Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 April 30

= April 30 =

short story identification
Not science fiction but I think it was written by an SF writer, maybe R. A. Lafferty.

Narrator is the credit manager of a department store, in the era before Equifax. His job is to evaluate credit applications from customers and approve or disapprove credit. Some stores had strict rules for credit approval, others were more subjective; this particular one was an "ironclad system house", i.e. very strict. A customer comes in and cheerfully admits not meeting any of the credit requirements (income, residence stability etc) but seems so charming and trustworthy that the narrator breaks the rules and approves credit anyway. Customer buys a lot of stuff and can't pay. Store can't get the cops involved, since the guy never committed fraud (truthfully admitted not having money) and didn't steal anything, so he was just a deadbeat, not a crook. Credit manager confesses the error to the big boss, expecting to get fired. Boss is understanding, says the same customer did the same thing at a lot of other stores, all of them strict like the narrator's--the loose ones were left alone, and the boss himself may have personally done an approval, so the credit manager is forgiven. I'm not sure if there is a moral or conclusion after that.

Thanks, 70.36.142.114 (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Diplomatic immunity and firefighters
How does diplomatic immunity apply to quasi-governmental entities such as firefighters? For example, imagine that a fire is raging in Dupont Circle, and the Washington firefighters are having to use extreme measures to stop it. Are they allowed to enter a diplomatic compound without the ambassador's permission in order to fight the fire? Are they required to gain permission before doing anything to a fire in the compound? On the opposite side, are they permitted to do anything that they're permitted to do at private properties? I'm assuming that there are tons of local regulations on their actions; I don't care about those, since I'm only interested in international law. I'm basically asking about what (if any) components of diplomatic immunity are waived by international law for public safety agencies (excepting law enforcement, of course) in emergency situations. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe that you're thinking of extraterritoriality, not diplomatic immunity. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, they would need the ambassador's permission, or permission of whoever was in charge, to enter the embassy. I suspect that, lacking permission, they would limit their actions to spraying water from the outside the embassy compound, to prevent the fire from spreading beyond the embassy. StuRat (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations covers this. Article 31 states that consular premises shall be inviolable and permission is needed for authorities of the host state to enter them, but notes that ""The consent of the head of the consular post may, however, be assumed in case of fire or other disaster requiring prompt protective action." - EronTalk 02:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's a link to an actual case, at the Cuban Consulate in Montreal in 1988: Consulate staff did not allow city firefighters to enter the premises and three employees died who might have been saved had the firefighters been allowed to intervene. --Xuxl (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Combat footage
Is it legal for members of the US military to capture live footage from the warfront and then publicly distribute it? --EditorMakingEdits (talk) 10:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seeing as Bradley Manning was convicted of Espionage Act violations for passing such footage to Wikileaks, I doubt it. --Viennese Waltz 11:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Recently I watched a documentary titled Apocalypse: The Second World War. The entire films consits of footage caputred by armed forces members of the major power of the Second World War. How could they capture it if it was illegal, especially the footage of the Nazi military. --EditorMakingEdits (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between, for example, an army film unit recording footage for official distribution, and individual soldiers using their smartphones or whatever. And likewise, there's a difference between what the military releases promptly, what it keeps for its own purposes and releases later under timed disclosure rules, and what it doesn't want released at all. WW2-era soldiers were not generally toting their personal cine cameras at the front line. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, what Chelsea did was illegal because the footage was classified and no one approved the release. I don't think it is relevant to the question, which I read as asking about "unofficial" footage being captured by soldiers with theit own devices. There are almost certainly rules that must be followed before releasing that sort of footage (if they're even allowed to take it in the first place), so we should try to find references for those rules. K ati e R  (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I was assuming that all footage was classified, whether taken by a soldier with his own device or by some kind of official cameraman (if such a thing even exists anymore). There's no reason to draw a distinction on the secrecy level of a piece of footage based on who shot it. --Viennese Waltz 14:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily who shot it, but what it depicts. In WWII, news media were allowed to report on events which would already be known to the enemy. You may recall that Geraldo Rivera caught some heat in the early weeks of Gulf War II, as he was imbedded with the troops, and on at least one occasion he talked a bit too much about where they were and what was going on. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it legal/illegal? That asks for a legal opinion... you would have to ask a lawyer. (Note that Wikipedia is not supposed to give legal advice or opinions... we can look things up in law books and quote the text of a law, but we can not interpret the law). The applicable text for the US Military would be the Uniform Code of Military Justice... other nations will, of course, have different laws. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This writeup from 2006 indicates that the DOD has been pretty liberal with allowing soldiers to capture and post pictures and videos. But they do draw the line at certain things, including the type of stuff that got Geraldo in trouble. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Two official film departments were the US Army Pictorial Service (a division of the Signal Corps), and the First Motion Picture Unit. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * More recent (2008) info can be gleaned from this New York Times piece. More about censoring the embedded press, but the same sorts of things should logically apply to social media soldiers. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I think most soldiers can easily capture a footage like, say, launching of an anti-tank missile in the direction of a T-90, or launching of a stinger etc. I don't see how these footage could reveal classified information.


