Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 February 14

= February 14 =

Congressional lame duck period in 1960
(by edit request) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

According to this article, John F. Kennedy was elected POTUS while serving in the US Senate, but didn't resign from the Senate because he "had no lame-duck period to worry about". This is contrast with Barack Obama, who resigned from the Senate a week or so after the 2008 election. My question: why didn't JFK have to worry about a lame duck period? Also, if one of the POTUS candidates currently serving in the US Senate (there are several) gets elected President, will there be some de-facto requirement that they not be re-sworn into their Senate seats at the start of the 114th Congress on January 3, 2017? That would let them stay in the Senate potentially until the Presidential inauguration on January 20. This is relevant because of the potential change in partisan control of the Senate affecting Senate rules, e.g. the nuclear option stopping a possible filibuster of a new SCOTUS nominee, depending on which Senators are present to vote when the new Congress starts. Thanks. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The actual quote from the article is that Kennedy "had no lame-duck session to worry about". Congress was not scheduled to be in-session between the election and the change-over to the next Congress, and so Kennedy wasn't "on duty" in official capacity. You can see at our list of United States Congresses that the 86th Congress (that in question for Kennedy) was only in session between January and September of each year. &mdash; Lomn 00:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC),


 * As for the second part of your question, it depends on who you are talking about... Rubio's Senate term expires this year... so no matter what happens with his Presidential bid, his successor as a Senator from Florida will take office on January 3.  Cruz and Sanders, however, are in the middle of their respective terms... and so either of them could continue to serve as a (Texas / Vermont) Senator until January 20 should one of them become President. I doubt the would... but they could. Blueboar (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Kennedy ... advised Gov. Foster Furcolo of Massachusetts to appoint Smith to fill the vacated seat "in the interest of promoting party unity." (From Smith's article.) Obama apparently made no such suggestion to his Governor; perhaps he thought that appointment by Rod Blagojevich would be no favor.  I'm not sure this explains anything, but there it is. —Tamfang (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Obama's choice was known to the governor. See Rod Blagojevich corruption charges. Rmhermen (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Animal Shelters vs Homeless Shelters in US
How many more animal shelters are there in the US than there are homeless shelters and how much more resources do animal shelters have than homeless shelters or vice versa?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Something like 3,500 animal shelters. At least this many homeless shelters. Given that virtually no homeless shelters kill their strays after a few days, and that animals don't need clothes and almost never get psychiatric help, I'd say it's quite vice versa on the resource part. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

"Murder of a federal employee" and mens rea
When Jared Lee Loughner committed his massacre at Gabrielle Giffords' "congress on your corner" event, one of his random victims was federal district court judge John Roll. Federal prosecutors filed charges over his death of "Murder of a federal employee".

My question is this: When Lounger shot Judge Roll, it appears that he was totally unaware of him being a federal judge a.k.a. "federal employee". Judge Roll was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

