Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 February 7

= February 7 =

Right to asylum as a general right to move around within the host country
Just wondering when the idea of giving asylum to refugees became conflated with letting them move around as they please. If asylum means protection from harm, it seems like that could be offered in some sort of internment camp, at least while the refugee claim is evaluated. As opposed to giving what is effectively an exception to the host country's whole immigration policy. I am not a racist and this is not a soapbox question btw, I am honestly curious. The concepts seem to be separate, and I do think it would be politically easier to sustain something like the Australian refugee system when arrival numbers are high. --79.12.135.242 (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Our article on immigration detention may be relevant. --Viennese Waltz 10:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I hadn't seen that. It doesn't really get into the philosophy of open v closed detention though, and why closed detention is widely seen as a Bad Thing in principle. There are some examples of bad practice, and an ideal of good practice (the Tinsley model), in running detention centres. Did most countries end up settling on open detention (or even just turning a blind eye to people vanishing) simply because they couldn't process claims in a reasonable length of time, and were unwilling to put extra resources into fixing that? --79.12.135.242 (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which was the first codified international refugee law, states that "Refugees shall be treated at least like other non-nationals in relation to the right to free movement and free choice of residence within the country" - in other words, if a foreigner with a visa can travel freely within your country, so can a refugee. This has been part of refugee law since the beginning. Smurrayinchester 10:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, that answers my question. Thanks! --79.12.135.242 (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah! BUT, that rule only applies AFTER they've been recognised as a legitimate refugee, eh? What about whilst their claim to refugee status is still being processed? Does a potential refugee, who may or may not turn out to have a legitimate claim to fearing abuse if he or she is returned "home", also enjoy these rights? How is the convention interpreted on this particular point? (Big question!) Anyone know? Eliyohub (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The convention also states that "This Convention shall not apply to a person who is recognized by the competent authorities of the country in which he has taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of the nationality of that country." It reads to me like an escape hatch for countries to claim that a person is not a refugee. I don't know how this gets handled in a legal sense when you have countries that appear to have no intention of ever addressing the status of persons who wait in refugee camps for sometimes years. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem to be what the section you quoted says at all... It seems to mean that you cannot be (e.g.) a US national (or equivalent) and claim refugee status in the US. Most people applying for refugee status in a country would not have "the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of the nationality of that country". By me reading, this would also apply if a citizen of an EU state tried to claim refugee status in another country of the EU.  Note that "country of his nationality" is used consistently for the country the refugee came from - so "the country in which he has taken residence" is presumably a different country. This would only function as an escape hatch where the refugee has fled a first country into a second country, and is seeking refugee status in a third country (who could then claim that he is effectively a national of that second country, and refuse). MChesterMC (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I did misread it. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So, back to my question - according to the convention, is it legal to detain someone claiming asylum pending a determination of the claim's validity? And is there any obligation to process the claim in a prompt fashion, or can it be delayed indefinitely? (I note the Australian Government's doing of the latter in certain cases, stopping all processing of certain applications, led to refugee advocates petitioning for Mandamus, saying Australia's Migration Act obliged that claims be processed. But strictly speaking, this was a matter or Australian domestic law, not the convention). Any Convention or UNHCR guidance on this question? Eliyohub (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The UN has held that Australia's refugee practices are illegal, but this does not appear to have led to any consequences. From cursory google searches, this seems to be par for the course whenever a country decides to treat refugees like criminals. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The law of unintended consequences may come into play here. That is, if any refugees entering your country must be given freedom of movement, and a small portion of those refugees are likely to be terrorists, then this will cause opposition to all refugees, especially those with no papers.  So, rather than helping refugees, this may result in them staying in a war zone and being killed or trying to immigrate illegally and risking their lives that way. StuRat (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A small portion of those those who are born in your country are likely to be terrorists. As such, it is hardly justification for a total ban here.  -- Jayron 32 17:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a logical fallacy. You can prevent people coming in to a country so much more than you can prevent people from giving birth in the US to bad people, or kick citizens out of the country. