people here, but presuming they planned to dump the victim somewhere and keep the car, you may want to consider that if you catch someone in your house with some of your property clearly intending to make off with it, in many countries they're unlikely able to avoid a theft charge just because they haven't left yet when their intention is clear. (Of course I doubt the people here will get off if they had only intended to keep the car for a short time and leave it with the owner when done, but it could be a different charge as it may be in the UK.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that the important concept here is Possession (law). At least in my jurisdiction (Sweden) theft is taking possession of an object from its rightful owner (with the intent to keep it). Possession can be very loosely defined as having control over the access to something and the use of that something. In this case the thieves have taken control of the car, and the owner no longer has it, so they could be charged with theft (or maybe robbery, which is much the same but with the element of violence or threat). The definitions of theft and possession vary between jurisdictions, so there might be something specific to Kentucky law that I don’t know about. Sjö (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * P.S. In reference to the bit I said on catching someone in your house, it's possible in some cases this may be 'attempted theft' or a similar charge rather then theft. However I believe in many jurisdictions this is not the case. See e.g. this forum with some discussion of the circumstances in the UK in the case of stores. Attempted theft or related attempted charges would generally be if the attempt fails completely either because they were caught too early (e.g. if someone is caught before they actually pick anything up) or they failed for some reason (e.g. if they failed to pick the locks). Once they've picked up an item with the intention of depriving the rightful owner of their property, they've probably commited the offence even if they are caught before they manage to make off with it. Nil Einne (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello old bean! The UK covers this kind of offence with the TWOC legislation - as our theft statutes require then intent to permnanently deprive someone of their property, this legislation allows for prosecution even if the car is subsequently returned or abandoned so avoiding the thorny problem of snotty little oiks walking free from court as the theft charge failed on the "permanantly deprives" test! Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Persons assassinated in open cars
I'm reflecting on notable people who were murdered when driving or being driven in open cars. So far I know Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, Walther Rathenau, Reinhard Heydrich and John F. Kennedy - what other examples are there? --KnightMove (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Cardinal Juan Jesús Posadas Ocampo was shot in his car. -- Jayron  32  04:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * King Alexander I of Yugoslavia is another.
 * Tsar Alexander II of Russia was in a closed carriage that was bombed. He emerged unhurt, only to then be blown up by another bomb thrown by the first bomber's accomplice.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  04:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Do we count bombing of cars while they were being driven? The assassination of Luis Carrero Blanco was one of the more dramatic such events.  His car was blown over a 5 story building when ETA sappers mined a secret tunnel under the road he used to travel to and from work.  -- Jayron  32  04:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the operative part of the question is "open cars". --jpgordon:==( o ) 05:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Does Benazir Bhutto count? Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 05:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Kinda yeah; standing up through a sunroof makes it an open car for the purpose of this question. --jpgordon:==( o ) 06:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A couple of other famous persons assassinated in their cars: Rafik Hariri and Judge Giovanni Falcone, both through car bombs. Two famous cases of persons being shot in their cars in Canada: Atilla Altıkat and criminal lawyer Sidney Leithman . I don't know if by "open car", the OP means a convertible, in which case, instances will be a lot fewer.--Xuxl (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Anton Cermak was shot while riding with FDR, although it was some weeks before he died from it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That's OK. It took William McKinley over a week to die from his wounds, but it still counts as an assassination. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  11:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all so far. Xuxl: I mean convertibles or older cars, not necessarily equipped with a roof. The gist is that there was no metal or glass between the assassin and the victim that could possibly have protected the latter, deflect a bullet or something like that. --KnightMove (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

== This is a philosophy question, but how someone killed themselves in the future for example if Marty_McFly from Back_to_the_Future_(franchise) kills his future self would it murder or suicide? ==

