Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 January 29

= January 29 =

Presidential pardon power in the USA
My understanding is that the presidential pardon power in the USA is absolute and cannot be reviewed (or overturned) by any other branch of government. So, are there no restrictions whatsoever on the president? Can a president pardon himself? (It is understood that the presidential pardon power can only be extended to federal crimes, not state crimes.) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) I have read Article Two of the United States Constitution and pardon. Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Pardon seems to comprehensively answer your question, excepting the trivial "can a president pardon himself". The answer to that is "it is literally and totally impossible to answer one way or the other."  Since it has never happened, it hasn't been tested in the courts, and thus there is no legal precedence to provide any guidance, as the matter is not explicitly dealt with by statutory or constitutional law (in this case Article Two of the United States Constitution).  -- Jayron 32 03:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it says "except in cases of impeachment", so certainly he/she can't do it once impeachment proceedings have been started. I would assume it also means that if she pardoned herself, it wouldn't stop her from being impeached, even after the pardon, for that offense. --Trovatore (talk) 07:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Excellent point, about the impeachments.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Theoretically, she could wipe out the House of Representatives. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Huh? How so?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I guess if they were all overseas although the legality of that AFAIK has never been tested. I also suspect it's a violation of international law. And I think it's unlikely it would survive legal challenge if it happens in the US. However we're only talking about the legal side here. You still need to convince someone to do it. For all the criticism of the US military, I'm not convinced it will be easy to find someone to bomb the HoR. (Whether knowingly or by tricking them.) Heck even if they all did happen to be overseas for some reason. While it's possible some low level person wouldn't challenge the order or even realise what they're doing, it won't necessarily be easy to convince them to take an order directly from the president even if they are commander in chief. Note if you don't care about legalities, theoretically anyone can do it. The question remains, are they really capable? Nil Einne (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Can you pardon someone before he was convicted? Can a president be judged as he's still in office? Otherwise, the case might never arise. A criminal president would be impeached (=> no longer president), judged, and convicted.--Scicurious (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See Pardon. Ford absolutely pardoned Nixon before Nixon was tried or convicted in a court of law. Commentators at the time suggested Nixon selected Ford as his successor with expectation that Ford would pardon him (but without discussion of this or it being a quid pro quo). From the article,  "Polls showed a majority of Americans disapproved of the pardon, and Ford's public-approval ratings tumbled afterward." Many Americans had hoped to see Nixon tried in court for his crimes, which had resulted in several of his assistants being convicted.A pardon after a trial and conviction would have been less objectionable. A preemptive pardon can serve as a coverup, so that all the discovery and interrogation of a rtial are avoided.  Ford then lost the presidential election. (Payback). Edison (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You are correct to say that Ford absolutely pardoned Nixon before Nixon was tried or convicted in a court of law. But -- even further than that -- Nixon was not even (yet) charged or brought up on any crimes.  So, the Nixon case also allows a pardon in a case where there is not even a criminal charge filed against the pardoned person.  Of course, it would only have been a matter of time before prosecutors did file some criminal charge against Nixon.  But, as of the time of the pardon, they had not yet done so.  So, technically, there was not even any crime to "pardon".  But, we all know how politics goes. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * On September 8, 1974, Ford issued Proclamation 4311, which gave Nixon a full and unconditional pardon for any crimes he might have committed against the United States while President. We have no Wikipedia article on the Nixon pardon?  Really?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What information about the pardon does Wikipedia need that you find lacking in existing articles? -- Jayron 32 05:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it's a pretty significant event that merits its own article. Even if it's a stub.  I have seen articles for "lesser" things.  I am not even sure if there is a redirect, at the very least.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * We should be less concerned about arbitrary organizational issues and more concerned with having the information. It matters little to nothing whether the information is in a stand-alone article or parts of other articles.  And if there is not enough information to create more than a stub, then we don't need to do so.  -- Jayron 32 02:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Then why do we even have stubs at all? Are you suggesting that all those stubs are not valuable?  And should be deleted?  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't really agree with that. It's a distinct topic that in my estimation warrants a dedicated article.  Most of the current information is spread out over the Ford and Nixon bios, but those are biographies; that's a significantly different focus from an article that covers and event.  In particular, the legal aspects of the pardon are not really about either Ford or Nixon as persons; they're about the pardon itself, and fit more neatly in an article about the pardon.