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a fallacy at all. Treating entire populations of people as less deserving of decent treatment because bad people exist is the issue.  If there's a gross abuse of logic here, it's the idea that because you can more easily mistreat people who are outside of your own borders, that you SHOULD do so is the problem.  -- Jayron 32 17:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the claim is that since both groups have bad people, we might as well let in asylum seekers. The issue with that is you just can't kick out US citizens. You can however not allow in any asylum seekers. The comparison itself is just stupid. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, you could just kick out U.S. citizens. They choose not to, because that's the way the laws are set up.  Laws are just words on paper, and those in power could make them say whatever they want.  Ferners are a convenient scapegoat but there is no evidence that they commit more crimes than native-born people.  In the U.S., in fact, statistics say exactly the opposite.  See Immigration and crime for all the studies on the issue, which are numerous.  "We don't let people in because they might hurt us when they get here" doesn't hold up, because they actually hurt us LESS than our own people do.  Statistically, increasing immigration rates would thus have an overall effect of lowering crime rates.  -- Jayron 32 19:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * In France, it looks like recent immigrants may be racking up more of a body count than native born citizens. Not sure, but I'd like to see the stats.  And, if it can happen there, it can happen in the US, too.  So, some fear of recent immigrants isn't completely illogical.  It would be nice to have the "protective custody" option, so immigrants could be kept safe, and isolated from society in general. StuRat (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Note, many were not from ISIS held countries. The truck attacker was from Tunisia, don't think there's any suggestion he was ever in Syria or Iraq? And he had hardly lived the life of a devout Muslim, until a few months before the attack, from what I remember? France has a problem with generations of immigrants from its former colonies who have never integrated. Kinda hard, because "being a Frenchman" has an ethnic component which being an American or Australian doesn't. The latter countries are generally far better at integrating immigrants, as, minus the indigenous people (a minority in both countries), everybody is either an immigrant, or a descendant of one. Or so I've read from a Stratfor analyst, cannot quote an exact source. Eliyohub (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * When you have tiny numbers, it's always risky to try and draw conclusions, but your claim is questionable anyway. It's true Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was born in Tunisia and appears to have possibly spent more of his life in Tunisia than in France, although was still maybe in Fance for over 10 years before the attacks, but okay maybe he can be called a recent migrant. However it's questionable to call many of the people involved in the November 2015 Paris attacks. For example the key mastermind Salah Abdeslam was not a recent migrant to Europe, he was simply not a migrant at all. He was born there. Of course the claim was recent migrant to France, but it's still quesiotionable, he was a French national from birth but far as I can tell never migrated to France anyway. He was involved in the attacks there but doesn't really seem to have moved there in a way which would be called immigration (in addition to the complications of free movement in the EU, are you going to call someone born and raised in California a migrant to Texas?). Likewise Abdelhamid Abaaoud was born in Belgium, and even if you are including Belgians moving to France as migrants, it's not clear how much this applied to him. If you look at this list November 2015 Paris attacks, while there's a questionmark over some of them, most seem to have been born in the EU, so aren't migrants to the EU. Likewise the 3 key people involved in January 2015 Île-de-France attacks i.e. Charlie Hebdo shooting and Amedy Coulibaly were not migrants, all 3 were born in France. (N.B. People sometimes talk about second generation migrants, in fact you can easily find sources discussing possible reasons why these people seem to be common perpetrators. But while such terms may be okay in certain contexts especially when simply used as an identifier and sometimes used by the people themselves, it's highly problematic when they are used to imply someone with citizenship from birth by merit of being born in a country and who spent all their early life in that country is a immigrant to the country or somehow less of a full fledged citizen than the other person who had more ancestors born in the country. In other words, a second generation migrant isn't actually a migrant, well unless they themselves migrate to somewhere else. So by definition can't be a recent migrant.