This is a philosophy question, but how someone killed themselves in the future for example if Marty_McFly from Back_to_the_Future_(franchise) kills his future self would it murder or suicide? That would be question that would have Albert_Einstein turning in his grave. Venustar94 (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Murder, I guess, since they'd be two different personalities and in effect, two different people at the time of his killing. Futurist110 (talk) 08:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Since his future self would presumably know about it, having satisfied his murderous urge in his past, it would be suicide IMO. It's not altogether different from setting a bomb, for example, and sticking around to be blown to bits, rather than avoiding it. No time paradoxes involved whatsoever. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suggest in the general case it's both murder/manslaughter. In general you could perhaps say the future self commited suicide because they stuck around. But the future self isn't the one doing the killing. The historic self is and as they aren't really the same person they aren't committing suicide when they kill the future self but homicide. Even if you believe assisted suicide in general is okay (i.e. you don't restrict it to hopeless medical cases and similar), unless you've carefully questioned your future self and ascertained the circumstances you can't really be said to be assisting suicide since you don't really know what's going on, it's unresonable to assume 'well my future self would know they can avoid this if I succeed, the fact they didn't must mean they want to be killed' as there could be circumstances you aren't aware of. As I said, this is generally speaking. If the future self is forced to be there or something then the future self may not be commiting suicide. If the historic self kills the future self after being sure it's what the future self wants with no coercion etc involved then you could say they are simply assisting suicide which some people may feel is okay and not a form of manslaughter or murder. (But note it's still the case the historic self isn't committing suicide but assisting suicide). P.S. I'm pretty sure if you search there's already people discussing the philosphical implications of people with dissociative identity disorder committing suicide. Nil Einne (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt this would (Mc)fly from a legal standpoint. By your thesis, I could sign a contract, then ten minutes later claim it wasn't binding because it was agreed to by a different person. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fairly different. Your historic self signed the contract and legally you are generally bound by what you did in the past (although there are plenty of exceptions, e.g. any many countries if you weren't above a certain age and in particular the types of things you can actually be legally bound to by a contract). Note that if your future self signs a contract, it cannot bind your historic self to it. Even in a time travel situation, it seems questionable if the courts will attempt to apply this.
 * Note there is no country I'm aware of that has a binding contract on suicide. Even if you agree to euthansia, if 10 minutes from now you change your mind (and you are still of sound mind), anyone killing you who is aware of this and is able to stop the killing but does not do so will almost definitely be guilty of some crime of homocide. You may suggest this is not the same thing since the person will probably be fine they weren't aware you changed your mind, particularly if you didn't attempt to have any legal documents changed or destroyed or to issue new legal documents. But the key difference here is the person can generally only perform euthansia if they have taken steps to ensure it is genuinely what the person's current self wants presuming they are still of sound mind and concious. In the case where the person is no longer conscious or or sound mind, it's usually okay to go by legal documents they drew up in the past or perhaps a court order based on expressed wishes to family or friends. (In some cases, particularly if it's not so much suicide but simply withdrawal of measures to keep someone alive, the decisions could potentially be solely made by a medical guardian.) Repeating what I said earlier, if the person is still of sound mind and able to communicate, this process would almost definitely have to include communicate with them fairly recently, going solely by something they said or signed 5 years ago is not likely to fly.
 * So I don't think there's good reason to believe the historic self can kill the future self and expect to be fine if they didn't actually take steps to ensure the future self actually consents to it as a form of euthansia. It's possible the future self was forced in to the current situation or otherwise was not there entirely out of the free will of a sound mind with the full knowledge of what was going to happen. And as I've said before, in the general case it's likely unresonable to assume just because the future self is there they must have consented to suicide. Checking that they did consent would likely include talking to said future self if at all possible. We can presume they are of sound mind here since if they are not of sound mind this is even more reason why you cannot kill them as it may have been when they were of sound mind they were doing all they could to avoid being killed without being aware they were going to lose it and put themselves in the firing line so to speak. So the only reason not to talk to them, other then the possibility you may create a paradox which will destroy the universe which doesn't seem to be a concern in the BTTF, is for some reason they cannot communicate. But even that being the case (and there's a big question of why the future self cannot communicate) it's still likely the historic self will need more evidence it's what the future self wants then 'well they're here so they must want it'. At the very least, it's likely they'll have to take steps to ensure the future self did indeed come here out of their own free will and when they were of sound mind, but really it's likely to be a bit risky without some evidence of a direct affirmation by the future self. Who knows, perhaps even their memory is failing quite badly and although still of resonably sound mind they simply forgot they killed the future self at this time, date and place.
 * There is perhaps the big question of what happens if the historic self didn't take resonable steps, but after the killing it's clear it is indeed what the future self wanted. Going by current laws, this probably won't help the historic self much. Of course going by current laws, unless the future self had a terminal illness or some other extreme medical condition which made their life unbearable, whether you call it assisted suicide or euthansia it's not likely to fly anyway.
 * P.S. I used assisted suicide in my first answer and originally here, but on consideration euthanasia is likely a better term.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A few years ago, I was in the pub and someone asked me about my views on euthanasia. I said, "They're not bad. They have some weird fashion ideas, but they are OK, really." I think I misunderstood. True story.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  07:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe you know, but this is the basic setup for the new movie Looper. Staecker (talk) 12:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * His life insurance company would surely deem it suicide!165.212.189.187 (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be considered murder, as they would be two separate entities, as said above. Plus, if Marty was from the UK, even if it had been deemed as a suicide (which is unlikely), ironically, suicide is illegal and carried the death sentence (or used to - so it depends on when Marty flies to the future and what future he flies to). Also when you make a posting, don't write a very long title, because it makes us editors have to scroll just to write an edit summary.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  07:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * However, imposing the death penalty, whether for murder or for suicide, would be quite problematic, because it would prevent the murder/suicide from taking place and so an innocent man would have been executed (not to mention the obvious time paradox that would be created). - Lindert (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, we're not able to offer legal advice. Please seek the services of a qualified professional, preferably one with time travel experience. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

