Humanities desk
< August 10	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 12 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 11

Jacquelen Kennedy Onassis

I'm pretty sure she died of cancer AFTER the date listed on my computers Wikipedia "encyclopedia" (May 19, 1994). Maybe check with a historian or family member, I'm a scientist; this date just struck me as wrong by a couple of years. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.196.194 (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I looks right to me. A quick google check plus the White House's page on her seem to agree. Paragon ¹²³²¹ 04:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here's the New York Times' Obituary. Fribbler (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of violence

I'm interested in statistics of violent crime, but I can't find anything comprehensive. An analysis of murder rates (wars excluded) in US or in Europe (or in any given European country) over as long a historical period as possible would be great. Ideally, since about 500 bc to the present. If statistics of things like kidnapping, rape and armed robbery were to be included that'd be even better. I've already looked at Wiki articles, but they weren't really helpful. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.54.224 (talk) 05:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you'd find this but a few words of warning if you do: Recording methods and social/legal practices will greatly alter these figures via history - as will the change in population. E.g. In order to claim on insurance for theft it is common for an insurance firm to request a crime-number/incident-number, so this is likely to increase the 'recording' of crimes that have a 'claim-worthy' value. If your car is stolen then it is very likely you will report it - however if someone comes and steals your handbag from your house and there was only $20 and a few little things in it, you may be liable to not report it because of the hassle/effort involved. Whilst that's a simple example it's important to remember that different factors across history will be at play as to whether crimes are A) report and B) recorded so any comparison of figures over a period of time like this must consider what else may be influencing the figures. I think I remember the UK government changing crime-recording in the 1990s and instantly dropped one form of crime by about 50% simply by changing the definition for including that crime. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. and U.K. didn't even conduct basic population censuses until ca. 1800, and I would be surprised if systematic crime statistics go back much further than the early 20th century or late 19th. Researchers attempting to estimate historical crime rates are mainly dependent on surviving court records, but such documents have been subject to many vagaries of selective preservation and recording. I doubt whether there's very much usable comparable data from even 500 years ago (forget 500 BC!)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crime statistics from 500 BC? You've got to be kidding. They don't exist. Hell if you can find decent, reliable, and most importantly, comparable crime statistics from pre-18th century I'd consider that miraculous. Another way of saying this is: if you really want to write a "history of violence" you're going to have to find ways to approach the topic that don't rely on good statistics. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to look into something like Constant Battles: The Myth of the Peaceful, Noble Savage by Steven LeBlanc, War before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage by Lawrence Keeley, Culture of Honor: The Psychology of Violence in the South by Richard Nisbett is specialized but good, or even something like Homicide by Margo Wilson and Martin Daly.--droptone (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at these articles: List of countries by homicide rate, United States cities by crime rate, Crime statistics and Dark figure of crime. 132.206.22.13 (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies everybody. Alright, I may not be able to get something accurate and precise, but there should still be a way to make meaningful estimates. I, for instance, walk the streets at night without any worries. If a number of contemporary historians of a given period all write that walking city streets at night will certainly lead to being kidnapped or killed, some conclusions can be drawn from that. I'm just wondering if people are becoming more violent or less violent. If people have been MANY TIMES more violent or MANY TIMES more peace-loving and law-abiding, then I think it should be possible to determine that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.54.224 (talk) 08:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What flag/symbol is this?

I'm sorry if this is terribly vague, but I'm just curious as to what country/organization has a flag/symbol containing a yellow star on a blue background? Thanks, and sorry for being so vague, I've been wondering this for like a week. Kenjibeast (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of flags by similarity#One star indicates that the Belgian Congo (1908-60) and the Republic of Texas (1836-39) had such flags (the colours were slightly different). I’m not aware there’s any current national flag like this, though. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be one of several, though the two Jack mentions are the only ones I can think of that are exactly like you describe - certainly no current nationaal flag has simply a gold star on blue. The first one that springs to mind is the old flag of the Democratic Republic of Congo, which had one large yellow star and several smaller ones on a blue background. Several other countries have a gold star on blue as part of their design (Namibia, Tuvalu, Ethiopia, Malaysia). Palau has a gold sun on blue, as does Kazakhstan, and the Commonwealth of Nations has a gold globe with 53 rays on blue. You could also try checking the entries under "Star (yellow) here, How many points had the star - five? If you don't get any better answer here, contact me on my user talk page in a few days and I'll ask on Flags of the world (of which I'm a member). Grutness...wha? 07:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current flag of the Democratic Republic of the Congo does indeed have a gold star on a blue backround (with the addition of a red stripe).