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Issues do arise with so-called "second generation migrants", but that's not really what the OP's question was about, which is freedom of movement for asylum seekers. I know I'm guilty of some sidetracking myself, just don't want to drift too far. My answer below, I tried to deal with the specific issues asylum seekers bring, and how they could be addressed. Eliyohub (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe I was unclear. I'm not saying issues about "second generation migrants" are relevant to the OP's question. I am saying StuRat's premise is unsupported, since in terms of body count for terrorist attacks, most of the people appear to be either born in France or not migrants. (N.B. I should mention that citizenship by birth in France can be complicated French nationality law as to Belgium Belgian nationality law but regardless of what you consider them, it still makes no sense to call someone who was born and spent their life in a place a migrant to there. When they will become migrants is if they go back to Tunisia, Algeria or whatever.) If StuRat is referring to ordinary murders rather than simply terrorism, there was e.g. 665 murders in France in 2012 (Crime in France) so unless they're really aware of that many murders commited by actual migrants (however you define recent), it remains true they have no reason to actually think that of recent migrants. Remember care needs to be taken to ensure they're only looking at actual migrants, and not anyone who was actually born in France and spent their whole lives there as per earlier. While it's true StuRat didn't say it definitely they did say "it looks like recent immigrants may be racking up more of a body count than native born citizens. Not sure, but I'd like to see the stats" which implies they have some reason to think it was the case. P.S. Remember my original reply was to StuRat, not to you. P.P.S. There is some mention of crime, but not specifically murders at Immigration and crime. Actually funnily enough the analysis of crime seems to be looking at how crime rates in departments vary depending on several things including percent of immigrants. I presume this is at least partially due to the difficult actually analysing crime stats since the government doesn't publish such statistics and determining it yourself is going to be real difficult. However with murders, the numbers are low enough and I assume the publicly available information high enough that someone could probably actually have a decent shot of looking at it. Nil Einne (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * From a security perspective, I note that with asylum seekers, unlike citizens and permanent residents (who we have at least some history of, and attempt to keep an eye over to watch for signs of straying down dangerous paths), we have little or no way of verifying an asylum seeker's background. They're often from violent parts of the world, which is precisely why they have fled. Many will be fleeing persecution, but some will inevitably be from the persecutors. We can't easily know. Until you've vetted them as best as you can (which frankly, is often not very well, your sources from which to gain info on such an individual are often extremely limited), they often have to be considered potentially dangerous. If you've had the opportunity to vet them in a country along their route, different story.
 * I do think there's a need for case-by-case judgement here, as to whether the issue causing the asylum seekers to flee their homeland poses a danger to the country taking them in. Those fleeing ISIS are high-risk, as some will inevitably be from ISIS, and ISIS has strong motivations and intentions to harm western countries, particularly those bombing them. Those fleeing a Civil War in Africa or West Papua, for example, generally much less so, as the participants in the conflict likely have absolutely no intention or incentive to target anything in the country the asylum seekers are headed to. "Blanket" rules are unfair, it needs to be case by case as to the risk to the host nation in which the asylum seekers are now residing, by those from the country the asylum seekers are fleeing. I know some will cry discrimination here, that we may need to treat asylum seekers from different origins differently, but I think there's clear logic to it. My question is, "do any participants of the conflict these particular asylum seekers are fleeing likely have any desire or intention to target things in our country?" If the answer is "yes", there may be a need for detention until we've verified the boda files of an individual as best we can, to make sure he or she intends us no harm. That said, the right to speedy justice comes into play here, and we need to devote sufficient resources to do this in as timely a fashion as we can, not leave people languishing in detention longer than necessary. Eliyohub (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Tamil Tigers indoctrination methods
How does a mostly non-religious group get people to freely kill themselves for the cause? As in, blow themselves up. Or always carry a cyanide capsule to commit suicide if the danger of capture arises (and they actually used their capsules very often!). Can anyone give me some links to indoctrination propaganda and training methodology of the fighters/terrorists/whatever (not the public-consumption propaganda, that's totally different) of the Tamil Tigers? Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam gives some insight into the mindset (similar to Japanese Kamikaze?), but I'd love if anyone could provide me with say, a youtube link to an indoctrination video or session, with english subtitles (as I don't know the tamil language) about "how to die freely for the cause" and screw any thoughts of fear of death.

I'm in Australia, where watching such material is legal, or at least I feel safe myself that I'm not breaking the law - I will NOT advise others. But anyone in the UK in particular should be careful, and seek legal advice before watching or possessing terrorist propaganda. So maybe our UK members should stick to answering with only analysis links of Tamil Tigers indoctrination tactics, whilst the American ones can safely link me to clips of actual training/indoctrination material. Note, if you have any doubts of the legality of anything, don't do it! This is clearly not a request for legal advice. I just want to get a picture of LTTE indoctrination tactics, and am giving a heads-up on legal issues with UK residents accessing or possessing such material (Section 58, Terrorism Act 2000 - to collect or possess "information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". Nothing similar in the U.S., where the First Amendment to the United States Constitution would almost certainly prohibit such a blanket law). The legality of my own actions is a matter for me to worry about.

