Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 January 17

= January 17 =

Question about crime
I wasn't quite sure where a crime-related question would go, so I chose this Help Desk. There is a high profile murder case going on right now (Murder of Travis Alexander). In a nutshell, the police allege that the defendant rented a car in California, drove to Arizona, and killed her ex-boyfriend. The police claim that when she rented the car, she turned the license plates upside down. So, this particular action is somewhat lost on me. What benefit would that be to an (alleged) murderer who (presumably) wants to get away with the crime? I have some of my own theories, but I am not sure I quite get it. So, I want to see what others make of this odd conduct. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * One of the web pages I found through Google mention that questions about red light cameras came up. Maybe the idea was to try and make the automated plate reading not work?  Or maybe she was not acting rationally and didn't have a reason.   RudolfRed (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, but I don't follow your first theory. If the plate were upside down, the plate reader would not work?  If that's automated, I guess so.  But, I would assume, the person (police official) would look at the photo, simply turn the photo upside down, and be able to read the plate.  No?  Just wondering.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If she was thinking rationally, then she knew the plate readers were automated. Otherwise, I can't think of a rational explanation. -Lgriot (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe she thought that it would be harder for a witness to note her licence plate number if it was upside down. --Viennese Waltz 09:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point, Viennese Waltz. I had not really considered that angle.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See Automatic number plate recognition, "If an ANPR system cannot read the plate it can flag the image for attention, with the human operators looking to see if they are able to identify the alphanumerics." Alansplodge (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Marriage Validity
I recently saw a Chinese TV series where one of the female characters, who was terminally ill with leukemia, died during her wedding ceremony with her boyfriend before the two could finish exchanging their wedding vows. If such an event were to happen in real life, would that render the marriage invalid based on technicalities? 24.47.141.254 (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Where I live, Australia, such an event would mean that they hadn't got around to signing the marriage register. That would mean that legally, they're not married. What their church might think of a ceremony truncated at that stage I have no idea. If no church is involved, see first sentence. HiLo48 (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * At my wedding we exchanged vows in the minister's office before the wedding proper. The ceremony was purely...ceremonial. So yeah, I could have dropped dead during the wedding and we'd still have been married. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In the United States I believe it is customary for couples to get a marriage license before the ceremony, although I'm not sure on the ramifications of this with respect to when the couple is considered legally married. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 10:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In the U.S. marriage license merely gives the couple a permission to marry. In most cases, the marriage comes into force through a verbal agreement. The local government then issues a marriage certificate as legal proof that a marriage ceremony has taken place. At least, this is the case in Maryland where I got married in November. The officiant made a point that by "declaring you husband and wife", he's merely stating that he has observed a legal marriage, performed by the couple themselves. The bottom line is that unless both parties recite the vows in front of a witness, no marriage has taken place. D Monack (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would think it would depend on the law that applied in the place where this occurred. It would not necessarily be the same everywhere.
 * HiLo, re the marriage register: how does that count when the priest/minister/celebrant has already said "I now pronounce you man and wife"? Is he/she technically lying?  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  10:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The celebrant at my daughter's wedding last year told us that the only bit that legally matters is that signed and witnessed document that he sends off to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Department (or whatever it's called today). That signing's usually done after the main ceremony in our part of the world. I imagine that Christian celebrants see the "I now pronounce you man and wife" bit as the moment when you become married in the eyes of God. Got to call my Anglican priest mate soon (about something that has nothing to do with religion). Must ask him. HiLo48 (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In the UK, there is precedant for marriages to be held valid under exceptional circumstances, even if the proper procedures aren't followed. That might apply to a case like this. I guess it only really matters for determining how to interpret your last will and testament. I think the probate courts would take a pragmatic view and go with the clear intention of the deceased, which was to be married. --Tango (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The UK also has precedent for deeming marriages not valid under exceptional circumstances! NB Our article on the woman in question says that "according to canon law, a marriage was not valid until consummated". Is this still Catholic doctrine? --Dweller (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nonconsummation is still possible grounds for annulment of a marriage. See the articles in question. --Abracus (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * One point which may be significant here, from memory of last time I researched non consummation generally requires a declaration of nullity or otherwise the involvement of one of the parties to have the marriage declared invalid. So I'm not sure whether it will be much of a factor if any other potential/ heir objects. Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I was married in the U.S. State of Virginia, and my understanding is that the legal moment when my wife and I were considered "married" was when the two of us, as well as the officiant and witnesses signed the application for marriage license. IIRC, we did this in a room at the back of the sanctuary some 20-30 minutes prior to the "walking down the aisle" ceremony.  I distinctly remember the minister who married us signing the document (after we, and two witnesses, signed it as well) and saying.  "Now, you're officially married."  The rest of the ceremony was entirely for show, including the vows and declarations and "I do"s.  The application was filed by mail that day; IIRC it came with an enveloped that we sealed and put in the mail (I think we also could have filed it in person with the county office), several weeks later we received the official license.  note: the use of the word "legal" above does not constitute a formal legal opinion, and if you have a real situation where the validity of your marriage is in question, seek the advice of a qualified attorney. -- Jayron  32  14:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As Jack of Oz notes, the validity of a marriage is dependent upon applicable law - usually national law, but state law in the United States. (The OP geolocates to New York.)  In every U.S. state of which I am aware, solemnization is required for a valid marriage (other than a common law marriage, and those have their own requirements); a marriage license generally is also required, and in some states the marriage is also required to be registered.  For example, Illinois law provides, "A marriage between a man and a woman licensed, solemnized and registered as provided in this Act is valid in this State."  But not all states require registration; Virginia law, for example, says that "Every marriage in this Commonwealth shall be under a license and solemnized in the manner herein provided."  Persons who perform marriages are not necessarily trained in the legal requirements and may provide incorrect advice on what is required, as in Jayron's case (and possibly HiLo's case too, though I don't know Australian law).


