Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 July 13

= July 13 =

Rohingya - Rakhine crisis in Myanmar: casualty toll?
From reading updates on several non-WP:RS alert websites, it was suggested that the death toll since the 2012 Rakhine State riots of Rohingya Muslims was higher than 35,000 individuals. However, a quick Google search reveals these purported figures are from July - August 2012, and have not been updated since. From reading the Wikipedia article and others, it would appear that the total casualty toll is between 160 (on both sides) up to about 5,000 (mostly Rohingya). Can anyone confirm whether any international agencies have updated an official casualty toll? Please try to find up-to-date information. Thanks. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 02:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Arthur and Eleanor
What was the situation like between Arthur I, Duke of Brittany and his grandmother Eleanor of Aquitaine? Did she feel any family ties to her Breton grandson or did she saw him as just her son John's enemy? --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's an impossible question to answer. We can't know her personal feelings. But bear in mind this is a culture in which families were regularly quite literally at war. Paul B (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not exactly impossible...obviously we can't go ask her, but this is a particularly well-recorded period of history in both primary and secondary sources, and we can get a pretty good idea of what how she felt about a lot of things (with the usual caveat that what we know is only what the sources tell us). What she felt about Arthur specifically might take some digging to discover, but since Arthur was brought up at the French court, and was specifically put forth as a threat to John's legitimacy, and John and Eleanor both worked to destroy him in France, and Eleanor didn't seem to mind so much when John (probably) had Arthur murdered, I've got to imagine that she didn't feel particularly close to him. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Edward Snowden
Regarding Edward Snowden, I read that he may seek asylum to some foreign country, but that he is not "allowed" to travel by airplane over US air space to get to that country. What does this mean exactly? If he were in a plane traveling toward some destination country that is granting his asylum, and he traveled over US air space, what would happen? How would the US authorities get access to him exactly? Also, as a side note of curiosity, what is considered US air space? How "high up" in the air does a nation have a right to claim that the air space is theirs? How does that work? What are the rules/laws? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The airspace article notes "there is no international agreement on the vertical extent of sovereign airspace". Various altitudes, such as the Kármán line at 100km, have been suggested. Countries certainly hold that the altitudes at which practical aircraft fly fall within their airspace, and seem to have accepted that orbital altitudes do not (overfly someone's country in your SR71 and they'll send you a nasty letter; do it in a space capsule and they won't). As to Snowdon, the concern would be, at least in theory, that an aircraft carrying him through US airspace could be compelled to land on US soil. Barack Obama has said he "no, I'm not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29 year old hacker". -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * An interesting paper discussing the origins and conventions around the legal basis of airspace is here. That points us to Article 3 bis of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation. This says a state is "entitled to require the landing ... of a civil aircraft flying above its territory". -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but regarding Snowden, what is formally legal is not a good basis to predict what would happen, as shown by the Morales plane incident, which makes it clear that the correct tool to interpret US statements is Claud Cockburn's "Never believe anything until it has been officially denied." If he were known to be traveling over US airspace, that his plane would not be forced down, one way or another, is preposterous. This incident shows that for this purpose, US airspace must be considered to contain that of Austria, France, Portugal, Spain and Italy too. He wasn't on the plane, but Morales had every legal right to openly take Snowden to Bolivia. Snowden has already sought and been offered asylum in several countries, including Russia perhaps, where he is now. RT-TV Reports that Snowden has Accepted Russian Asylum Offer 'My asylee status now formal': Snowden declares 'acceptance' of all offers of asylumJohn Z (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, per the press conference he gave, he only wants asylum in Russia temporarily to help him take up one of the offers in Latin America. Putin made it clear a while ago Snowden would have to stop leaking US secrets if he wants to stay in Russia and I'm not aware Putin ever gave any suggestion of changing his mind. (Many sources have pointed out there's little point in Russian pissing off the US over this, I also heard on BBC yesterday and I'm guessing other sources have said the same thing. On a personal level, Putin may not like someone randomly divulging state in particular, intelligence agency secrets, even if they are for the US, particularly given his history with the KGB.) About the plane thing, there seems to be a lot of bluster and misinformation coming out of both sides and I doubt we'll know anytime soon what really went on. But while it seems something untoward went on, on the part of the EU countries involved, I don't think it's clear they really wanted to force the plane down. A more likely possibility and I admit this part of my reply is complete OR is they simply did not want Snowden traveling over their