2012 Egypt Constitution Referendum: what percentage of what counts as "passed"?
I've been trying to find information about this, but to no avail. Regarding the announced referendum on the new draft constitution, what is the percentage required for the constitution to count as "passed"? Majority, plurality, 2/3? And of the entire electorate, or only the votes cast? Is there a minimum turnout necessary? Is there any information out there? Thanks. -- megA (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

where to find the next steve jobs
for my company i would like to find the next steve jobs and give him a lot of power over strategy and product, while other people are keeping things going operationally. the problem is that people like steve jobs actually "aren't very good" (at anything) and only through a partnership with woz (literally passing off woz's work as his own at HP) was s.j. able to execute.

So, my criteria seem to be something like:
 * perfectionist, big thinker
 * with innovative ideas that push what is possible
 * who has a good eye for product
 * and thinks in terms of the user

but who
 * can't do anything
 * is inconsistent
 * a poor communicator

For these reasons, I would think that he (or quite easily she) is selected AGAINST by any programs at any instititution. Where could I find this person for my company? A craigslist ad looking for someone to take dictatorial command over a world-changing product? Which city should I put it up in?

Any other thoughts? Thanks. --91.120.48.242 (talk) 09:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Steve was good at design, not details. There are design schools, and you could look at some of their student's projects.  Keep in mind that they need not be practical, what you are looking for is big thinking.  So, for example, if someone at a design school comes up with a car which uses a huge flywheel, powered up at home, to drive it, that's a good person to choose, because he's a "big thinker", even though that idea is completely impractical.  You then need to find your Woz, somebody who can take impractical ideas like that and whittle them down to something that works (like a flywheel used just for regenerative braking). StuRat (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think Jobs' key skill was seeing the potential in ideas that were being neglected, like the mouse, and how to get the most out of them. He had very high-minded ideas about design and production values, but those aren't so unusual. That's a rare skill and I'm not sure you can interview for it. Microsoft try, apparently, but have they unearthed a "new Steve Jobs"? I suppose they're questions designed to find creative people with an awareness of practicality - you'll have to settle for that. --Dweller (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