 * In a state in which registration is required, the death of a would-be spouse would prevent registration and the marriage would be invalid. Otherwise it would depend on whether the marriage had been solemnized.  The requirements for solemnization vary and tend to be left mostly to the celebrant.  However, I believe every state would require the parties to exchange vows.  Some states make this specific; California law, for example, provides that "No particular form for the ceremony of marriage is required for solemnization of the marriage, but the parties shall declare, in the physical presence of the person solemnizing the marriage and necessary witnesses, that they take each other as husband and wife."  But even in states not specifically requiring a vow, marriage is understood to be a contract, which would require both parties' assent.  I believe, therefore, that the death of a party prior to exchanging vows would prevent a valid marriage from being contracted.  A more interesting case arises if the parties have exchanged vows, but the celebrant contemplated further steps (e.g., a party dies after the exchange of vows but before the celebrant says "I now pronounce you man and wife").  Death before an unimportant part of the ceremony, such as a final performance of The Wedding Song, probably would not interfere with the existence of an otherwise valid marriage.  John M Baker (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm going to note "solemnization" as the most gruesome word I've come across today. It seems to involve taking a fine adjective, "solemn", and turning it into a horrible noun, "solemnization", and an even worse verb, "to solemnize". Aaaaaaarrrgh. HiLo48 (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I am pretty sure the proper word is solemnicized. μηδείς (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm certain it's not. Wiktionary knows only solemnize.  Solemnicize gets all of 9 ghits.   --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  22:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The small print was a hint, Brother Jack. Perhaps you need a solemnivacation?  In any case, there's always solemnification. μηδείς (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course if I was to properly Australianise solemnization, it would have to become solemnisation. HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If you were to properly Australianise it you'd have to pour four oversized cans of beer down its throat and teach it how to speak strine. -- Jayron  32  22:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're all Philistines. See The Book of Common Prayer: The Form of Solemnization of Matrimony. Alansplodge (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Succession to the Crown Bill logic
The article about the Succession to the Crown Bill 2012 says that "only the next six persons in line to the throne will require the sovereign's approval to marry". Does this mean that, after the Duke of Cambridge's child is born, Princess Beatrice of York will be excluded if she marries without a permission regardless of who her spouse is, while her younger sister will be able to marry a drug lord and remain in the line (provided that Eugenie's marriage takes place before Beatrice's)? In fact, in that scenario, Princess Eugenie of York and her children sired by a drug lord would become closer to the throne because Beatrice and her line would be excluded. This doesn't seem sensible. Am I missing something here? Surtsicna (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * They want to draw the line somewhere, that's as good a place as anywhere. The chance of someone lower than sixth in line ever actually becoming monarch is very low, so it shouldn't really matter. It just simplifies things. --Tango (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that there are better ways to do it. Limiting the line of succession to the descendants of, for example, Elizabeth II, and then requiring all of the persons in line to seek consent would be a better alternative, IMO. As explained in the example above, the currently discussed method could backfire too easily. I am under an impression that in 1701, much more thought was put into making sure that nothing goes wrong. Surtsicna (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Be that as it may, we are not here to debate alternative viewpoints. The proposed law is what it is, and our job at Wikipedia is to provide information about the law as it is, not how someone thinks it should be.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  21:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, having looked at some of the relevant articles, I think they improperly identify "legitimate marriage" with "marriage that is legally valid according to civil law". For example the George IV and Maria Fitzherbert articles uncritically refer to their marriage as "invalid".  