To be convicted of the charge, would Lounger have needed to know that the person he was murdering was indeed a federal employee? If a person murdered a federal employee in ignorance of their status as such (and this fact was not in dispute), would they still be guilty of the federal offence? Or would they "only" be able to be charged with a "regular" state-based charge of murder? Eliyohub (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Good question. The answer is no. The statute that Loughner was charged under was title 18, United States Code, section 1114. Specific knowledge of the official status of the victim is not an element of the offense that the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. "It is well established that knowledge of a victim's status and identity as a federal officer is not a required element for a homicide conviction under § 1114." United States v. McVeigh, 940 F.Supp. 1571 (D. Colo. 1996) (read), affirmed 38 F. App'x. 534 (10th Cir. 2002). See also McEwen v. United States, 390 F.2d 47 (9th Cir. 1968) (read), United States v. Ganter, 436 F.2d 364 (7th Cir. 1970) (read). Neutralitytalk 05:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * But doesn't that ruling negate the actual purpose of the statute? I assume that the purpose of the statute is to protect federal employees while they are performing their official duties.  No?  If a federal judge was randomly murdered while he was shopping at the mall or eating at McDonald's, would the same rule apply?  Doesn't the employee have to be "working" (i.e., performing their official duties)?  In the Gabrielle Giffords's case, the Judge was not actually "at work", correct?  This is confusing.  Why would a federal employee receive "extra" protection even when not at work, when not performing his work duties?  What is the supposed purpose of this statute?      Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Maybe the purpose of the statute is only to extend Federal authority as far as Article III can be stretched. —Tamfang (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by that? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Deterrence is only one of the justifications for criminal law. Another is retribution: That when a wrongdoer is adequately punished, those wronged (including the victim's families and coworkers) will be less inclined to seek additional retribution. That's just one example of a traditional justification. Additionally, bear in mind that the vast majority of cases where this statute will be applied is with the intentional murder of a federal employee while that person is carrying out his or her duties. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 08:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Your reply does not make sense to me. If a person does not know that what he is doing is, in fact, a crime, then what exactly is there to "punish"?  What exactly would one be seeking retribution for?    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Mendaliv, I agree that most uses of this statute probably involve cases where the victim was targeted due to their official position. But it still raises the question in my mind as to why congress decided that all murders of federal officials (even e.g. a domestic murder or random victim of a gun massacre, as in this case) should be treated as federal-level crimes, even when the murder had demonstrably and provably nothing to do with the victims status, role, or duties as a federal official? And even cases where the perp can prove that he didn't even know that his victim was a federal official? Eliyohub (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Why should it matter? Why should it be the victim's responsibility to say, "Don't shoot me, I'm a federal employee"? There's an old adage that "ignorance of the law is no excuse." A guy could rob a bank and then claim he didn't know it was illegal to rob a bank. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but ignorance of the facts can be an excuse. In any case, my issue is why such cases should be a federal issue, when their status as a federal employee has nothing to do with their murder. Murder is a serious crime in any state, regardless. My issue is jurisdiction. Eliyohub (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I have a theory, but I don't know how realistic it is. Perhaps the feds wanted to make sure that it could get murders (at least, some murders) out of the state's hands and into the fed's hands, exactly for jurisdictional purposes.  If a certain state did have the death penalty, then the feds would not be too worried or bothered with prosecuting the case.  If a certain state did not have the death penalty, then the feds can step in and prosecute in order to seek the death penalty.  For example, let's say that the Oklahoma Bomber (Timothy McVeigh) committed his murders in a state that did not have the death penalty .  (I don't know if Oklahoma does or does not; I suspect it does.)  Then, the hands of the feds would be tied, and the "worst" that McVeigh could get (under Oklahoma state law) is life (no death penalty).  While bringing the murder under federal jurisdiction, this allows the feds to put the death penalty on the table.  This is just a theory on my part.  I guess it depends on what type of Congress passed the law, a Democratic or Republican Congress.  Who knows?     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That passes my sniff test. Feds do that sort of thing all the time when they want to assert jurisdiction over something that's otherwise a state law matter. It's not even necessarily an issue of wanting to apply the death penalty, but to get potentially ineffective state prosecutors out of the way, or otherwise ensure uniformity of prosecutions. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'd tend to agree. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It's the deterrent factor. If the feds don't pursue prosecution, others might get the idea to kill other federal employees and then claim they didn't know the victim was a fed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Deterrence has nothing to do with it. How can I be deterred from doing something wrong when I don't know that I am doing something wrong?  Makes no sense. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In some cases it might make no difference (someone is going to go on a killing rampage anyway), in others it might - e.g. if someone was planning the attack and picking a target, the law would deter them especially hard from picking a place where government employees are likely to be. That knowledge is not one of the elements avoids any possibility the attacker might plead "I did not know". It seems draconian but it is probably meant to be.
 * In Australia there was (is?) a "rape in company" offence, where a sexual assault that happens in the presence of any person - even an innocent passer-by - is dealt with much, much more harshly than an ordinary one. It makes no sense that someone's culpability is dependent on whether someone else walks by, but the law was intended to address public fears about a "spate" of gang rapes. It's draconian and illogical, but there are reasons why the government might decide to enact a law that is draconian and illogical, and in that sense there is a political logic to it.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to search for this, but it's worth considering that the U.S. went through a civil war in the 1800s, and even in the 1960s there was deep dissension between state and local officials. It would be quite easy to imagine the federal government sending a black agent to Alabama in 1960, having him turn up dead by someone who says they "thought he was a trespasser", "didn't know he was a federal agent", and seeing the killer get off scot-free after a state jury trial.  Still, I'm only speculating. Wnt (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know for sure, but this federal legislation might have come after the JFK assassination, as it was a surprise to many that killing the president was not a federal crime. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I remember hearing that. And that's quite remarkable.  Especially given the fact that there were indeed several assassinations and/or attempts well before Kennedy.  How did this loophole go unnoticed?  Perhaps, at that time, the criminals were quickly dispatched with (found guilty, executed, killed, etc.)?  And, so, it never occurred to anyone as being a practical necessity?  Who knows?  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * In a way, it's like the extraterritorial jurisdiction where some countries can try a crime committed against one of their citizens, even if that crime took place in another country and by a non-citizen. In other words, if a US bank robber in the US shoots a Frenchman, he can be tried in a French court. It makes no difference if he knew about the nationality or not. Sjö (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I never knew about that. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Overturning an adoption decree
Recently, I was reading a story were a couple had their child removed from their care due to suspicions of abuse and neglect. They kept turning up in hospital with their baby having broken bones. The child was removed to foster care, and subsequently adopted by the foster parents.