These are good ideas, but (hehe) I would like the advice to be more practical. On a practical level what should my next step be in 1) finding and identifying this person 2) putting them in charge of anything? Think a bit lower-level than the (good) general responses I've already been given. Thanks. 91.120.48.242 (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would you look for someone wo "can't do anything, is inconsistent, and a bad communicator"? -- megA (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That sounds like me, I come up with crazy ideas and find people that can deal with the details and make them real. When do I start? 86.15.83.223 (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Me, too, I have a long list of invention ideas, some of which I've listed here. StuRat (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Now to get serious for a moment, I think one of Jobs's big talents were his communications skills. -- megA (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "a poor communicator" !? I beg to differ - every Steve Jobs comes with a standard issue Reality distortion field. :P You can say he took ideas from others (like from Xerox labs) but claiming he's a poor communicator is just ... off. If you are looking for someone "like Steve Jobs" your best bet would be a head hunting company - you can always give them your list above. (seriously take out the poor communicator part) Royor (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * What Jobs was really good at was in keeping everyone focused on the objectives, and "getting it right". The various problems with the company and its products during his first absence and then since his death demonstrate the leadership vacuum his departures caused. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Scottish poetry style
Is there a name for the style used in Robert Burns' "to a mouse" and the Stephenson verse here, basically this 6-line stanza with the AAABAB length/rhyming structure? It seems to be very popular with Scottish poets. - filelake shoe  &#xF0F6;   10:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The To a Louse article calls it Standard Habbie. CS Miller (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Tiny countries in the Pacific
After the Palestine vote at the UN, I began to read about the tiny Pacific nations and became aware of the U.S. responsibility for their defense. My question is, who could and why would attack such countries? Keeeith (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There may be valuable resources, such as oil close to an island and in case of a large-scale war (e.g. China vs the USA) such islands can provide strategic points to operate from or to refuel aircrafts. - Lindert (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The exclusive economic zone of these states might also contain economically important fisheries. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * See Pacific War for the history of the last time these countries actually were attacked (or threatened with attack)... that article will also help you understand why the U.S. currently has responsibility for their defense. Blueboar (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not awfully convincing to argue that those countries would be attacked today because they could have been attacked 70 years ago during the most destructive war in human history. Sorry, but in case you haven't noticed, we're not in WWII or anything remotely close to it.  --140.180.252.134 (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that there were attacks on seemingly insignificant islands as recently as the 1980's, in the cases of Grenada and the Falkland Islands. StuRat (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * A tiny country that is undefended can be conquered by a couple of dozen mercenaries with machine guns. That sort of thing has actually happened a number of times. Looie496 (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that these relatively resource-poor countries are not likely to be targets of attacks in the near future. They are economic basket cases, and any would-be conqueror would be acquiring a huge liability. I don't think that the military alliance is the most important factor in the UN votes of these countries. To the extent that it is a factor, it might be that they do not want to offend the United States because they don't want to risk another outright occupation by the United States. However, the Pacific nations that voted against admitting Palestine, with the possible exception of Nauru, are all completely dependent on the United States economically.  In fact, they are dependent on direct transfers from the United States to fund their governments, which in turn are the drivers of those islands' economies. Offending the United States Congress in any way would put their citizens' livelihoods and possibly their survival at risk.  As for Nauru, while it is currently supported mainly by Australia and New Zealand economically, it is economically desperate and might want to attract US aid as well.  Marco polo (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Three of these countries are successors to the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, which was established as a "strategic trust territory" because the United States wanted to ensure its control over the area for defense purposes. Thereafter, the Compacts of Free Association between the United States and the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and (later) Palau continued to recognize a special U.S. role in these areas. Protection of these countries from invasion is not really the purpose of the special relationship, although the United States would assist them in the unlikely event this were to happen.

Although the United States has influence over these countries' foreign policy, such as their votes in the UN, it does not have total control, and I don't think the speculation above that the United States might re-occupy them if they offended it is realistic. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * What Brad said. It's worth noting that Australia also unofficially guarantees the security of Nauru under a similar arrangement, but this involves nothing more than very occasional surveillance flights by RAAF patrol aircraft and visits by naval patrol boats given that the only threat to regional security is from illegal fishing trawlers. New Zealand has similar arrangements with several of the other tiny Pacific states. The main focus in recent years has been some pretty low-priced vote buying in the UN and other forums, with China, Japan, Taiwan, the US and Australia all providing modest amounts of development aid with an eye to winning votes (for instance, many of the countries which support Japan's position on the continuation of semi-commercial whaling and provide formal diplomatic recognition of Taiwan as are South Pacific mico-states). There's no prospect of a genuine threat to the region's security developing, and there's no way at all the ex-colonial powers are going to march back in except if the event of state failure (eg, the Australian-led multinational force which intervened in the Solomon Islands in 2003). Nick-D (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The Senkaku Islands are small unimportant islands, as are Quemoy and Matsu. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Some "small unimportant islands" can become of great interest if they generate Exclusive Economic Zones... AnonMoos (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Or, in this case, are used by politicians to generate nationalistic popular support. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

heir to the throne
What does the phrase "heir to the throne" mean? Does it mean a person who inherited the throne (the reigning monarch)? Or does it mean the person in line to inherit the throne (the heir apparent/presumptive)?