territory to reduce possible controversy and the need to choose between forcing the plane to land to look for and possibly capture him or not. This may have been made worse because they had no desire to search the plane of a head of state forcefully (and worse if he was on the plane) but may also apply generally. As for the US, as I remarked before with IIRC a source, the idea that the US would have to scramble jets to convince a civilian plane to land is just silly, so Obama's statement is disingenuous at best. The are of course plenty reasons why a civilian plane could be asked to land, let's not forget we already had HK finding 'non-compliance' in the warrant. The risks to traveling over the US and difficult getting to Latin America was of course something that was mentioned before the Morales plane thing even happened, basically not long after Snowden arrived in Russia and when flight to Cuba was booked, although at the time people only generally considered traveling over the US and landing in any country which may be willing to detain and hand him over to the US risks. I think the fact just flying over US allies may be problematic was a bit of a surprise. That said, it's also unclear why everyone thought he may be in the Bolivian plane, while I haven't actually looked i.e. this is my only other bit of OR, a test by someone trying to help Snowden must be one speculation (which probably worked better than expected as the reaction likely increased sympathy). Nil Einne (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As the links show, the possible Russian asylum offer is based on statements of Russian legislators; clearly not yet finalized, but it is possible the essential decision has already been made. It was the lack of fuel which forced Morales' plane down, and Portugal prevented it from landing there and refueling as scheduled. The states involved could simply have allowed him to refuel and pass through as usual. Analysis: Experts advise Snowden: fly commercial is an interesting view. But my point is that legalities are not the only thing to take into consideration.John Z (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, it confirmed something I suspected but wasn't really thinking of properly when writing my first reply namely there's nothing wrong per se with simply denying permission to someone else's government plane. And that this doesn't apply to commercial flights.
 * I'm aware a lack of fuel which forced Morales plane to land, that appears to be one of the few details not in dispute. However precisely what was scheduled, and when and who (including those in charge of Morales's plane) was aware of what (including where they could and couldn't land and fly over and whether I was Morales's plane) and when is unclear as there are a lot of claims and counter claims (also about other things like fuel gauges)..
 * I don't really get the relevance of the statement, 'The states involved could simply have allowed him to refuel and pass through as usual'. I don't think this was ever dispute. As I said, the point is not about what the countries could have done (it seems clear that whatever else and IIRC the Morales plane incident happened after the EU spying revelations, the countries involved are friendly enough with the US and/or disagree with Snowden's actions that they have no desire to be seen helping him) or should have done under the law (as I think was clear from my post, I agree that there's more than legalities involved, although as with the HK case, there's generally some facade that can be used e.g. I believe the plane was generally denied for technical reasons).
 * Rather the point is that their actions are not because they wanted the plane to land, nor because they even wanted to stop Snowden traveling per se. Instead because they simply did not want to have to deal with Snowden traveling over their territory, even less so him being in a plane that lands in their territory.
 * In other words, it's a mistake to think of airspace of those countries like the US as your post suggested. Possibly the US would be happy and hoping he travels over their territory let alone makes a stop over there. I say possibly since I don't think it's definite the US will ask the plane to land, there's an obvious risk but on the other hand, despite the surprising Morales incident it's not really clear if they care that much. The other countries, more likely the opposite, they'd probably rather not have to deal with it, particularly Snowden stopping over in their territory. (Although I'm not saying there's no risk to Snowden and it seems unlikely they can really do much about flying over their territory in a commercial flight except hope it doesn't happen.)
 * BTW, the fact that it was Morales's plane complicates matters since on the one hand as a government plane it's not completely unresonable for them to simply deny permission. However denying the plane carrying a HOS for a friendly nation without a good reason is generally going to be seen as fairly unfriendly, particularly if existing permission is cancelled when the plane is already in the air (which doesn't seem to have been clearly established). And having given permission, it's rather unlikely they would want to try to get the plane to land. Similarly if it stoped for refuelling, it's unlikely they would want to search the plane let alone try to detain Snowden if he were on it. So there's little they could do other then let it through or deny permission. Of course, the Morales bit does help the in the sense that they could have said told anyone in the US complaining 'what exactly did you expect us to do with a HOS's plane?' but I don't think it's that surprising that they'd prefer not to have to deal with it. As I hinted at before HK appear to have done something similar by finding 'non compliance'. And even Russia is not that far by allowing him to hang out in the transit lounge and most likely only allowing him in when he promises to stop leaking, at least, temporarily.