 * In any case, though, the refdesk isn't really the place to decide it. I would encourage anyone interested in creating such an article to come up with an outline for it, and maybe announce it at the talk pages of the bios to get feedback. -Trovatore (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with all that you stated. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no dedicated article for it, but the section Gerald_Ford is thorough enough. However, the bit " as when Ford pardoned Nixon, the pardoned person need not yet have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime." in the Pardon article is still tagged as 'citation needed.' It's obvious though that this is not the most orthodox case. The curious case of a president committing a crime and effectively pardoning himself is also still to be seen. --Scicurious (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the case of a president pardoning herself is an interesting one. It seems like the impeachment issues mentioned above should "settle" the issue somewhat.  But impeachments are for "high crimes and misdemeanors".  So, technically, a president could pardon herself for a low-level crime and still escape the impeachment problem.  Interesting.  I think, at the very least, political pressure from party big-wigs would convince the president not to do so.  And, of course, a convenient "agreement" could be made with the next president to pardon the former president (accused of the low-level crime).  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This brings up an interesting question. Let's say that a presidential candidate has committed a crime that unquestionably would be an impeachable offense.  Can the candidate still run for president?    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Such as what? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "Such as what?" ...? There are a million federal laws that can be broken and thus constitute impeachable offenses ... no?  I don't understand your question.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What type of crime could someone commit before being elected that could be an impeachable offense? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not trying to be dense, but I am still not following your question. Are you asking about: (A) what crime?  It can be any of the millions of federal crimes that are outlined in the statute books, no?  Or are you asking: (B) which specific crime could be done prior to office such that it is impeachable when in office?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You hypothesized about a candidate who has committed a crime that would be considered impeachable. I want you to give me an example of such a crime. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Murder of a federal judge.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If he's sitting in prison for murder, he's not likely to get much traction running for president. And the rules for getting on the ballot, which can vary state-by-state, might at least in some states prohibit a felon from running for office. There's probably nothing to prevent a write-in campaign. But that doesn't work very well at the national level. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Who said he's sitting in prison? Not sure what point you are making?  There are a million other examples I could have selected from the federal statutes.  Not all crimes require you to be in prison, anyway.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If he had murdered a federal judge, or anyone for that matter, wouldn't he be somewhere along the process of being arrested, indicted, tried and convicted? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For the 100th time, why don't you clarify the point that you are trying to make. No, during the entire criminal prosecution (the process of being arrested, indicted, tried, and convicted) ... you are not sitting in jail that whole time, no.  And as I said, all crimes do not even require prison.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And I'm having trouble understanding your questions. I'm talking about your example, which was murder. And are you talking about legal bars to running for president, or practical bars to running? Or both? In theory, Charles Manson could announce his candidacy. That doesn't mean he'd garner enough support to get on the ballot; or even if he did get enough signatures on a petition, there might be federal and/or state laws prohibiting him from being on the ballot. Spiro Agnew is a case of a guy who might have fit your criteria. His criminal acts as governor weren't known until after he had been VP for over 4 years. But his attempt to get himself impeached was turned down by the Speaker of the House - not specifically because the crimes occurred before he was VP, but for other reasons. So your question seems to be, if his crimes were already known, or at least widely suspected, would ha have been "eligible" to run for president. Is that your question? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The question was a general question. Namely: ''Let's say that a presidential candidate has committed a crime that unquestionably would be an impeachable offense. Can the candidate still run for president?''. You asked for a specific crime. Out of the many thousands of federal crimes, I just happened to say "murder". (For no specific reason.)  Then, you shifted the topic to the specific crime of murder (which was not what the original question was about). I could have said treason, espionage, cheating on your taxes, violating federal campaign finance laws, counterfeiting money, etc., etc., etc. Also, one of your bars or impediments was premised on the idea that the candidate would be in prison. I said that many crimes do not (necessarily) lead to prison. In other words, many people commit crimes and are not in prison; they are on probation, get suspended sentences, alternative programs, etc., etc., etc. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Read some of the stuff I've linked to. And I don't think there's any specific prohibition against someone attempting to run for president. But there will be restrictions as to who can get on the official ballot. But if I want to write-in someone, I can do so. That doesn't mean it will be counted or that it will matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The Vince Foster situation eventually could have been big trouble for Hillary's campaign, if it were anything beyond a right-wing conspiracy theory. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I've heard the argument that "an impeachable offense is whatever the House says it is". The constitution does not define "high crimes and misdemeanors"; it's not clear that they even have to be against the law. --Trovatore (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The impeachment article asserts that such offenses must have occurred while the president was in office. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to that? I took a quick look and didn't find it.  It seems generally reasonable, but I'd like to know what the claim is based on. --Trovatore (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In the first sentence of Impeachment in the United States. But I'm not sure the constitution itself expressly states that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. That sentence strikes me as identification of the subject matter, not an actual claim as to the limits of the impeachment process.