Later, it was found that the child suffered from a medical condition which causes brittle bones. The biological parents are now fighting to regain their child.

This is not the first time where children with undiagnosed medical conditions have ended up being taken from their parents and put up for adoption on suspicion of abuse or neglect, despite the best efforts of the biological parents to obtain appropriate medical care for the child. I pass no blame on anyone. The issue is the aftermath, when a diagnosis is finally reached.

Now, I observe that there are two separate hurdles for them to achieve this. Firstly, having the adoption decree overturned / set aside / whatever the legal term is. Subsequently and distinctly, getting a court order returning the child to their care (this would involve questions of the child's best interests, etc, and may be difficult). My question is purely regarding the first step, not the second.

If it can be proven in court that an adoption decree was made on the basis of incorrect or incomplete evidence which was unavailable to the judge issuing the initial decree, (and the decree would NOT have been issued had the initial judge known the full truth), can the decree be revoked or overturned? Is there any precedent, case law or statuary law on the subject? Eliyohub (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This would depend entirely on the jurisdiction. Did you have a particular country or state in mind? Neutralitytalk 05:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * In common law jurisdictions, it happens sometimes that a litigant comes into possession of new information after a ruling that would have fundamentally changed the outcome of the case. Some old writs used to address this, such as audita querela and coram nobis, but nowadays you can sometimes seek a motion to overturn a judgment on the grounds that there is new evidence. The usual rule for this is that the evidence or defense has to truly be new, not merely that you failed to discover it in time. Often this burden is met because the opposing party unlawfully prevented the discovery of that evidence. My understanding is that something like having a new expert opinion that contradicts the previous expert opinions wouldn't be good enough: After all, why wasn't that expert called during the original trial? This sort of motion works as a check—albeit a fairly weak check—against the finality and predictability that res judicata provides. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the general info, it is helpful and interesting. But I'm specifically interested in adoption. Can anyone dig up a case report or ruling where a judge was asked to overturn an adoption decree under my sort of scenario, and how he / she ruled? Eliyohub (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Is rape about power and control? Or about sex? Or both?
I have often heard that "rape is not about sex, it's about power and control" (or some variation thereof). In a way, I guess, that makes some sense. But, oftentimes, when there is a crime with many victims, why is it that the young pretty girls get singled out for rape and the others (e.g., older or less attractive females; males; etc.) are not? There must be some element of sex involved, no? Can someone please explain this seeming contradiction? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I was reading this article, Vizconde murders, which is what made me think of my question. But, I want to focus on my original question, above.  And not the specifics of these Vizconde murders.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, without a specific citation (especially since you're withdrawing the only one you gave), you're asking us to argue against a premise that has not been adequately established. --Golbez (talk) 08:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about?  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You're claiming it's the young who get raped. That's not true. Read the victims list of the Boston Strangler, for example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't recall the facts of the Boston Strangler case. But I think he attacked/raped one victim at a time.  My question was when there are multiple victims.  Is it simply a coincidence that the young pretty girls get raped and not the other victims?  The Boston Strangler case is not relevant to my question.  I don't want the discussion to veer off on tangential points, but I am quite sure I can give plenty of examples:  (1) the Vizconde murders mentioned above; (2) the Hi-Fi murders; (3) I think that Richard Ramirez serial killer; and (4) The Monster of Florence.  I am sure there is a long list.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that "young pretty girls get singled out for rape." "Pretty" is pretty subjective, and although "young" can be defined more objectively, the upper and lower limits of it are also fuzzy.
 * Add to the top of this that what constitutes rape is also not set on stone. Having sex with your own wife, paying for sex, having sex with minors, not getting a clear explicit 'yes' can be considered rape or not. It all depends on the country and ideology of those involved.
 * And let's not forget the fact that normal socially acceptable sex is often about power and control too, but there are sanctioned and not sanctioned ways of getting it. In each case we can ask ourselves how free are those involved. --Scicurious (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Rapists are very far from a homogeneous bunch. They can have a wide variety of motives, methods, tactics, and victim preferences. Issues of power, anger, entitlement, masochismo, sadism and yes, desire for sex, can all come into the picture. Likewise, the choice of victim can be broad, and isn't always a "young pretty girl" by any means. In many prisons, prisoners often rape other prisoners, obviously of the same sex, not out of sex drive, but as a means of establishing their dominance within the prison. Eliyohub (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I regret asking the question. People are being argumentative for the sake of argumentation. Why is everyone producing examples that have nothing to do with what I asked? Prison rape has nothing to do with what I asked. Nor does the Boston Strangler, etc. How about some focus? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're asking about multiple rapes by one rapist, but not one at a time, I'm fairly sure that happens equally (never) to the young and old. They're monsters, but not the two-headed kind (careful clicking that). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, so maybe my question wasn't clear? (I guess?) I am saying: a criminal goes into some criminal situation where there are many victims (for example, a bank robbery; some type of hostage situation; a home-invasion with many people at home; etc., etc., etc.). There are a lot of people there (multiple victims). During this crime, the criminal decides to also commit a rape (of, say, one of the bank customers; or one of the people at the home-invasion; or one of the hostages at the hostage situation; etc., etc., etc.). He has a lot of victims to choose from. Invariable, he picks the young pretty female. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Says who? Except for made-for-TV dramas? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Says who? I just gave 5 examples above.  None of which are made-for-TV dramas.  What part did you not understand?    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See confirmation bias. Also, your examples are not particularly convincing. In the Vizconde murders, apparently the whole motivation was to rape one particular women, and the rest were incidentals. In the Monster of Florence, there is no mentioning of rape at all. In the cases Richard Ramirez committed rape, he seems to have raped the only women at the crime scene. That leaves the Hi-Fi murders, and there were only two women there, so it's only even odds. I may have missed the 5th example. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I simply threw out those 4 or 5 examples off the top of my head. I am sure I can cite a thousand more.  When a crime somehow turns to rape and there are multiple victims to choose from, your contention is that the rapists prey on the older women; the less attractive women; and the males?  They do not disproportionately prey on the young attractive females?  Oh, OK.  Guess I have been living on Mars.  Not sure where I got my crazy idea.  Your'e probably right.  It's usually the 85-year-old male that gets raped, while the pretty 20-year-old girl is left alone.  Again, not sure what I was thinking. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you are affirming the consequent here. Women get raped in preference to men because most men are heterosexual, and most rapes are committed by men (for both physiological and social reasons). It's quite possible (even likely due to the risk profile) that young women are more likely to be victims, but so far you have not given good reasons for that. And again, finding "thousands" of additional cases when there are about 1 million rapes per year in the US alone is not strong evidence. If you look for particular cases (or even if you only have a particular image in mind when searching), you will find fitting cases. To get a proper overview you must systematically look at a representative sample, not combing the data for only once case. Look at the Richard Ramirez case. You remembered it as an example supporting your hypothesis. But apparently Ramirez raped or attempted to rape a pre-adolescent girl, a 56 year old disabled women, a 61 year old women, and so on - only two of the victims fall into what is typically considered the "young and pretty" demographics (and I don't know anything about the attractiveness of either). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I am no expert on the Ramirez case; I only recalled some vague facts. I thought there were several instances in which he killed the man (husband/boyfriend), then raped the woman.  I am pretty sure that was the case.  I assume the others he raped were when there was only one female victim to "choose" from (not several) during that incident/episode.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * And in the Hi-Fi murders, it's your contention that they "randomly" selected one of the two females (the young pretty 18-year-old over the middle-aged mom)?  And they also "randomly" selected the female over the other 4 or 5 males present?  Seems like highly improbable odds that they would select a female when there were a lot more males in the room.  If your theory held up.  How did they "randomly" pick a female, when there were (numerically) more males in the room?  That's my whole point.  You really think it was random?  Random that they selected a female over a male?  And, at that, random that they selected the younger prettier girl over the older middle aged mature woman?  Yeah, ok.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, according to our narrative (which is all I know), by the time she was raped, she had already been made to swallow Drano, had blisters all over her lips and lower face, and was spitting blood. Not exactly "attractive" to normal minds. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Further proving -- not refuting -- my point. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * In your Vizconde example, only the older girl was raped. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was my whole point. Why are you mentioning that?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Because you seem to have said they always choose the younger ones. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I meant "the younger, prettier" ones (assuming we are talking post-puberty). In general, normal males are sexually attracted to younger pretty females.  Like, for example, the girl who was 18 or 19 or so when this murder occurred.  In general, "normal" males are not sexually attracted to six-year-old girls (the younger sister, in this case).  So, I meant "younger", when we consider the victims post-puberty.  I was assuming that pre-puberty was not under consideration. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And I was assuming we were talking about murderous, home-invading rapists, not normal men. Among the latter, quite a few skip over the riper potential victims that you or I would be more inclined to politely seduce. All a matter of personal taste. If there is a general rule for all men, it's that we'll stick to screwing whatever turns our cranks. Andrei Chikatilo twice failed to get it up, for a 9-year-old and a 17-year-old. Both times, he managed after their insides were outside. That was his deal. Doesn't make him less of a sexual predator. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Different influences on criminal sexual behavior can be found in the article Causes of sexual violence. --Modocc (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm... I think once upon a time I took a criminology elective, though by now I must admit I'm not really sure of that. But if I did, then I think they made a big deal about the distinction between a psychopath and a sociopath.  Almost certainly an incorrect way of explaining this is that some people simply have zero impulse control, frontal lobe shot off in the war or something, and they see a pretty woman and they just think go for it, nobody home to say no - something psychologically wrong with them.  Others have been taught that a woman who shames the clan needs to be punished, a woman who embarrasses them needs to be put in her place or whatever - something wrong with society that has misguided their sense of right and wrong.  (But that's not how I see sociopath defined, so maybe it was psychogenic and sociogenic?  Doing a search, I see a bunch of so-close-but-that-ain't-it references... I'm just throwing these words out for consideration, without claiming to have any genuine understanding. Wnt (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's because ""rape is not about sex, it's about power and control" is an over-simplistic slogan that does not describe the entire thesis. Rape is "about" many things, as is sex, as is power and control. Some of those things overlap, others do not. As I understand it, the original slogan was intentionally over-simplistic to draw attention to the "power and control" part of the thesis; it was never intended to be read literally. Same with "there is no such thing as race" - it's a slogan and it is not intended to be read as "there is literally no difference between a white person and a black person at all". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yours was a particularly helpful reply. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Why do some people make the mistake of acknowledging (sp?) the concept of death?
At the end of Service with a Smile! (1934), we see that Walter Webb is finally caught filing a false insurance claim. Then we see everything turn black (well, because that's the end of the film). But the movie is a self-contained universe. In other words, when watching the film, people must realize that what happens next, after the film ends, is that the insurance company takes legal action against Webb (even though we don't see it). People shouldn't think "After Webb got caught, everything turned black and Webb, the insurance agent, and the car all disappeared as a result.". That didn't happen in the film's world. And when watching this film, we must perceive the film's world as the real world.