 * Regarding the historical significance, I will rank the Syrian Civil War as a history setter because it is the first war in the history of mankind that produced widely available combat footage using consumer electronics, both from the side of the Syrian military and the rebels. The same is for South Sudanese conflict (2013–14).


 * The smartphone revolution is relatively a new thing beginning in the year 2011. And the only war involving major military powers is the Libyan war for which the most widely watching video is probably the launch of Tomahawk missiles from a ship. But that video was probably shot by a professional film unit as the youtube channel is called MilitaryNotes. --EditorMakingEdits (talk) 04:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure if the launching pad counts as the "warfront". It's the killing part they generally censor, tactical info notwithstanding. Big guns and fast planes are good recruitment tools, so long as people see fire, not blood. Glory, not guts. Whenever you see a story involving pictures of US war killing, it becomes a scandal story instead. These are the types of military videos the Department of Defense prefers. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Matthew Brady's exhibit of photographs of the dead of Antietam caused a major stir, because it's about the reality of war, which can undermine support for it, especially of bodies of allies as opposed to enemies. That same mentality continues today. No small amount of controversy even over coffins draped in US flags, while the controversy over graphic photos of Saddam Hussein's dead sons was much less. (In fact, according to the articles, the US itself released those photos.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As Mel Brooks said, "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die." The Hussein kids weren't intended as sideslapping hilarity, but certainly to put a smile on some faces. Of course, it only really works when the dead have been sufficiently built up as heels. If there's uncertainty (as is usually the case with "suspected militants"), uninvolved viewers will generally default to empathy.


 * Control Room gives a decent look at the issue (and others) in war news around invasion time, particularly at Al Jazeera. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No. BB's surprising theory that a notorious bushranger from Van Diemen's Land reincarnated 35 years after he died and snapped pics at Bull Run and Antietam has an initial sensationalism that pales on confrontation with the correct link to the American civil war photographer Mathew Brady. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * D'oh! Yes, it was Mathew Brady whose photo exhibit in New York caused a bit of a row due to its potential for undermining the warhawk propaganda machine. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Notable members of the British Home Guard in World War II
I was thinking of starting a new section in our Home Guard (United Kingdom) article, about notable people who served in the Home Guard. I already have George Orwell, George Formby and Patrick Moore, as well as a few retired generals like Douglas Brownrigg who was the military advisor for the 1943 film The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp. Do any others spring to mind? Alansplodge (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Jimmy Perry of course. DuncanHill (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A few more listed here, including, rather pleasingly, Arnold Ridley and John Laurie. DuncanHill (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I'd forgotten about Jimmy Perry. In trying to find some references, I came across Undiscovered Scotland: John Laurie wich says; " John Laurie served in the Home Guard, the only future Dad's Army cast member to do so". More work needed. Alansplodge (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

To me, my father was notable. After a night's work at a London newspaper office he feel asleep whilst on guard duty and collapsed upon his bayonet leaving a scar over his eye for the rest of his life.85.211.136.204 (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * An excellent story. Many people forget that HG duties were on top of wartime extended working hours, with many working 6½ days a week. Alansplodge (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment Alansplodge, it brought a lump to my throat again!85.211.136.204 (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)