 * As it turns out, we do have a dedicated article on high crimes and misdemeanors, which claims that the phrase was understood by the founders to be about acts that relate to abuse of official authority, so in that sense (if that's true) then it might be limited to things the president did while "in office", but not necessarily the office of president, or the current term as president. --Trovatore (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe that this impeachment clause has never been tested through the Supreme Court. In fact, I wonder if it even can be (assuming that the Court would stay away from the issue as being a "political question"). The clause says that the House may impeach the President. It does not say that the offense must have been committed while President. So, I guess it's an open question. But I myself think they can impeach the person who is the President, for any impeachable offense (committed whenever). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose they could attempt such a thing, politicians being what they are. You may find Impeachment investigations of United States federal judges interesting, as the cases all seem to be about someone's conduct in their current job. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I got to wondering about the Agnew situation. According to this, Agnew himself had asked for an impeachment investigation. It was declined, and he resigned. The point in this discussion being that his crimes had occurred while he was still governor of Maryland. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Can a court strike down a child support insurance contract on public policy grounds?
I have previously thought about this scenario:

If some doctor will surgically remove both my entire vas deferens and my entire epididymis (after all, regular vasectomies can and sometimes do fail and vasectomy failure certainly isn't an acceptable excuse to avoid paying child support) and I will find and purchase some insurance which is going to pay all of my child support for me in the event of an unplanned pregnancy (the risk of which should be extremely small in this scenario), then can some court strike down this insurance contract of mine on public policy grounds (such as by having this court argue that having my insurance company pay my child support for me could be emotionally traumatic to this child later on)?

Completely serious question, for the record. After all, I have previously heard about how some people have argued that courts shouldn't award childcare costs to people whose sterilizations had failed due to medical negligence due to the fact that this could be emotionally traumatic to this child later on. Futurist110 (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your premise. Why would having an insurance company pay someone's child support for them be emotionally traumatic to a child later on? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Because the child can be upset about the fact that his or her father didn't want him or her and/or about the fact that his or her father wasn't even willing to spend (much) of his own money in taking care of him or her. Futurist110 (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Little kids do not understand money, finances, expenses, bills, how they are paid, etc. They have no concept about that.  And they could care less. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * That's certainly *not* going to remain true in the long(er)-run, though. Futurist110 (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Under your theory, a court would strike down forcing a father to pay child support. Because the kid might be traumatized by the fact that the father did not want to pay for the kid's expenses and only did so because a judge forced him to.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, No; after all, in the eyes of a judge, having a judge force an unwilling father to pay child support is certainly better than having an unwilling father simply not pay any child support at all. After all, if a child can be emotionally traumatized either way, then this child might as well at least get the child support that he or she deserves and is legally entitled to. Futurist110 (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * But how will that fit in with your scenario? Having a court strike down such an insurance contract would be worse that the judge ordering the father to pay because in that case the father may not pay or require a lot of pressure etc which the child could learn about. If the insurance pays, well the child can always find out about the insurance in any case so they are always going to know the father didn't want kids at one stage. But they can at least be reassured that despite this, the father was possibly at least responsible and perhaps even caring enough (or possibly more "selfish" motivations) to set up the insurance contract rather than risk the child having no support if the father simply couldn't pay (or didn't pay) because he never planned, expected or wanted that responsibility. Even if the father happily paid when ordered to, there's no guarantee the child is going to see this better than the insurance which the father set up paying, and the court has no way of knowing how the father would handle it anyway. The only way the court could be confident it would be better is if the father voluntarily rejects the contract and pays, not if a court orders it. Note however if you need legal advice about insurance contracts (rather than discussion about the possible emotional effects on the child) you should contact a lawyer. Nil Einne (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking, this is a question that requires speculation, and if the discussion goes on too long it may be best to hat it. After all, there are no such insurance policies, as far as I know.  If one did exist, however, it is extremely unlikely that a court would strike it down on the ground that it would be traumatic to the child.  To the contrary, the child's interest clearly would be seen by the court as strongly supporting the availability of a reliable source of child support.  I suppose it is possible that the policy might be challenged on a different public policy ground:  that it would encourage irresponsible behavior.  I'm not going to venture a guess as to how that argument would be received.  John M Baker (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity--are you aware of the fact that the potential emotional trauma to the used is sometimes used as an argument to justify *opposing* awarding parents *full* childcare costs in cases of sterilization failure due to medical negligence? Futurist110 (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