Other possibilities:

Flag of Rwanda
Flag of the European Union (12 stars)
Flag of Somalia (white star, not gold)
Bolivia's naval ensign
Flag of Vietnam (red background, not blue)
Flag of Vojvodina, Serbia (three stars)
Flag of Alaska (eight stars)
Flag of Indiana (19 stars!)
Flag of Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil

Lest you think I'm some kind of flag savant, I used the World Flag Database to find these. —D. Monack ^talk 23:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three more possibilities: flag of Ethiopia, flag of the Central African Republic, & flag of Cape Verde. —D. Monack ^talk 00:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US State

After the US Senate, I'm rewriting the US State article on the French Wikipedia and I have few questions :

Is there a difference between The Union and The United States of America ? For example is the Union is only the Union of the 50 States and the USA the 50 States + District of Columbia + Territories ?
Is Puerto Rico as a 51th State is a current affair or not really ?
Is a state (or a territory) can constitutionaly quit the Union (without a second Secession War ! ) ?

Thanks. TCY (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The Union" is not used anymore. It was used to refer to the states that didn't secede during the Civil War. "The United States" is a bit ambiguous, but it generally means the entire country (50 states+DC+Territories). If you just want the states, just say "the 50 states".
Technically, yes. I believe planning is underway for a self-determination referendum. Everywhere but Puerto Rico, however, most people don't care. It's only really a huge issue in Puerto Rico.
Probably. A state legislature could probably just un-ratify the Constitution. You may want to read up on the page on the US Civil War. It wasn't their secession that made the Union declare war per se, it was their support of slavery and the attack on Fort Sumter. Paragon ¹²³²¹ 15:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per #1, the term "Union" is used in a few funny contexts—namely those relating to admission to statehood and the question of secession. It is generally synonymous with USA. I don't think it has a formal definition though. It comes into play in the Constitution quite a lot as a synonym for the USA.

Per #2, I think Paragon's assessment is accurate. I've read a few things on it here and there in national reportage but it isn't really a major issue for most people in the mainland USA.

Per #3, we have an article on Secession in the United States, which seems to imply that it's not really clear whether a state can actually secede on its own volition. The US Constitution says nothing about secession, only admission. A post-Civil War Supreme Court case (Texas v. White) says that states don't have the ability to leave the Union, if that helps any. In any case, the Constitution is silent on the issue—which makes it pretty ambiguous (could either mean that no such right exists, or that the unstated right is vested in the hands of the states, per the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; but I'm no Constitutional scholar). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Civil War and the Hawaiian sovereignty movement have demonstrated that it is not possible for a state to secede from the union under any circumstances. -- kainaw ™ 16:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under any circumstances? Those were some pretty specific circumstances. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Texas has the explicit right to secede. The U.S. government agreed to this right as a pre-condition of Texas joining the United States. Wikiant (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for number 2, Political status of Puerto Rico might be of interest. Spencer^T♦^C 17:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TCY, thanks for your attention to detail in improving the French Wikipedia's coverage of American government! My answers:

I agree with Paragon12321 that the term "the Union" is not common in contemporary use. Most Americans would understand it as referring to the victorious side in the American Civil War, which is how the term is used in that article. ("In the war's first year, the Union assumed control of the border states and established a naval blockade as both sides massed armies and resources.")
In Puerto Rico there is a substantial body of opinion favoring statehood. In the U.S., the major political parties have expressed support for the idea if the people of Puerto Rico choose it. I suspect, however, that if Puerto Rico ever actually applied for statehood, the matter would be much more contentious. Both parties would try to figure out who would gain a political advantage. For example, if the Republicans thought that Puerto Rico would tend to vote Democratic in Presidential and Congressional elections, then the Republican Party would probably oppose statehood. (The people of the District of Columbia still have no voting representation in Congress for precisely this reason.)
I disagree with Paragon12321 about secession. Any state's or region's attempt to secede would generate intense hostility from the rest of the country. The article I cited, American Civil War, says that the war "restored the Union by settling the issues of nullification and secession ." There would be general agreement that a state does not have the right to secede, in keeping with the Supreme Court decision cited by the anonymous user. Incidentally, I think that Wikiant is mistaken about Texas. I know of no basis for saying that Texas has a right to secede. According to Texas Annexation#Borders and new states, there is a provision for new states to be formed out of the territory of Texas; that may be what Wikiant is thinking of. JamesMLane t c 18:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I apologize -- spoke too soon re secession. Wikiant (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as unions of states have been formed, dissolved, or modified in other continents, in principle I do not see why it would be impossible for any state to ever leave the USA. If a foreign power had the military and economic power needed, and all that was needed was a legal blessing for a state to leave the US and become a sovereign state, or to become part of a different union, it should be possible if the state itself, by legislative action or a plebescite voted that it wished to leave the US, then the U.S. House and Senate and President assented to it. It is more the military and economic power of the U.S. which prevents secession, than any inherent legal barrier. The incentive might be monetary payment, or it might be a peace treaty under which an occupying power agreed to leave the U.S. after a military defeat. Edison (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While "The Union" may not be in common usage, there is one place where it is commonly used, in the title of "The State of the Union" address. Clearly there it refers to the whole of the United States. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the phrase "State of the Union" in this context comes directly from the Constitution, so it's not so surprising for it to reflect an outdated usage. --Anonymous, 04:49 UTC, August 12, 2008.

