Humanities desk
< January 16	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 18 >

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.

January 17

Joshua Kaeo

Does anyone know the geneaology of Joshua Kaeo. I know he is the son of Asa Kaeo (don't know Asa's gender); grandson of High Chiefess Manoua, daughter of Kalaniopuu. I was wondering what sex is Asa, who was his/her spouse, and who was Manoua's husband? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Joshua's son Peter Kaeo indicates that Asa was male. Rmhermen (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bioclimatic design

I'm not sure if this is the sort of question you're allowed to answer, but I thought I might as well give it a go. It's not really doing my homework for me or anything like that, I just need a bit of advice.

I was supposed to write an essay on any subject related to enviromentalism, sustainability and such like in architectural design, the choice of subject being based on any article in a particular magazine. I read a few issues of that magazine, and had some trouble finding any topics that fit the requirements, but just recently I suddenly came across three almost at the same time. Now I only have a few days to write this essay and I don't know which of the three options to choose. It would have to be a subject for which I could quickly find a lot of information, but not too much, from a variety of sources and then write about differing opinions on the subject. The three options are:

The use of timber in construction, particularly the use of a new system combining timber and concrete,
The development of an open public space around the heavilly industrialised Lea river,
Working towards either the development and building of low CO2-producing new buildings, or reducing the pollution created by existing buildings.

I doubt I have time to research all three before choosing one of them, so some advice here on what to do next would be very helpful.

As would some suggestions as to where I could find out more about these topics.

Thanking you all in advance, 148.197.114.207 (talk) 11:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you don't have time to do some basic research on each one and need to quickly start researching one, I would suggest you quickly choose the one that interests you most and start working on it. The few days you spend waiting for someone to help you decide which one is best would be far better spent on working on one. I mean after a day if you find the one is chosen is completely this, you can always change your mind. Also in future don't leave your homework to the last minute. If you didn't and in fact your teacher just didn't give you enough time, try approaching your teacher about this in a polite way Nil Einne (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The third one is the only choice which lists an environmental goal right in the description. The others may, or may not, be designed to help the environment. StuRat (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the third is the only one with two obviously stated differing opinions, though it is the topic I would find least interesting. Unless there are oposing opinions on whether or not the other two are good, environmentally beneficial ideas.148.197.114.207 (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you choose the first, there is a large technical literature on wood in construction. Do you know enough materials science to read into it quickly? If you choose the second you ideally need to go and visit the site in Lea Valley - is that feasible? The third looks easier but actually it is broad and it has its own problems. Make sure you refer to a lot of documentation as well as the article you choose from the magazine. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having now decided on the third option, where do I go to find out more. After a while of searching onthe internet I have only a few scraps of information, gathered from websites run by companies that include a couple of paragraphs on the subjectwithout much depth or detail. Is there anywhere a site that might have all the information and statistics for both sides of the argument, so I can find what I need and work out what to write? 148.197.114.207 (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

China surpasses Germany to become the world's third-largest economy

Has China become stronger or Germany weaker?--Mr.K. (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chinas economy has been growing.[1]--Apollonius 1236 (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, so has Germany's. Just not as quickly. —D. Monack ^talk 06:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did Israel know that the tunnel was built for capturing Israeli soldiers?

From 2008 Israel-Hamas ceasefire: "On 4 November 2008, Israeli military raided a Hamas-dug tunnel between Gaza and Israel on the Gazan side of the border. The IDF claimed it was intended for the capture of Israeli soldiers, while Hamas, and one IDF source maintained it was for defensive purposes."

How did Israel know that the tunnel was built for capturing Israeli soldiers? Was it true? Was there any other verification of the claims made by the IDF?

In a newspaper today I read: "the military pummelled the territory with 40 air strikes against ... a mosque suspected of being used as a weapons store, the army said". This must mean that the Israelis have informants on the ground. Is that right? ExitRight (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They probably do have informants on the ground, sure. But they could also have been monitoring their communications, or they may be receiving intelligence from agents operated by other parties, or they could've taken prisoners and interviewed them -- in the most humane manner imaginable, I'm sure. There are lots of ways information like that could be obtained. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do they publish information about sources? How would one ever verify an answer? Dmcq (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the nature of intelligence, Israel may not want to publish its sources, for fear that it will disrupt further intelligence gathering or endanger the lives of its agents. If they just came out and said "We have a double agent placed within the Palestinian forces, and here he is to explain how he found out about the tunnel!". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how one would verify an answer would depend on who one is. If one is a private citizen, one's chances of verifying it would be pretty much nonexistent, short of actually going to the site and seeing what's what -- but of course the information to be verified wouldn't be known to one at all until it's pretty much too late. Information about sources is very rarely published before it doesn't do any good, except from a historical point of view, in order to protect them. One can only conclude that as far as this goes, for a private citizen, life sucks. (Though for most of us, nowhere near as hard as it does for those living in Gaza.)