On what basis do we prefer the civil law of the United Kingdom to the canon law of the Catholic Church?  I think the article should neutrally give both points of view. --Trovatore (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A better alternative would be to auction off a place in the line of succession. Should bring in a bunch of money. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So much thought was put it to it in 1701 that they didn't even bother to legislate for it until after something happened which annoyed people you mean? (As far as I can tell, the Act of Settlement 1701 imposed no requirements that heirs seek permission to marry. This didn't come about until the Royal Marriages Act 1772.) Interesting that if they did put a lot of thought in to this 1772 act, per our own article:
 * The Act applies to Catholics, even though they are ineligible to succeed to the throne.[5] Of course perhaps this is because of their children as alleged above. It does not apply to descendants of Sophia of Hanover who are not also descendants of George II, even though they are still eligible to succeed to the throne.
 * The effects of the law, not always foreseen, remain very much in force. An example is seen in the royal House of Hanover, which descends from Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, a younger son of King George III, who inherited the crown of Hanover according to its semi-Salic order of succession when the British crown went to his niece, Queen Victoria. Although his descendants lost their royal crown in 1866, and their British titles in 1918, as male-line descendants of George II they continue to seek permission for their marriages from the British monarch.
 * and later
 * All European monarchies, and many non-European realms, have laws or traditions requiring prior approval of the monarch for members of the reigning dynasty to marry. But Britain's is unusual because it has not been modified since originally adopted, so that its ambit has grown rather wide, affecting not only Britain's immediate Royal Family, but more distant relatives of the monarch. Moreover, its purview is growing: Whereas in the past British princesses usually married into foreign dynasties, thereby exempting their descendants from the Act, most now marry fellow Britons so that their children become subject in turn to the Act's restrictions, as do their Protestant descendants who marry Britons, and so on potentially without limit. Nor is the law's application confined to those that bear the official style of "princess". For purposes of the Act, that term is deemed to include any legitimate female descendant of George III, since each inherits a claim on the British crown, unless excluded by the Act itself.
 * BTW, as I understand it per the earlier articles and Succession to the British throne, the current law has no direct effect on succession of the person trying to marry. In other words, Beatrice could enter in to a polyamorous marriage with 10 drug lords, 10 terrorists, 10 child rapists and 10 serial killers together with her sister and barring other events they would still be fine to succeed to the throne. It doesn't even matter if any of these people except the two sisters are Catholic since the marriage are inherently void unless they have the monarchs permission or they over 25, give notification and both houses of parliament don't object. (Children from this marriage would be excluded because they aren't seen as legitimate but the complaint above seemed to be about succession of the sisters themselves.)
 * Incidentally, as the case of Edward VIII has shown, requiring the sovereign's permission to marry doesn't help when the sovereign decides or plans to marry this drug lord after they have succeeded to the throne. (And I don't really get how the proposal above is supposed to work, it sounds like another example which may be fine at first, but if the throne actually survives that long in another 250 or so years will be another silly mess.) Perhaps the best bet is to hope that the change allowing them to marry Catholics doesn't pass and they only plan to marry Catholic drug lords....
 * Nil Einne (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * One reason that I see is due to the Regency Acts. In the case where the a regent is needed, the Counsellors of State would include the people 3rd-6th in the order of succession-- the minor monarch at first, the regent at second.-- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  22:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Poverty in Korea
I finished a start-class entry for Poverty in South Korea, but if anybody can find more reliable references for the recent absolute poverty value, it would be appreciated.