re:Texas secession. Texas has the same right to secede as any other state. That is, it can secede with the permission of Congress, something Congress has never permitted. —D. Monack ^talk 23:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We discussed various theories concerning secession in law school. Clearly, the South argued that a state could secede. The Union asserted a state could not. Both arguments sound valid, divorced from political realism. The Civil War decided the issue. Great weight is given precedent, tradition and custom in the United States law. I cannot believe that any state would be permitted to leave. The Confederacy was a plebescite of a kind. Puerto Rico becoming a state is very charged where I live. I want to see the votes from Democratic senators for statehood when their white constituents make their feelings known. Another factor is economic strength. I don't know enough about P.R. to venture that guess. I'm a constitutional buff, reading theory books and biographies of the founders. My current read is Alexander Hamilton. When one reads their private letters and newspaper articles of the time, their was no clear consensus on how the U.S. government would work. There was theory and that was all. Actual administration of the federal government defined constitutional precedent. Not even George Washington believes it would work in the long run. Practice and custom are probably important as text in declaring a right.75Janice (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)75Janice75Janice (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Straight Dope did a well referenced article on question 3. [1] It seems to suggest that the courts have ruled that a state may leave the union by agreement of the other states. (But joining the union is otherwise binding.) APL (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all this answers. The article is beeing improving. One little more question if I may :
I've read that a State could not sign an international agreement or join an international organization, only the USA can. For example, Louisiana and Maine which were interresting in the Francophonie organization (as Canadian provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick do it) could not join a such international organization. TCY (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that is correct. Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution says "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation", which I think applies here.—Chowbok ☠ 23:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find the Straight Dope well-referenced. There must be many law review and periodical articles on this question. I imagine that historical journals have covered it also. My law library subscription has lapsed. I would rather rely upon a specialty journal or an academic legal journal, such as Harvard Law Review.75Janice (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)75Janice75Janice (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I really meant only that the article had about two dozen references. However, now that you mention it, one of those references is a decision that covers that exact topic by the United States Supreme Court. I'll admit I'm certainly no lawyer, but that seems reasonably authoritative. APL (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

exas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868) is not an easy skim. Apparently, it raises the issues of whether bonds issued by Texas after secession and during early Reconstruction, were issued by a State and , therefore, the Court could hear the case under original jurisdiction. I want to return to read it carefully. 75Janice (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)75Janice75Janice (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Circles of Hell

Did the idea of Hell having concentric circles, tiers, or levels for different sins originate with the Divine Comedy, or does it appear in any older works? 68.123.238.140 (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. See the Plato's Myth of Er. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any definite predecessor but Lucifer was cast to the depths of hell and God was thought to be up above all the crystal spheres so I guess it was a reasonable extension. By the way have you noticed his hypersphere structure with God and Satan at opposite poles? Though I'm no sure what to do about the three spheres of God in that picture :-) Some of the translations can be rather plodding and others are good, I don't want to spam so just look for one with lots of people recommending it on Amazon. Dmcq (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Sorry crystal spheres seems to go to some D&D game,try Almagest instead. Dmcq (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celestial spheres is the article you're after. Algebraist 20:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Germany's municipal library and WWII

I'm reading a book about the Cairo Geniza and it mentions how a certain collection of Geniza papers held in the Municipal Library in Frankfort on Main was destroyed during WWII. Was this building bombed by allied forces? Are there any books or journal papers that describe the events leading up to and after this possible bombing? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a lot of Frankfurt was bombed, we have a small article at Bombing of Frankfurt am Main in World War II, but it does not mention the library. DuncanHill (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the article answers it all. Thanks. I'll look into it. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Killing people