 * Heir to the throne. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Both. In colloquial speech, it means heir apparent or heir presumptive. However, those terms obviously mean "person who will apparently become heir" and "person who will presumably become heir". Becoming an heir, in turn, means inheriting something from someone. Thus, the crown of the United Kingdom is said to descend to heirs of the body of Sophia of Hanover - the current heir being Elizabeth II, and Charles, Prince of Wales, being heir apparent. Surtsicna (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, with Charles being "heir to the throne" . Elizabeth is of the heirs of the body of Sophia of Hanover but not the "heir to the throne," which are two different thing. "However, those terms obviously mean..." is your opinion, not the established usage or definition accepted by the world. --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently, Charles's wife can also be correcty referred to as Princess Diana. After all, it's what random websites say. I've already explained that "heir to the throne" colloquially means one thing and legally another. This page explains very neatly that, at least legally, "no one is the heir of a living person" (nemo est haeres viventis) and that "the living children are only heirs expectant". Surtsicna (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, Elizabeth is not "of the heirs of the body of Sophia of Hanover". She is the heir of the body of Sophia of Hanover and Charles is heir apparent, since it is apparent that he will one day become heir of the body of Sophia of Hanover. Surtsicna (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and Charles is heir to the throne. Queen Elizabeth II can be called heir of the body of Sophia of Hanover or the heir of George VI but she cannot be called "heir to the throne" only her son can. Heir to the throne means heir to (succeed to) the throne, heir (apparent) to the throne, heir (presumptive) to the throne; I don't see how it can legally be used to denote a reigning monarch instead of the heir apparent/presumptive. Also, your example of Sophia of Hanover doesn't work because she is not "the throne" and "heirs of the body" is a term applied to all descendants of a person not just the senior member, so Prince Charles, Prince William, King Constantine II of Greece are all heirs of the body of Sophia of Hanover.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not true. The dictionary entry you linked to does not say that and what you said cannot be concluded from that entry. Under the Act of Settlement of 1701, the "heir of the body" of the Sovereign is the heir to the throne. In case you try to conclude from this that it refers to the reigning sovereign rather than to the previous sovereign, I'll point out that the text later states that "if one has no descendants, then the heir is the previous incumbent's heir". I've explained how it can denote a reigning monarch. I've given you a legal maxim that explains it all, along with the explanation of its meaning. I won't respond to arguments that boil down to "that can't be true because I don't understand that". Surtsicna (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The term "heirs and successors" is used in many places (e.g. Letters patent). That might appear to be distinguishing between those who have succeeded the monarch (successors) and those who are waiting to do so (heirs).  But I suspect it's a legal doublet (meaning three words are used where one would suffice, a well established legal tradition), and that one doesn't get to be an heir (unqualified) until one has actually succeeded.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  20:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe you think I would argue that the passage really means "Under the Act of Settlement of 1701, the "heir of the body" of the (current) Sovereign is the heir to the throne (i.e. heir apparent/presumptive)." I am glad you thought I would think that, but the passage still refers to the succession; the "Sovereign" in the text refers to the current monarch not the previous monarch. It makes no sense for the word "Sovereign" in a constitution written and ratified in the reign of a sovereign not to denote the incumbent sovereign. --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In the passage where you are trying to prove otherwise ("If one has no descendants, then the heir is the previous incumbent's heir. ") "One" refers to the current reigning monarch, "the heir" refers to the heir presumptive, and "previous incumbent" refers to the previous monarch. You have not shown how a reigning monarch can be considered an "heir to the throne" except a twist of word and meaning on your part. Your example of nemo est haeres viventis makes no sense because the argument is about the term "heir to the throne" not "heir of Elizabeth II".