And for the record, I am not Tamil, and have no intention of killing myself, or encouraging anyone else to do so. Just trying to understand this unusual group. Eliyohub (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that cyanide capsules are a bit different, in that they aren't normally intended to be used. But, if you were a spy captured in Nazi Germany, you would be tortured to give up any info you had, then executed, so, once captured, it's not a choice of if you die, but just when and how. StuRat (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The Tamil Tigers used to use their cyanide capsules the moment they feared any attempt at questioning, even non-violent attempts. When some of them attacked a target, survived, and were taken to hospital under guard, the Sri Lankan intelligence agents disguised themselves as doctors, in order to pry as to what happened in the attack. Totally non-violent. Yet many of them apparently swallowed their capsules the moment the "doctors" started asking such questions ("What happened? How did you hurt yourself?"), even absent the slightest suggestion of coercion or torture. So I don't think it was actually the same. Even non-violent and non-coercive attempts to gain info were often met with suicide. Eliyohub (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Most specific article is Black Tigers... AnonMoos (talk) 05:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Crime and Punishment death sentence
Back when I read Crime and Punishment I was surprised by the light sentence the protagonist received for committing a murder - eight years of hard labor in Siberia.

Years later in a conversation someone brought up that the N years in Siberia thing was actually a de facto death sentence. That the attrition rate was so high that prisoners weren't expected to survive, regardless of the value of N. Is this assessment accurate? What was the death rate like for a 19th century Russian prisoner in Siberia? ECS LIVA Z (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Datapoint, but not the complete answer. Sparticus Education (which I've always taken for a reasonably good source) opines that half of the prisoners died on the way to Siberia; and that those who managed to complete their sentence were forced to continue living and working in Siberia. It's an interesting short article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * From that article (which I agree is pretty good. It cites its sources after all) it seems that, when prisoners finished their sentence, they were "freed" as in the "You could leave anytime you want to..."  But being over 1000 miles from anything resembling civilization, where are you going to go?  You're in Siberia, with no transportation out, no means to earn a living, no means for survival.  It's like sentencing someone to Antarctica but not transporting them back when their sentence is over.  What were they going to do.  "Forced to continue living and working" I took, from that article to mean "because they had no where to go and no other choice..."  -- Jayron 32 19:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * More "Russians don't value life" liberal mythmaking. They didn't just drop you from a helicopter over the taiga or something. Banishment to Siberia was as much a means of settling the vast expanse as it was penalty. Not all banishment to Siberia implied hard labor. Some of it was just exile. There are still Old Believer communities who descend from peasants and revolutionaries banned to Siberia. Dostoyevsky himself returned from Siberia to Tver more or less alive and intact. I'm sure someone will be able to provide the numbers Asmrulz (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Siberia is quite an enormous place. It's quite an overreach to assume that all forms of "exile to Siberia" are of the same form. Of course parts are quite livable - it has a population of 40 million people after all. There are ordinary (if cold) cities in Siberia, but there were also gulags. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is. It is half again as big as the United States, and if Siberia were an independent country it would be the largest country in the world.  So of course there are large cities and urban areas and farmable land there.  Just not in the places where the labor camps were.  You can be in Siberia and still be 1000 miles from any major city which is also in Siberia.  -- Jayron 32 02:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Much of Siberia has long hot summers, so while the winters are certainly harsh, it isn't like exiling someone to the South Pole. A person transported there during the spring, and provided with tools and materials, could perfectly well build themselves a house and grow enough food to last the winter. I don't know if this is actually how exiles were treated though. --95.249.86.81 (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, so long as you have the knowledge and skills to do so. An upper-middle class bureaucrat from an urban center would find they lacked that knowledge and skills pretty quickly.  The English Jamestown colony and its fate is instructive here.  Hundreds of people who had no experience in growing food, constructing shelters, or otherwise maintaining their own survival were sent to a land and expected to fend for themselves.  Spoiler alert: It didn't go well.  -- Jayron 32 15:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * When Poland was divided under the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, many Jews on the Soviet side were sent to Siberia. Their families cried bitter tears, seeing it, understandably, as a horrific fate. One wise Rabbi said "we don't know who will be better off". Everyone thought he was crazy. Yet ironically, of those sent to Siberia, many survived. Those left behind were mass slaughtered by the Nazis, as they invaded days later. See the bizarre story at . I have heard the same story multiple times from other sources, so I'm pretty confident it's true. Eliyohub (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, sort of. See Jewish Autonomous Oblast which was the (albeit already designated before WWII) region of Siberia where the Jewish people were sent to.  