A few days ago, I was thinking about myself, my father, and my grandfather. My grandfather is a Winter War veteran, but my father was only born after the war. In an interview, my grandfather said that in the war, he had killed "enemies, not humans". By this, I understand, he meant that it was nothing personal - he just killed them because he had been ordered to do so, and otherwise they would have killed him. But it suddenly struck me that that was over 60 years ago. Since then, Finland has been at peace. So, I came to wonder - what are the circumstances where one person can kill another entirely legally? I could only come up with war and capital punishment. Finland hasn't been at war for six decades and capital punishment has, to my knowledge, not been use in the entire history of independent Finland (in peacetime, I mean). Are there any other cases?

I realise how writing this sounds. Rest assured, I have no plans of killing anyone. This is merely out of academic (and somewhat morbid) curiosity. JIP | Talk 20:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justifiable homicide and euthanasia might be of interest. Algebraist 20:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious case is self defence. It may depend on jurisdiction, but usually you're allowed to use "reasonable force" to defend yourself and others. Under some extreme circumstances, deadly force may be considered reasonable. --Tango (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recently heard on a Science Channel program that some people have been acquitted of murder on the basis that the prefrontal_cortex in their brain had not developed correctly, usually from a head injury as a young child. While the damage doesn't necessarily cause psycosis or insanity, it can limit their control over emotions and lead to actions without sufficient consideration.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Were they acquitted completely, or was the charge just reduced from murder to manslaughter? --Tango (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that even if you are "acquitted of murder" for psychological reasons you aren't likely to just walk out. You're likely to be sentenced to a psychiatric hospital or prison. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth pointing out that El aprendelenguas's example might partially miss the point of the original question. There is a significant difference between what is legal and what somebody can't be held responsible for or can get away with. The acts are illegal regardless of if one particular individual can be sentenced in courts as responsible for them./Coffeeshivers (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will depend greatly on juridiction. Historically people could be declared outlaw and their killing would be legal.[2] More recently escaped/fleeing felons could be killed (may still be true in some places). Of course, the police have more situations were killing would be legal. Rmhermen (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under what circumstances would it be legal for a police officer to kill someone but not legal for someone else to do it? Doesn't a police officer killing someone come under the same self defence laws as anyone else? --Tango (talk) 02:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't usually come under the same laws because of the state monopoly on force - see deadly force, fleeing felon rule, riot act. Rmhermen (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussion of ways someone might avoid punishment for murder are slightly off the mark. The original question is what are the circumstances where one person can kill another entirely legally? Justifiable homicide would be a way of avoiding punishment, but I'm not convinced that is the same as legally killing someone. Euthanasia, on the other hand, if it is legal within the jurisdiction would be a way of legally killing someone. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Finland, it's very rare for someone to be able to kill another person under any circumstances without getting in trouble for it, except by unforeseeable accident or in pretty extreme cases of self-defense. Even cops have to have pretty strong justification just to draw their weapons, never mind firing them with the intent to kill. In the instance of self-defense, you might get off the hook for killing someone if the guy was really trying to kill you, but it can get pretty iffy. This is made pretty clear in the Penal Code of Finland, Chapter 4, Section 4, "Self-defense":

"(1) An act that is necessary to defend against an ongoing or imminent unlawful attack is lawful as self-defence, unless the act manifestly exceeds what in an overall assessment is to be deemed justifiable, taking into account the nature and strength of the attack, the identity of the defender and the attacker and the other circumstances.

"(2) However, if the defence exceeds the limits of self-defence (excessive self-defence), the offender is exempt from criminal liability if the circumstances were such that the offender could not reasonably have been expected to have acted otherwise, taking into account the dangerousness and sudden nature of the attack and the situation also otherwise."