--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the "heir" does not refer to heir presumptive because the "heir of the previous incumbent" is the reigning monarch until his or her death. We can argue semantics for as long as we want to, but it is a matter of fact that Elizabeth is the heir of the body of Sophia of Hanover. If the King of the Hellenes were an heir of the body of Sophia of Hanover, then he too would be heir to the British throne, and I doubt you would acknowledge that. I agree with JackofOz in that "heirs and successors" is a legal doublet, and in fact, I think that's the universally accepted interpretation. Surtsicna (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * A look at EO might help explain. The term "heir", by itself, is applicable whether the person one is an heir to is alive or dead. Hence it's also a bit ambiguous. Hence the various adjectives. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, which is what I said: it means one thing in colloquial speech and another in law. "After death the heir apparent becomes the heir-at-law." The definition of the word "inherit" given there is also interesting: "to make (someone) an heir", suggesting (correctly) that one becomes heir upon inheriting something. I can't believe something this obvious is being discussed. Surtsicna (talk) 12:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is not with the term "heir" it is with the imprecision of the metaphor "throne". Heir is straightforward, it is the person who is entitled in law to inherit from another (or has actually done so). "As eldest son, I am my father's heir" is a true regardless of whether he's alive or not. It speaks to my legal position. Who is the "heir to the throne" is complicated because it depends on how "throne" is being used. Charles is the "heir to the throne" [of Queen Elizabeth II]. Elizabeth II is "the heir to the throne" of her father. Both are direct heirs of Sophia of Hanover (as are all previous holders since George I). So the question of "who is the heir to the throne?" depends on what is implied by throne. If it is used to mean "current monarch" then Charles is current heir to the throne, and William will be one day. If it is used to mean the royal line of ancient kings, then Elizabeth II is the most direct heir, although Charles, William and Kate's Bump are also heirs.--Scott Mac 12:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Which exactly means that Charles is not the heir to the throne. He cannot be, if his mother is the heir to the throne of her predecessors while he, William and Kate's Bump can all be said to be heirs in another sense. According to Scott Mac's interpretation, there is no one heir to the throne. Surtsicna (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if you are speaking about who becomes monarch after the current Queen, then it would be perfectly correct to say "Charles is the heir to the throne", since he's her heir. But it is also correct to say that Elizabeth Windsor is "heir to the throne" of her ancestors. The semantically correct answer to the abstract question "who is the heir to the throne?" is "please indicate precisely what you mean by "throne"?".--Scott Mac 18:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to really irritate people, then yes, that's a marvelous way of going about it. Another would be to say "that all depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is". Meanwhile, over in the real world rather than the world of abstruse pedantry, "heir to the throne" has a commonly understood meaning of "the person who is first in line to become monarch when the reigning monarch dies". Although, since people who ask "who is the heir to the throne?" are not asking "what does 'the heir to the throne' mean?", the usual response, in Britain at least, would be "Prince Charles". 87.114.90.71 (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The opening question was "What does the phrase "heir to the throne" mean?". That invites some precision when asked in the context of an encyclopedia. I was trying to clarify why some people insist it is Charles and some say the Queen is the heir to the throne. Granted, in common usage, you are correct.--Scott Mac 19:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Illegitimate children of Wm the 1st of Normandy
Hello friends,