They liked it so much that today, of the 176,000 people who live there, a whopping 0.2 percent or about 350 people are Jewish.  -- Jayron 32 02:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * According to the article I linked, Stalin planned to send them there, but most of the Jewish deportees did not end up there. They ended up scattered in the Gulag system. Some Jews moved there "voluntarily" under some sort of "promises" or "incentives" from Stalin. Few hung around. It's not a very hospitable place to live. Eliyohub (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Also perhaps relevant, included in the Wikileaks diplomatic cables was one about the modern Russian prison system. The diplomats had serious concerns as to some of the treatment of the prisoners. Yet they noted that despite all this mistreatment, prisoners on average lived longer lives than non-prisoners, where they were mostly safe from the two big Russian killers, alcoholism and traffic accidents. the last bit was the diplomats' views as to explaining this phenomenon (prisoners living longer than free Russians), but there may be other explanations. To quote from, very first paragraph: Health conditions in Russian prisons are poor and infection rates for contagious diseases are much higher than in the general population, but surprisingly the mortality rate for men in these prisons is only one-third the rate on the outside - a statistic that says much more about the dangers of alcoholism and road safety than it does about healthy living behind bars. So things may not always be what they seem. The same report is rife with descriptions of serious abuses in the system. Eliyohub (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I've heard similar claims made about army duty, and not just that in Russia. In any case, if the effect is real it's incidental. I'm speaking of things which are by design Asmrulz (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Is a man can live alone?
Is a man can live alone? --Roamnski Skionamol (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * See Hermit. They definitely exist, but every society in the world considers them to be the exception, not the norm, from what I was taught in my brief foray into psychology. Eliyohub (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * To the one person who can read this, you are alone. Enjoy the hallucinations! Someguy1221 (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * To live without any of the benefits of society, like clothes, tools,. etc., is quite difficult, especially if you exclude education. There have been a few people reportedly "raised by wolves" and such, but they likely still had some benefits from society, like stealing food from it. StuRat (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Richard Proenneke did just fine alone for about 30 years, though he did get the odd visitor every now and again. I can heartily recommend the documentary about him, Alone in the Wilderness. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I've seen it, and he had plenty of tools he brought with him. Had he been dropped naked in the wilderness, I doubt if he would have lasted long. StuRat (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, I don't know. This was one seriously resourceful guy. I'd choose him over the survivalists in Naked and Afraid, for example. Now, if it had been Chicago ... Clarityfiend (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Just look at his construction of the cabin. He needed an axe to cut down trees and he needed a saw to cut them to length.  How could he create those tools ?  And how would he survive one winter without a cabin ?  Perhaps if he had been in a place where the weather was better, like a tropical island, he might have had the time to create tools out of stone, before the environment killed him.  Also, as our article notes, he "had supplies flown in occasionally".  StuRat (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about utterly impossible situations like being stark naked in the middle of winter. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * That was my interpretation of the OP, as being a Q about whether a man could live with no other humans to help in any way, including providing him with clothes, tools, supplies, etc. . StuRat (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * You're reading way too much into six words. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * How odd were they? --Trovatore (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * They came in ones, never twos or fours. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Not really sure what the OP meant. I live a vivid city, but I see people being alone, as if they're in the middle of a desert. Not talking about drugs addicts or anti-socials, but decent people like anyone of us, and not always the elderly. Some cope pretty well, others don't, some break after a number of years. I don't think people should be alone, whether in a city or on an uninhabited island. Jahoe (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * See our article about Alexander Selkirk, the inspiration for Robinson Crusoe; Selkirk lived alone on an island for four years, so we can conclude that he would have been able to live there indefinitely until old age or an unusual disaster (e.g. bad storm, hungry-and-fierce wild animal, misstep leading to a fatal injury) killed him, had he not been rescued. Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Our article states that he had "a musket, a hatchet, a knife, a cooking pot, a Bible, bedding and some clothes". All items from civilization that may have aided his survival (the Bible perhaps only psychologically, unless he used the pages for kindling). StuRat (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * See also recluse.--Shantavira|feed me 09:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * And Hiroo Onoda, who hid on an island in the Philippines from 1945 until 1974, unaware that World War II had finished nearly thirty years earlier. Alansplodge (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Our article on Loneliness may or may not be relevant to the OP, the question is rather vague. Eliyohub (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)