In the old days we did not try to give legal advice here. It begs the question how this is related to building an encyclopedia. HighInBC 01:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The question isn't asking for legal advice, It's asking a question related to law. In the old days we understood that distinction.  (Not that we would have answered the question ... Back in the old days we also did not attempt to answer "what if" questions.)  Blueboar (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a request for advice to me. Still haven't heard how this is in any way related to the project. HighInBC 04:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The reference desk as a whole is not related to building the encyclopedia. It's a service to users of the encyclopedia.  --Trovatore (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Kangaroo bomber
According to the BBC, Sevdet Besim "faces charges relating to searching internet sites" for terrorism-related activities, and he "allegedly conducted internet searches on Anzac Day in preparation for a terrorist attack". Does Victorian law specifically address Internet searches, or are prosecutors merely mentioning it as another piece of evidence in favo(u)r of their argument that Besim was intending to commit terrorism? Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The crime is intentionally doing an act in preparation for a terrorist act. In Faheem Khalid Lodhi's case, he was convicted for researching chemicals. Seems anything done towards terrorism is its own offense, even if the kangaroo never explodes. Same goes for possessing things. As long as prosecutors can tie it together as a plan, the outcome is irrelevant. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Kangaroo bomber? I'm picturing a sequel to Kangaroo Jack involving a kangaroo in a suicide vest and inept terrorists, patsies, and cops who try to recapture it as it roams around downtown Melbourne.  Might be better than the original, though that's not saying so much. :) Wnt (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * That article leaves something to be desired. For example, it says he was convicted under a 2005 law and charged in 2003.  While Australia has long since transcended the concept of constitutional rights, I still think an error in the article is more likely than an ex post facto law, since they did actually arrest him for something in 2003. Wnt (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you mean Lodhi, he allegedly "did acts in preparation for a terrorist act, namely upon a major infrastructure facility". And yeah, that sort of crime was already one guy old at the time. Pretty sure Wikipedia meant the 2003 law. Fixed, thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Floor scraping
The Floor Scrapers is a milestone in art... but are its subjects actually doing? They seem to be peeling away the varnish presumably to re-paint it, but why are they working in thin strips along the edge of each board? Smurrayinchester 12:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Because when working with wood, you want to work with the grain of the wood, when you work perpendicular to the grain you are more likely to damage the surface. The fibers in the wood run parallel to each other.  You would want to scrape in the same direction as those fibers so you don't catch those fibers and damage the wood.  Boards are cut parallel to the grain as well.  If you scrape or sand or plane wood perpendicular to the grain, you'll disrupt those fibers and damage the surface.  -- Jayron 32 13:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But why in those alternating tiger stripes though? Smurrayinchester 16:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The goal would be to remove the old varnish and as slight as possible a depth of wood so the floor will be uniform, flat and smoth to accept the new varnish. If they used a scraper with a slightly convex surface, it would take out a shallow trough and leave tiger stripes, but this makes little sense. The scene makes more sense if the boards were all cupped, with the edges higher than the centers. Then scraping the high edges with a flat scraper on the initial pass would produce the depicted scene. Subsequent passes would achieve the flat planar surface desired. When I have had similar floors refinished, the contractors used power belt sanders with very course sandpaper initially, followed by finer paper. But at the end of the boards, where they met the wall, and in confined spaces too small fr the machine, they still used scrapers as in the painting/ The puzzle here is that in the painting, the boards which have not yet been scraped look quite flat. My contractor filled in the gaps between the boards with wood filler after the initial sanding, which produced a similar tiger stripe effect before he sanded it flat, but zooming into the painting shows no sign of such wood filler. Edison (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This French art blog says:
 * "L’état du plancher: Il s’agit probablement, non pas d’un vieux plancher à retaper, mais du plancher neuf d’un appartement neuf, dans lequel il est normal que l’humidité des travaux fasse se gondoler les lattes. Avant le rabotage, il faut mouiller abondamment pour éviter  que le bois ne se fendille. Les lignes sombres et luisantes sont donc les parties  mouillées, en creux, et les lignes claires sont les zones surélevées à la jonction des lattes, que le rabot vient d’araser."