Thank you for taking the time to give me a lead on finding more info than the entries you have posted about some of the life and decedents of Wm the Conqueror.

My name is Mr. Bills the ancestry people say, (originally Mr. BILL) and place the name given to a citizen of England and first entered into the history rolls in 1068 as a resident, business man and county commissioner of County Somerset. The condition might of made him a Normand and not an English man. So, in any case I have had great joys following some of the social exploits,situations and changes Wm the 1st has had and done that has contributed to what I am as a free land owning American.

One very interesting point is about how it is that both He and his Father were bastards yet kings, but in England an illegitimate son is never considered. I am told that the ways of Kings back then was to have various extra love affairs outside of the official marriage of court.

The information you have entered about the personal life of Wm the 1st of Normandy, quoted a Wilson and Curtis book called Royal Bastards. There you relayed their knowing that Wm had no bastards. The whole of it seed wrong. Both the tradition way of such Kings and previous things I have heard do not agree with the statement in the Wilson and Curtis book. Granted Matilda was a busy girl you might know, Ole Willie though might have been a wee bit more.

My thought and question then is: do you know where to find or do you know contrary info about a possible bastard Normand heir or heirs anywhere, that the darned English haven't rewritten out of the standard accounts. Not being too overly involved with the subject, I have no idea where to access further and possible various opinions about the social life of Wm the 1st. Oh... do you see the relationship between what Wm did in County Durham, Doomsday and everything American..? :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillip Bills (talk • contribs) 20:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The article on William Peverel says that he was "probably" the illegitimate son of William I, but I'm not so sure about this. See pages 9 and 16* here though. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This site reckons there is no evidence of any illegitimate children of William the Conqueror: it seems to be a reputable source, having had regard to many sources including non-English ones. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The Nazi regime and its killing of the disabled
I keep reading about the killing machine of the Nazi Germany against the disabled, and I was amazed to read that the responsible for that was Philipp Bouhler who according to his own article: He took part in the First World War and was badly wounded.. He was disabled for life and yet he supervised the killing of his fellow disabled? How's that? Keeeith (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "Badly wounded" is not synonymous with "disabled for life". Beyond that, hypocricy exists. &mdash; Lomn 21:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, wounds or acquired disabilities are not hereditary. The motive for killing the disabled was to create a better race of humans, without disabilities, in a sense to 'help evolution'. Bouhler's injuries were irrelevant in that regard. - Lindert (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you mean without major disabilities, since Bouhler himself was disabled by needing to wear glasses. Futurist110 (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't you make a similar comment on these desks not long ago? FYI, wearing glasses is not a disability.  Sheesh. --Viennese Waltz 22:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I never asked about Bouhler on the Wikipedia Reference Desk. I think you're confusing me with someone else. As for glasses, if someone needs them then without them his/her vision is impaired, which could be classified as a minor disability. Futurist110 (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically, there are legal definitions of "disability". In the US corrected vision in the better eye that is worse than 20/80 is considered visually impaired and vision worse than 20/200 is considered legally blind. If, by wearing glasses, your vision is normal (20/20) or even somewhat less than normal (20/40) you would not be considered disabled. GabrielF (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The OP seems to have a particular problem with Philipp Bouhler and is using the ref desks to remind us what a bad man he was. That may be the OP's idea of public service, but it isn't what we're here for.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  22:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Early questions about Bouhler: Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2012_November_27 and Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2012_November_11. None by the same OP. Note that wearing glasses and killing disabled is not a contradiction, although it has some obvious moral implications. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry but the first question (from November 27) was indeed by the same OP (although Futurist110 was not involved in either discussions). Nil Einne (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Being wounded in combat was certainly a sign of prestige, not a shame, back then in the military centric Nazi Germany. Wearing glasses is a minor disability, that didn't place you in the category of disable. Remember that even regarding Jewishness there were a minor amount that was tolerated, which was quite low, but just a little of what the Germans then called Jewish blood wouldn't get you into a concentration camp. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the Nazis were complete morons when it came to this. Futurist110 (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This bad chap probably didn't think glasses were a disability. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe he did consider it to be a disability, but was willing to overlook it. Futurist110 (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

US congressional lunch breaks
In general, when Congress is in session, what do the members do for lunch? Are there typically lunch breaks, or does the Capitol lunch room cater for them, or something else? Do the two houses typically do the same thing, or is it common for one house to take a break and the other to get lunch brought in? 2001:18E8:2:1020:9178:BE08:7A3A:635D (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * By "do for lunch", I'm introducing the other questions. I'm not asking what they eat.  2001:18E8:2:1020:9178:BE08:7A3A:635D (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Even when the House and Senate are in session, it rarely if ever happens that all the members are present. Typically, a representative or senator will only be on the House or Senate floor when he or she has business before the body, such as if he or she is going to make a speech, or is on the committee connected with the pending bill. Since the members aren't in the chamber continuously, they usually will have a reasonable opportunity to get lunch sometime during mid-day&mdash;which isn't to say that they don't often have to eat on the run rushing from one appointment or hearing to another.
 * In addition, both chambers have Democratic and Republican "cloakrooms" just off the floor, which provide for the members' needs, including supplying something to eat where needed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * As parasites, I assumed politicians ate the taxpayer's lunch. After all, politics = poly + ticks. :-) StuRat (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * James Boren summed this approach up in his slogan "I have what it takes to take what you've got". :)  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  01:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)