In practice, this means that if someone is "just" kicking the shit out of you, you can't shoot them: you really need to believe and have reason to believe that they're trying to kill you for that to be an appropriate response. As the qualifiers ("nature and strength of the attack, the identity of the defender and the attacker and other circumstances") indicate, how that situation is actually interpreted by the court can vary quite a bit. This is something that has seen a lot of debate over the years, for reasons that are probably obvious; there have been plenty of cases where the court has decided that someone has committed excessive self-defense by injuring an assaillant. But that's Finland. For a bit of context, I should probably add that that a pretty small fraction of violent crime here is committed with guns, so the assumption that a situation where a single trigger pull essentially makes the difference between life and death is very unusual is not as unreasonable as it would be in a society that has a lot of handguns floating around. (Of course, Finland actually has a lot of guns per capita, but those are mostly hunting weapons and the like.) Anyway, many other countries take a very different view of the whole thing. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think if someone was kicking the shit out of you and your only weapon was a gun, and you weren't strong enough to fight them off by hand, shooting them would be justifiable as it's the only way to stop the attack. What's reasonable depends very much on the situation, as the statute explicitly states. Whether or not shooting to kill is justifiable, rather than just shooting to disable is another matter - it's quite difficult to reliably shoot someone without killing them, so it probably would be. --Tango (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can think that, certainly, and I'm not saying that I have a moral disagreement with you, but the fact is that over here that kind of thinking may well lead to a conviction. Shooting an unarmed opponent, even one who's assaulting you? More often than not, that'll get really problematic, especially if you don't have a lot of actual damage to show for the assault -- that is to say, if you pull out your gun and fire before you're disarmed or hurt too badly to defend yourself. So what's an assault victim to do? It's not an easy situation, and the temptation for the court to look at the whole thing with the benefit of hindsight probably doesn't help things. In general, guns are not considered to be acceptable weapons for self-defense over here -- and actually, it's very difficult, if not downright impossible, to get a license for a gun for self-defense purposes over here, and a permit to actually carry the weapon in public is equally difficult to obtain unless you're working a job that expressly requires a license -- such as a police officer. If you're a target shooter, getting a permit isn't that hard (though getting one for a gun that's heavier than a .22 is), but even so, if you end up using that gun for self-defense, chances are you're boned -- especially if the incident takes place outside your home.

Not that I'm saying that you'd end up in serious trouble under all circumstances, you understand, but the courts aren't very lenient on this kind of stuff. Of course, if you're seriously assaulted in your home, and other defenses prove ineffective, and the guy is screaming that he's going to kill you, and you go and get your gun out of your proper storage, and there are witnesses to the event, you're probably going to come out perfectly okay, even if you do shoot the guy. But that's getting to be pretty convoluted.

To put this stuff in some kind of context, consider this: a couple of years back there was a case here where a cop shot in the line of duty at an escaping burglar -- a repeat offender who was using amphetamine at the time -- who rammed one security guard's car and two police cars repeatedly with his own car and was generally acting like a pretty dangerous bastard. The cop hit (but didn't kill) the guy and was charged with misconduct and causing a grossly negligent bodily injury. I can't find a reference for how that actually turned out, but if a police officer who claims that he was defending himself -- with other cops and a security guard as witnesses -- gets in this kind of trouble, you can probably figure out that a civilian isn't likely to get off the hook just like that.

I'm not necessarily complaining about this, I should probably stress; it's just the way things are. Certainly, when faced with ideas like "if someone enters your home without permission, you can cap his ass", it feels pretty barbaric. I don't so much have a moral objection to that as a societal one, you know? Of course, that's what growing up in Finland can do to you; violence involving firearms is pretty rare (though not exactly unheard of, unfortunately) over here, and I'd like to keep it that way. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that laws about use of deadly force for self-defense vary widely with jurisdiction. In the US, for example, in some states you cannot use deadly force unless you have exhausted all other means of escape, fighting back, etc.; in other states (cough cough, Texas), you can apparently shoot someone who is stealing from your neighbor even if they don't threaten you at all. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWII and the theft of a priceless chest

I'm sorry I keep on posting questions about WWII, but I remember watching a show on the history channel that dealt with American G.I.'s getting in trouble for taking spoils of war. One story I found particular interesting was about a G.I. who stole a priceless gem-encrusted chest from the family castle of German royalty. He held onto the chest for decades until his death. His brother and sister tried to sell the chest, but were caught.

If anyone saw this, what was the name of this royal family? Perhaps there is an article that mentions this theft? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the show, but I'm reminded of the Quedlinburg treasure stolen by a serviceman named Meador; it was stashed in Whitewright, Texas, where Wikipedia has some brief notes. The story deserves an article of its own. --Wetman (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has one now: Theft of Quedlinburg medieval art. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I was referring to. I guess I got the "family castle" idea from another story on the same show. When allied forces occupied said castle, two lieutenants stole some of the royal family's priceless jewelry.

I'm pretty sure the jewel-encrusted chest was among the artifacts taken by Meador. Thanks for whipping up an article. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good show! that's Wikipedia working!--Wetman (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]