 * Getting back to my earlier point, given the contradicting statements, and the unlikelihood of any clarity, we'll probably not know for sure what really happened but there have been quite a few suggestions the plane had been denied landing and/or overflight before it took off, and for some reason this wasn't properly accounted for. Personally I suspect that whatever else went on, every country thought the plane would find somewhere else (and perhaps before taking off) so it wouldn't be such a big deal.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt that. The entire episode eventually ended in a search of the plane for Snowden  and that is surely no accident. Wnt (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

ellis, georgia
georgia ellis starred in the show 'the red forest' in the escape series with william conrad and some other people. She played  'Miss Kitty' in the radio version of Gunsmoke. Could somebody please add this info to her article on Wikipedia? Thanks Larry Zimmerman (contact info removed)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.8.94 (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have reliable sources for this info (i.e. not IMDB), why don't you add it yourself? Alternatively, the place to suggest it is the talk page.  Rojomoke (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Fürst Koháry
Did Maria Antonia Koháry de Csábrág or her descendants the Koháry branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha used the title Fürst Koháry?--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No. They are commonly referred to as the Koháry branch of the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha dynasty and so, often but incorrectly, "Koháry" was appended to "Saxe-Coburg". But the title of Fürst ("Prince") was not heritable in the female line and died with the original grantee, whose daughter, Antonia, carried the family's vast wealth and lands to the Coburgs. In fact, the only reason Count Ferenc Koháry was made a Fürst in 1815 by the Emperor of Austria-Hungary was to elevate Antonia, Ferenc's daughter and sole heiress, into a Prinzessin, thus making her marriage to a cadet of the Coburg dynasty seem less like a misalliance. Since Koháry was a surname, not a realm, and the Coburgs were a reigning German dynasty whereas the Kohárys were merely rich East European landowners, it would have been a derogation -- a social step down -- for even a junior Coburg prince to append to his sovereign territorial titles the name of a patrimony -- which was all that Kohary really was. Antonia Koháry's marriage was part of a post-French Revolution trend that peaked in the fin-de-siecle era, to which also belonged the marriages of Vittoria dal Pozzo into the Italian royal family, Marie Bonaparte into the Greek royal family and Aurora Demidov into the Yugoslavian royal family: a ruling Euro-dynasty lowers its marital standards to welcome a wealthy heiress, of noble rather than of royal rank, in order to fund an appanage for a junior prince. In the 19th and 20th centuries, British peers and Continental noblemen often married American heiresses to "manure the family fortune", creating the so-called "Dollar Duchesses" (e.g., Consuelo Vanderbilt and Winnaretta Singer): royal families scraped the bottom of Europe's princely barrel for the same purpose. FactStraight (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I once understood (but I might be wrong) that Hungarian magnates were generally understood to be equal to the German "Standesherren" and therefore eligible to marry into German "standesherrliche" and reigning families anyway. The elevation to Prince therefore wouldn't have mattered because a Princely family that is merely noble would still not be of equal birth. It could however be that Francis I elevated that family into the rank of "standesherren" by making them Princely. Like the Bavarian King did with the 'Beauharnais' by making them Dukes of Leuchtenberg. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never heard this. Neither the Congress of Vienna nor the Bundesakte Artikel 14 or Einführungsgesetz of 1900 recognized any right of equality of privileges or birth for Hungarian magnates with mediatized Princes and Counts of the Holy Roman Empire. The Standesherren were included in the upper chamber of the Diet of each realm in which their lands were located, including Austria's. Many Hungarian magnates were also included in Austria or Hungary's upper chambers -- but that carried no other privileges to which the Standesherren were entitled. Nor were any non-mediatized princely families (let alone countly or untitled families) included on Austria's 1901 list of families recognized as enjoying Ebenbbürtigkeit with the Habsburgs, even though several princely Hungarian (Bohemian, Lithuanian and Polish) families were granted the style of Durchlaucht by Austria in 1905 while remaining in the Third (non`mediatized) Section of the Almanach de Gotha's Princely Families. You are correct that merely conferring a princely title on the Koharys or other noble families could not, ipso facto raise them to dynastic rank. Rather, these Third Section titles figleafed financial arrangements made by reigning dynasties to grab the fortunes of noble heiresses for their younger sons. They did it by sovereign fiat, since each dynasty controlled its own house laws. Although the Koharys had been comital, it is debatable whether a Coburg princeling could marry one dynastically and there is no evidence they were recognized as Standesherren (generally, a synonym for post-1815 Mediatized Houses with a few special exceptions like the Leuchtenbergs and Bentincks), so the Austrian Prinzessin title concealed the irregularity and the Coburg-Koharys henceforth contracted fully royal marriages. FactStraight (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)