However, if one is not a private citizen and has access to the intelligence, as well as a bit of authority, one could contact other intelligence agencies for corroboration; even if that wasn't available, one could still find out of there's any reliable information out there that contradicts the intelligence -- if there isn't any, that makes the information more reliable. Or one could simply send in reliable agents to confirm the intelligence, or at least to ensure that there's no reason to believe that the intelligence is faulty. Among other things. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the matter is really very simple -- if a tunnel goes from a built up area of Gazan Rafah to a built-up area of Egyptian Rafah, then it's a smuggling tunnel. If a tunnel has no discernable relationship to accessing Egypt and convenience of transporting bulky items, but instead aims towards Israeli military outposts, or the Israeli border far from Egypt, then it's a military tunnel... AnonMoos (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the OP, no-one is disputing the military status of the tunnel. The question is whether it is intended for attack or defense. Algebraist 00:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A "defensive" tunnel would be a bomb shelter, a storehouse, or a means of going from one location to another within Gaza without exposing oneself on the surface. It's extremely difficult to see how any tunnel which closely approaches or crosses the Israel-Gaza border can be "defensive" in any meaningful sense of the word. AnonMoos (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WOLF, meeting with a Lamb astray from the fold, resolved not to lay violent hands on him, but to find some plea to justify to the Lamb the Wolf's right to eat him. He thus addressed him: "Sirrah, last year you grossly insulted me." "Indeed," bleated the Lamb in a mournful tone of voice, "I was not then born." Then said the Wolf, "You feed in my pasture." "No, good sir," replied the Lamb, "I have not yet tasted grass." Again said the Wolf, "You drink of my well." "No," exclaimed the Lamb, "I never yet drank water, for as yet my mother's milk is both food and drink to me." Upon which the Wolf seized him and ate him up, saying, "Well! I won't remain supperless, even though you refute every one of my imputations." The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny. (The wolf and the lamb, Aesop's fables) --PMajer (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the people of Gaza have dug this tunnel into Israel to attack there, does that make it the same as the one at Dover castle, which the article says is the only one of its kind in the world?

I'm sure I've heard something like that wolf fable before, from a different angle, where the wolf, or possibly a fox, says things like that he has to eat, or he'll starve.

148.197.114.207 (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ya... was it Lebensraum, the fable, maybe?--84.220.118.103 (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is so unfair of Israel not to allow their neighobrs to drop artillery shells on Israeli settlements. So unfair. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please halp me

so im in love with this girl goes by boxxy how do i track her down and marry her? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.110.229 (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, do you seriously think we can help in the slightest if the only information you give us is her nickname? --Tango (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if this [2] is the Boxxy the OP is writing about, then she is certainly photogenic. If anyone here has the patience to listen to more than a sentence or two, perhaps s/he will discover (a) the attraction, beyond the obvious and (b) the information the OP needs to track Boxxy down. I lasted about 30 seconds, and can be of no further help whatsoever. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just watched that video. I will never have those 30 seconds back again. Damn you. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't mentioned much of interest in the videos other then being married to Addie in Gaia. She said her husband is Sheldon in her latest video although I'm not really sure whether that's in Gaia or what (she also said she's moved on from Gaia although I'm not sure what she's referring to, it may be 4chan or YouTube). Incidentally the two videos that appear to be released earlier this year are actually much older (it's kind of obvious if you listen to all 3). Also it's unclear what her age is, she may be underage. There's some discussion here of who she may be [3]. You can try asking her in a video response or something (she says in the latest video, boxxybabee is her real account and the history suggests that's correct) but I doubt it'll be successful since I strongly suspect she's putting it on and given the attention she's getting she's not liable to actually give private details to some random person on the internet (who would?). Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the government to court

I was having a discussion with my dad earlier (we live in the UK for reference) and I was curious: is there any section of the government you can't take to court for one given reason or another? I originally thought you couldn't take to court any section that was under the Queens title such as HM Revenue & Customs, but a fairly recent court case decided you could. This has left doubt in my mind. So out of curiosity only (I have no intention of sueing the government) could someone clarify this for me? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer your question directly, but the articles Crown proceedings, Crown Proceedings Act 1947 and Public Interest Immunity may be of some help. DuncanHill (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The general broad legal concept is sovereign immunity... AnonMoos (talk)

Thanks for your answers, Crown Proceedings Act 1947 is what I was looking for really. Basically, the crown is no longer immune to the law. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm much more knowledgeable about American law, but the root principle is the same: the sovereign cannot be sued without consent. To argue that the Crown is no longer immune would be a misreading, I think. Rather, the Crowm has consented to suit in certain circumstances. The US has a similar statute on the books, and the same principle (rooted in the common law tradition shared by both countries). The sovereign (a state or federal government) cannot be sued without its own consent, but that consent can and has been given, by statute, in specified cases. In the abstract, however, the sovereign remains immune from suit, in the sense that it can, at any time, rescind its permission for suit. (There is an exception in the US; a state can be sued without its consent in federal court for injunctive relief, though not for money damages.) Tb (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Crown cannot at any time rescind an act of parliament. Only another act can do this. DuncanHill (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, whoops, I misspoke. The Crown can't rescind it, and in the US, the Executive branch can't cancel the Federal Tort Claims Act (the parallel act here, also enacted in the late 40s). What I mean is that the sovereign--the State, not the Crown--can rescind it at will. In the US, for example, the Congress could rescind the FTCA in the middle of pending legislation and thus rescind the agreement to be sued. I had forgotten the technical use of "Crown" to mean the executive. Tb (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both "Crown" and "Sovereign" in the UK refer to the monarch (of, rather, the office of monarch). The executive in the UK is Her Majesty's Government, which is not "the Crown" (although it operates largely through the delegation of the royal prerogative). --Tango (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost any act by a public body in the UK, including government departments, and also any failure to act when necessary (viz., breach of statutory duty) is susceptible to judicial review, initially in the High Court. You need to apply first for leave for judicial review, and most such applications fail, but where leave is granted there is a good rate of success, as High Court judges are (usually in practice as well as in theory) strictly independent of government. Xn4 (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to point to in history is the "petition of right" which is reasonably familiar to anyone who has seen the play "The Winslow Boy". This was a way subjects could try to recover money from the Crown, but in order that it not be abused, the case had to be authorised by the Crown (on advice from the Government of the day) with the majestic term "Let right be done". According to our article on the subject, the Monarch would still be required to give permission for a lawsuit against her personally, but the use of the petition of right on state bodies established by the Crown ended in 1947. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]