Same with what we call "life", or "reality". Life is like a movie. It has a beginning and an end. Each life is like a movie. So if we see one person die, it's like one movie just ended. But people go to the movies to watch movies only. They don't sit there and stare at a blank screen once the movie's over. When the movie's finished, people leave. Death is like a blank screen. In the movie world, everything is real, and no blank screens are acknowledged. So what I'm trying to say is, why do some people make the mistake of acknowledging (sp?) the concept of death? VRtrooper (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Up at the top of the page, it says "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." Your question very obviously falls under all three categories. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * For a vaguely related twist on this general concept, read the plot description for "Shadow Play (1961 The Twilight Zone episode)". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Multiple viewpoint novels
I'm currently reading Caliban's War, which is told from the viewpoint of several different characters, each providing a different glimpse at a complex and evolving situation. It's similar to what George R. R. Martin is doing with A Song of Ice and Fire. The first time I noticed this as a distinct style was with Harry Turtledove's Worldwar and Southern Victory series, the first of which came out in 1994. He is really using this to give people a real understanding of the different viewpoints, not just a different angle on the same image. The oldest example I can come up with from the top of my head is A Fire Upon the Deep (1992), also very well done, and with the really alien perspectives of the Tines thrown in. Now this list probably gives a sad impression of my reading habits ;-). But I'm interested in this multi-viewpoint technique. Is it unique to SF&F or are there other examples? Are there older examples, within or outside SF? Is there a history of this technique?  --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Maybe this fits what you have in mind--Dave Barry and Alan Zweibel's 2012 comedic novel Lunatics  has two protaganists, with alternate chapters written in the first person by one and then the other of them with different points of view on the same evolving events. Not very old, but lt's outside SF&F. Loraof (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Not sure if this fits your question:


 * Your late countryman Günter Grass has employed three different narrators in his novel Dogyears (de 1963 / en 65). They may be recording different / consecutive eras of German history, but they are also recording the evolution of a continuum.


 * Somewhat earlier, another set of narrators (Mark, Luke, Mathew and John) collaborated in the composition of a noted bestseller. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Grass is not quite what I had in mind - as I understand it, there are three consecutive protagonists, not a whole cast that keeps alternating points of view. But maybe Pulp Fiction is something similar in a movie, although that is also non-chronological and, of course much more compressed. I also think I remember a Japanese movie where a robbery is told and retold from several different viewpoints, but I cannot recall the title. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You're probably thinking of Rashomon, the classic example, enough for us to have an article on the Rashomon effect. What a stunning movie!John Z (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks! Great movie, but not quite the kind I have in mind. Close, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * One method authors use to achieve multiple viewpoints is the use of epistolary techniques. Our article on that form suggests it goes back to at least the late 1400s. I believe Cookatoo's comments are meant in jest, but just to be clear, the gospels are not meant to form distinct viewpoints of an author. Matt Deres (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Now that you mention it, yes, The Documents in the Case (1930) had a somewhat similar feel to it. Thanks! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The short lived TV series Boomtown used the technique in its first season. It did not have a large audience but I found it interesting. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A non-SF&F example (depending on your definitions, I guess) is The Simpsons episode, Trilogy of Error, which examined the same day from three different perspectives. Matt Deres (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Much further back (i.e. 1920s), you have the work of Virginia Woolf, who enjoyed exploring perspectives and thought processes. The two best examples of this kind would be the stream-of-consciousness Mrs Dalloway, where the change between narrators is totally free as the narrative hops from one person's mind to another (mostly between the upper class Mrs Dalloway and the shell-shocked soldier Septimus Smith), and The Waves, which is first-person(-ish) and even more strictly structured than G.R.R Martin's stories (each of the six characters speaks a paragraph at a time). The modernists in general loved this technique, which they saw as parallel to cubism in painting - the 1917 poem "Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird" is probably the birth of this technique in the modern era (although the poem is great, it's not directly what you're looking for, since it has no story). Smurrayinchester 09:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Another well-known variation of the technique is the 1973 trilogy of plays by Alan Ayckbourn with the collective title The Norman Conquests, which portray the same events taking place in a house (and garden) over a weekend, but with each of the three set in a different room (or the garden). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (posted by SemanticMantis (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC))


 * In Take a Girl Like You (1960) by Kingsley Amis the (third person) viewpoint regularly switches between the main male and female characters - at one point rather abruptly in middle of a chapter (for dramatic effect), I seem to remember. Talking It Over (1991) by Julian Barnes has three first-person narrators. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Many SF novels describe things from multiple viewpoints. The earliest I am aware of where this is explicitly used - each chapter begins with the name of the person doing the narrating - is Robert A. Heinlein's "The Number of the Beast" (1980). RomanSpa (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Population of Arabia at the time of Muslim conquests
(by edit request) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Does anybody know how many population Arabia had at the time of prophet Muhammad and Muslim Conquests? By Arabia, I mean Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman and other Arab countries of Persian gulf.