 * My translation (with a little electronic help): "The State of the floor: It's probably not resurfacing an old floor, but the new floor of a new apartment, in which it is normal that the humidity of the work (?) would warp the floorboards. Before planing, it needs to be thoroughly moistened to avoid cracks in the wood. The dark and shiny lines show the hollow wet parts, and the clear lines are areas raised at the junction of the boards, the plane just grazing them". If anybody can do better, I won't be offended. It goes on to say that some experts suggest that the three figures actually represent the same man, shown engaged in the three separate phases of the job; "raboter, racler, affûter" (planing, scraping, sanding?). Alansplodge (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you! Smurrayinchester 11:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Does ISIS have a corresponding religious identity?
I'm no expert, but it seems like most (I don't know if it's all) of the branches of Islam are based on belief/disbelief in the Caliphate of specific individuals. Not just Shia and Sunni, but Ismaili and Ahmadi Muslims, for example, are defined by their belief in some particular Caliph. So is there a sect name like "Baghdadi" or something, indicating Muslims who believe that the ISIS leader is a religious authority? For that matter, is there a sect that is defined by belief in the Ottomans as Caliphs?

Probably I shouldn't even pose the scenario, but just to sort of illustrate the relevance, I could picture that an old woman in a Western country might decide she can't participate in any actual ISIS activities, but maintain that she believes al-Baghdadi is Caliph in a religious way, and demand respect for her freedom of religion as she posts admiring comments in a country that has otherwise infringed freedom of speech in this regard. (I don't know if such a scenario has occurred) Wnt (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Source amnesia, but I do remember reading and seeing interviews a few years ago with a couple of folks who consider themselves to be fighting for Daesh on ideological grounds. Their relationship with the UK and US gov'ts was akin to two kids holding their fingers an inch away from each other's face while saying "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you..." in hopes that the other one would shove first. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think it really is a religious organization, but rather a criminal organization that finds it convenient to claim religious affiliation for recruiting purposes. I am reminded of the Mafia and their supposed Catholic beliefs, which they feel free to ignore whenever those beliefs might interfere with "business".  Similarly, ISIS claims to believe whatever is most convenient at the time.  In particular, how they treat non-Muslims and those of other sects of Islam has been all over the map (from leaving them alone in exchange for a tax, right up to genocide). StuRat (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds more like a country/city type organisation in the name of the religion.
 * I don't think "any" religious authority figure would create such devastation around the world until/unless their religion is under scrutiny. There just a manipulated bunch who 1) understand the Quran the wrong way, 2) are bothered of the evolution of the world, can't take it, so creating problems. 3) I think I recall from BBC that the original network started before 1930...the problem arose from Europe - (not sure though).
 * The "Allah" that they are dying for, its the same Allah that forbidden suicidal acts, in the Quran.