I would like to write an article on Poverty in North Korea, but I am not seeing any good sources. If anyone can find them and link them here, I'll take a look; in particular, any estimates for absolute and relative poverty and the trends would be nice. I found one estimate for absolute poverty, but the source may not be that reliable.

Any assistance appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 20:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't "Poverty in North Korea" just be a redirect to "North Korea"... -- Jayron  32  21:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Insert [rimshot] here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No? Explain, please. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * While I have no clue what your previous comment even meant, my reply was to Jayron, due to simple fact 1) topic is notable and 2) redirect he proposes is bad, as explained in WP:RED. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

psychological reasons for granting last meal
hi,

what are the psychological reasons that those whom society executes (usually somewhat vengefully) are given a lavish meal? same goes for guards, etc. "power" (not using this term in a derogatory way) has decided they should get that - but why?

as for the prisoner, i doubt they care what they've had before they die. me, i'd die hungry just so that i could look forward to not being hungry. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article Last meal covers why the practice exists and what the historical justification was. As to why the practice persists in some places to the modern day, the only correct answer is probably "tradition"; as such traditions are somewhat impervious to rational analysis.  That is, there was once what people believed at the time was a good reason, and we've kept doing it through to today through the sheer inertia of tradition, even if the current thinking disputes the original rationale.  -- Jayron  32  21:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A companion to that is Last words. I recall one story where the condemned was asked if he had any last words, and he began reciting the dictionary. It's not known how far he got past aardvark. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he got the idea from an older story.. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Besides preventing hauntings, the provision of a last meal would seem to (1) show that the state is more civilized and the executioner more dignified than the killer, by offering him this courtesy, and (2) allowing a small "carrot" of a bargaining chip to the jailor, who can warn the prisoner he won't get his final meal if he misbehaves on death row. The first is my OR, but I do believe i have seen the threat of not getting your last meal due to misbehavior on TV or in the movies. μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder how they would punish a condemned prisoner for misbehavior. They can't kill him twice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As I thought I just implied, deny his last meal--as well as shackle and muzzle him, put him on bread and water, let him sleep on the floor in a lit room to small for him to lie down in. Might even subject him to an ANI. μηδείς (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Congo rubber
I read a bizarre statement in Congo Free State that

"To extract the rubber, instead of tapping the vines, the natives would slash them and lather their bodies with the rubber latex. When the latex hardened, it would be scraped off the skin in a painful manner, as it took off the natives' hair with it."

This was introduced into the article in 2006 by an editor in good standing, sourced to Nigel Cawthorne's "World's Worst Atrocities". I don't have the page or access to etext, so I'm not very eager to chase it down - I am 99.44% confident that the editor saw this in his source.

However, it still sounds crazy, and conflicts with the more mundane method I quoted as I just started Congo rubber. Admittedly, however, the source I quoted is I believe a fairy tale written by a monster. So I'll put this to the peanut gallery and see if anyone can point me quickly in the right direction: is there any truth to that bizarre claim in the article? Wnt (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, it sounds similar to a bit in a Three Stooges film, in which Moe was covered in some rubbery substance, and they decided to remove it by inflating it and cutting it off him. As you might imagine, this plan did not go well. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bugs. Super helpful answer. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Soytenly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's what it says in King Leopold's Ghost, which is a pretty well-researched and well-respected book about the Congo:
 * "A gatherer had to dry the syrup-like rubber so that it would coagulate, and often the only way to do so was to spread the substance on his arms, thighs, and chest. 'The first few times it is not without pain that a man pulls it off hairy parts of his body,' Louis Chatain, a Force Publique officer, confided in his journal in 1892. 'The native doesn't like making rubber. He must be compelled to do it.'"
 * Which highlights the real issue here: they weren't given real tools, but were compelled to gather huge quotas of rubber from the forest. The penalties for failure were not just personal — cutting off the hands of their children was a notorious, famous punishment. Wives were kidnapped and raped. Parents were held hostage. And even worse. I know that these sorts of things sound impossible to believe, but if you want to be really, truly, amazingly horrified, give King Leopold's Ghost a look-see. The horrors enacted upon the Africans by the Belgians do almost defy belief, but there is quite a lot of documentation. It is on par with, if not somewhat exceeding at times, the worst atrocities of the Nazi death camps. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly inclined to trust a book from a publisher named "Octopus Press", like the Cawthorne book. Since we know that it's telling a true story here, let's switch the citation to King Leopold's Ghost, since it's reputable.  On which page(s) did you find the quoted text, Mr 98?  Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Octupus Publishing Group is a reliable British publisher, despite the slightly silly name. Alansplodge (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It the e-edition of the Google Books version. I can't get an exact page number from that and am having difficulty linking to it, for whatever reason, but search in it for what I've quoted and you'll find it. The Amazon searchable version seems to put it on page 161 of whatever edition that is. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * New citation placed; thanks for the help! Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nyttend/Mr. 98, appreciate the due diligence (I'm the original editor who placed that description in the article in 2006). FWIW, I would have pointed you to *King Leopold's Ghost* anyway (I don't have a copy, but I read it in the library last year). Johnleemk | Talk 04:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)