46.224.248.52 (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I can't find specific population estimates for the pre-630s, which is not really a surprise, given how long ago it was. Pre-Islamic Arab society "was tribal and included nomadic, semi-nomadic, and settled populations" (Lecker).
 * The Atlas of Islamic History says: "Around 600 CE, the population of the Peninsula was divided into three main groups: the inhabitants of the small towns of the Hijaz (Mecca, Yathrib [Medina], Ta'if) and of Yemen (Ma'rib, Mukha, San'a'), the settled cultivators in the vicinity of the oases in the Hijaz, Yemen and Oman; and the nomads, the majority of the population." But this is contradicted by Barbara H. Rosenwein, who writes that "by far the majority of the population" of Arabia was not nomadic or semi-nomadic, but sedentary (see here). Neutralitytalk 17:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * We also have Pre-Islamic Arabia, which may or may not be a good starting point. μηδείς (talk) 05:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Identify a Hammond Innes book
I am trying to identify the English title of the Hammond Innes Book Tehlikeli Yük. Google Translate tells me that it translates from the Turkish as "dangerous cargo", but this is not the title of any of his works. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably The Wreck of the Mary Deare (1956), for which the title is appropriate. This isn't a positive confirmation, however. Tevildo (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) According to the French Wikipedia article on fr:Hammond Innes, the novel The Wreck of the 'Mary Deare'  (1956) was translated into French as Cargaison dangereuse, so that's probably the one. The Turkish translation was published in 1962, so that would also fit the timeframe. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The Hurl Stone, England
The Hurl Stone, in Northumberland, England, near Chillingham and Alnwick, appears to be an upright stone column or 12 to 15 feet high in various sources, set in a cut stone base, standing in a high meadow.I'm surprised it has no article. It appearsby its weathering to be many hundreds of years old. Has any archeologist investigated its origins? In 1863 George Tate published a story saying that explorers crawled through an underground passage and "..as they were passing under the Hurl Stone, they heard fairy harp music and the pattering of tiny feet dancing, and shrill sweet voices chanting: "Wind about and turn again, And thrice around the Hurl Stane." Does such an underground passage exist? Other online sources suggested that legendarily  it was "hurled" there by a giant, or that the devil hurled it at St. Cuthbert, or that it had been a cross which lost its crossbeam to a lightning strike. An 1825 book' also called it a "stone cross." An 1862 book said it was listed as a boundary marker in "the endowment deed of the vicarage of Chillingham" and also said it was believed to be a spot favored by fairies. How far back would this deed date? Are there any modern reliable sources with significant and definitive coverage of it? Edison (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * As it is a scheduled monument, there are details available online from Historic England List entry for the Hurl Stone, which describes it as the "shaft of a standing cross of medieval date". DuncanHill (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * As for Chillingham vicarage, here is a reference to a date of about 1220, but we should remember that in 1828 the vicarage transferred t the old Manor House see here). DuncanHill (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "Does such an underground passage exist?" No. The legend is that there's a passage from Cateran Hole to the Hen Hole, a deep chasm on the north-west side of the Cheviot Hills, a distance of about 14 miles. 1 2. Meanwhile p.292 of that second reference states "In a charter of A.D. 1270 it is referred to as the 'Stane cross in Clapton-Hed'", which may well be the Chillingham parish charter. I've found no reference to any contemporary studies and, tbh, as it's an isolated menhir with no markings (beyond a mark presumed to be associated with its C19 replanting), there's not a lot to go on. I'm aware of another similar stone about 20 miles south of it (though I can't put my finger on it as I write this ... somehere near Stanton Hall, iirc). There are fwiw better than 100 named stones of interest in Northumberland - see for instance p.531, few if any of which have wikipedia articles. We could squeeze out a Hurl Stone article, but it would be fairly thin. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * With regards to other Wikipedia articles about Northumberland standing stones, We have Percy Cross (about which rather more is known) and Duddo Five Stones (which are really old). A direct link to Tagishsimon's list is at The Named Stones of Northumberland; being a list of huge stones, singly and in groups, in situ and detached, to which local names have been given in the County, which interestingly only has "Four Stones" at Duddo (perhaps somebody had borrowed one), also there are eight separate stones called "Grey Mare", "Greymare" or "Graymare" and one called "Grey Nag". Alansplodge (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The perils of a Wikipedia addiction: after reading the list linked above, I have spent the evening tinkering with our article on The Laidly Worm of Spindleston Heugh. I can give up any time I want... Alansplodge (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)