 * Mr. Zoot Cig Bunner (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not claim to be certain about anything I write here. I am just venting some ideas, hoping to move the discussion forward. I have not seen ISIS claim they belong to any sect. Some write that ISIS follow Wahhabism, which might associate them to Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. However, there are various interpretations of Wahhabism, and at least some Saudi Wahhabists are enemies of ISIS. Just as Ottoman Caliphs, or any new-fangled Caliphate, it seems to me they all start off with someone claiming to be a Caliph, and then political strife determines if enough people accept or even support the claim over time. Newly born Caliphate seem to me not so much born out of a belief or a sect as born from purely political reasons. Claiming blood lineage back to the original Caliphs seem to be much more important than details of belief or support from any sect. A "sect" seems to grow around a Caliph, rather than the other way around. It is almost like an intermittent hereditary position. Part of the reason for the fall of previous Caliphates have been protests against such hereditary claims. Star Lord  -   星爵 (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * We have an article, Salafi jihadism, which may help if you haven't already read it. There are lots of links in the "References" and "Further reading" sections at the foot of the page. Alansplodge (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think ISIS are Sunni. Long story, had to do with the invasion of Iraq by the USA, army members from the Sunni minority (which previously enjoyed power and richness) got fired, with a very low welfare aid, remained jobless, felt persecuted by an intolerant Shia prime-minister and by occupation forces, rebelled and when there was conflict in Syria, seized their opportunity to fame, richness and glory. ISIS treats Shia as apostates, i.e. for them Shia are worse than Christians, since Christians made no pretense of being Muslims, while according to ISIS the Shia falsely pretend to be Muslims. While Christians could be tolerated if they pay extra taxes, Shia are considered fallen from faith and the Sharia punishment for apostasy is the death penalty. By the way, both the Bible and the Koran approve of genocide, if that happens to be God's will. E.g., Hebrews are reported to have slaughtered certain nations which stood in their way (the Bible states that the promised land was already inhabited and the Hebrews needed their Lebensraum, of course, those biblical genocides are considered to be imaginary, a point which is lost to conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists). Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Do consider that the Bible and the Koran come from times long before the Enlightenment and what they consider political wisdom, we consider folly and vice-versa. The only mention of democracy in the Bible is the rebellion of Korah, Dathan and Abiram. Briefly: the Bible does not approve of democracy. The Decalogue is a recipe for totalitarian state (theocratic regime): freedom of religion is alien to the Ten Commandments (no other gods are to be worshiped), there is no freedom of speech (blasphemy deserves the capital punishment), no free elections, etc. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Although interestingly the Bible doesn't say "thou shalt have no other gods", but rather "no other gods before me". So, taken literally, this means it's OK to worship other gods, so long as they don't take precedence.  This fits rather well with modern thought, where we like to welcome immigrants with different religions, cultures, etc., as long as they don't try to "take over".  So, if Muslim immigrants want to build a mosque, no problem.  But if they want to establish Sharia Law, many would have a problem with that.  StuRat (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know if the translation correctly renders the full meaning of the verse. Historically, the verse has been interpreted as monotheist (by the bulk of believers) or henotheist (by scholars). Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll go with the "hens". :-) Another example to support this is when Moses had God change his staff into a large snake, which ate the two smaller snakes that the Egyptian priest had presumably asked his gods to create, in order to convince the pharaoh that his God was more powerful than theirs.  (An alternate interpretation is that the Egyptian priest just did a magic trick, but then that would bring into question whether Moses also did the same, so I doubt if that's how we are supposed to take it.)  StuRat (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * One problem arises from the fact that Judaism was meant for Jews only. Inside the Jewish land, aliens had to respect Jewish rules, but the monotheistic Jews who wrote the Bible did not really care of what gods are worshiped by other nations. They had some laws for the Sons of Noah, but in general if you weren't born Jew, there was no place for you in Judaism. Later Jews began to proselytize, but essentially Jews did not mind that pagans worship pagan gods. Christianity turned faith (true belief) in a very important issue: you could not be redeemed if you hadn't the correct beliefs. So that's why Christianity was so intolerant with heretics. Muslims adopted much from Jewish and Christian theological heritage, so rules which looked like a people minding its own internal affairs became oppressive when generalized through spreading the faith to lands far away. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Except, even within the Jewish canon, there are characters who are non-Jewish by birth, but accepted into the Jewish faith and convert. Famously, Ruth, who is not an Israelite, but a Moabite, but she is accepted into the Israelite culture, and is a progenitor of the House of David, historically the most important line of Israelite kings.  So the notion that "Judaism existed only for those people who were born to other Jewish people, and no one was allowed to or encouraged to convert, because it wasn't possible" is clearly not correct, even among the oldest stories of the Jewish canon.  It doesn't appear to have been true at any time for all of Judaism.  -- Jayron 32 17:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The Enlightenment has been mentioned, and we do have to remember that the distinction between church and state is fairly modern. Sure, there's some pre-modern precedent ("render unto Caesar," "no compulsion in religion," etc), but the idea of a Caliphate is both political and religious, just as much as the divine right of kings or the mandate of heaven.  Yes, Daesh knows about as much about true submission to Allah as Ken Ham does about real science (i.e. not at all), but their mistaken interpretation of it is intentionally pre-modern (though ironically they'd be a hell of a lot more tolerant if they were following the real example of medieval Muslims).  The arguments I usually see to treat them as only political and not religious are based on either:
 * -the mistaken assumption that acknowledging Daesh's religious motivation somehow insults real Islam,
 * -the mistaken assumption that it'll make them quit misusing Islam (instead of making them double down on their religious claims),
 * -the mistaken assumption that Daesh's mindset fits the post-Enlightenment (or even post-Marxist) understanding of the world where religion is only an excuse for realpolitik motivations.
 * The way these sects work, yes, Daesh is an offshoot of the Wahhabi school of Sunni Islam. They wouldn't claim to have some new name (beyond "Islamic State"), because they don't see themselves as a sect (but everyone else as a sect), but there already are a few individuals in the west who argue for Baghdadi's supposed authority.
 * Also, Daesh became as organized and concentrated as they did in POW camps the US was running in Iraq. They gathered the worst terrorists, Hussein supporters, and other folks who were gonna cause trouble, and put them together in rough conditions with nothing to do but organize the worst possible combination of extremist beliefs.  Ian.thomson (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Are academic theses copyrighted? Who owns the rights?
Are there restrictions on using a master's thesis, written at a state university (in the 1970s) in the USA, which does not contain any copyright notice? Does a copyright exist, even without the notice? Who would own the rights, the student or the university? The subject matter is non-technical, so there would be no patentable ideas, trademarks, etc. Peter Chastain [¡habla!]  20:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No one here can answer whether a concrete thesis is protected or not. It also depends on what use you have in mind. To understand copyright in general, take a look at this resource from Standford. Scicurious (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a thorough guide, but I only summarised it, <font color="green" size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 00:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Any written work is protected by copyright unless the owner has disclaimed it. The owner varies - it could be the author, but the author might have signed something with the university that would mean the university owns it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not quite right. Depending on the type of work, jurisdiction, and time, a work might be protected or not. In the US, copyright is automatic upon creation of a creative work in a fixed form. That's the general rule. About a concrete case, concrete details are needed to provide an answer. --Scicurious (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As I recall it is supposed to be down to the creative nature of the effort. But the GMO debacle has changed that and subsequent changes such as the 70 years after death thing totally reshaped the reasoning of copyright.  It was recently about making sure people got paid but now it's to do with riches...  <font color="green" size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 00:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note sure what GMO debacle you're referring to. A quick search re-affirms my believe that there has been pretty much no debacle involving GMO and copyright. (The only stuff I found about copyright was people both supporting and opposing affirming the copyright to their work in support/opposition.) GMO issues only involve patents or perhaps plant breeders' rights. But mostly patents since if the only difference of you variety from a common variety is the inclusion of some GM, it's likely easy to reproduce. In any case, this discussion is already confused enough without bringing in other unrelated intellectual property issues in to it as the OP has specifically said these don't arise. In terms of the original question, I think a key point which hasn't really been mentioned is that the publication of a work in the US under the authority of the copyright holder and without a copyright notice has historically meant the work lost copyright protection. The are complications like whether the work was first published in the US or elsewhere or otherwise may be considered a foreigh work and whether the work was first published before 1 January 1978 or on (and after). This is of course assuming the work was published. Anyway the OP's description implies that the work would be in the public domain. If you don't trust our article see e.g., and  (specific relevant part of the Standard link). Just to be clear, this isn't intended as legal advice and the OP will need to double check that the work is a US work and that the work is considered published. The later sounds to be the bigger issue here, the US government link which is the first external link I provided offers some clues as to what counts as publication (for copyright purposes). I suspect there has been someone who has looked at the situation specifically regarding theses although I couldn't find any. A key part may be whether the work was available publicly e.g. via the university library and perhaps before 1978 or 1989. I'm assuming the OP is referring to the situation in the US. If they referring to the situation elsewhere, bear in mind international copyright issues can be complicated. The fact that a work has no protection in the US doesn't guarantee it has no protection elsewhere. (If the work was only ever published in the US it may be unlikely, but you'd at a minimum want to check the specific laws of the country you're interested in first.) The Concordia link above seems to refer to the situation in Canada although I don't know if it goes in to isses like this (works first and only published the US and for which the copyright has been lost in the US). And of course copyright issues aside, publishing someone else's work as your own work is likely to be considered plagiarism at an academic level no matter what copyright issues may or may not resist. So even without intellectucal property issues, there can be restrictions on using a master's thesis. Nil Einne (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)