Humanities desk
< October 13	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 15 >

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.

October 14

Iranian president

I notice that the past Iranian since revolution including present are ethnic Persians. Is it because that their constitution says that the President of Iran has to be Persian? When was the last time that Iran had a President who was non-Persian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.18 (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

65% of Iran's population is of the Persian ethnic group, according to Demography_of_Iran#Languages_and_ethnic_groups. Noting that all Presidents of the last 30 years have come from this ethnic group would be akin to noting that all Presidents of the United States of the past 240 years (prior to January, 2009) were Caucasian Males, and then asking if there was a law requiring it. There may be cultural contexts which determine that all of the leaders of Iran come from the majority ethnic group (just as there are in the U.S. and many other countries), but that doesn't mean that there are written rules that require it. --Jayron32 03:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Khamenei, who was President in the 1980s, is an Iranian Azeri. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there ya go. --Jayron32 05:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the relevant section of the Iranian Constitution. It contains no mention of ethnic requirements on the President. This section makes Persian the official language. --Sean 16:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arrogant American court?

Why would an American judge even think about issuing a restraining order regarding an event in another country which the court has no jurisdiction or authority in? See http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/9091246.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/9080946.stm This and other incidents suggest that American courts regard other countries merely as provinces of America. 92.15.4.145 (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, back in the 1980s, an American judge sentenced some poor blighter to "transportation to the Australian colonies" for a certain period of time. This was incredibly ignorant and wrong on about 20 different levels, and naturally the sentence was not executed. The judge should probably have been, though. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL, but the owners of Liverpool are Americans and the company that wants to buy the club is American too. A Texas court can issue a restraining order against a US company, I suppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely enough, that fact is discernible within the articles which the US-hating OP cited. Since the OP obviously did not actually read the articles, is there any reason not to box this one up? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"the US-hating oP"! Please do not troll. 92.15.2.211 (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, OP, please do not troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this 92 IP is the same one who doesn't like Nazis, we're probably being trolled again. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not trolling at all. Someone changed the title - I've changed it back. Someone has at least provided a possible explaination - saying that the sellers and buyers of the club are both American. But having re-read both artiocles I cannot see where it says that the club is currently owned by Americans, so the explaination does not seem to be the correct one. The club appears to be owned by several different interests. Edit: However the Liverpool F.C. article says it is currently owned by two American businessmen. 92.15.2.211 (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of your insistence on that offensive section title is proof enough that you're a troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INSULT WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though I am a US citizen and resident, I am the first to admit that US institutions are sometimes guilty of arrogance beyond US borders. However, I don't think that this is such a case. The court is merely blocking a transaction between two US parties. The fact that the transaction involves a property in another country is incidental. If the team were not US-owned, the US court would have no power over its owners. Incidentally, I happen to work for a British-owned corporation. It is entirely conceivable that a court ruling in the UK could affect, or even eliminate, my job. That would not be a case of British arrogance. It would just be part of life in a globalized world. Marco polo (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Piper Aircraft v. Reyno[1]. There is a wikipedia article for Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, but it is rather horribly written. The most important facts about the case were that this was a plane crash in Scottland, which killed Scottish citizens, and the plane was registered and operated in Britain. The survivors of the Scottish citizens brough an action against the company who made the plane in California when the plane was manufactured on the other side of the United States in Pennsylvania. The reason why they did this is because the United States gives greater legal protections involving those injured by products than the UK does. Basically, American laws were better for the Scottish than Scottish law. (I find this particularly amusing that they aknowledge this). The case went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, which finally determined that Scottland would be a better place to handle the lawsuit. As you can see, it works both ways. I don't think our Scottish brothers believed America to be a mere province for handling their legal problems. This sort of thing happens a hundred times a year both in the UK and in America. We routinely decide whether these foreign matters should be heard in our courts. Indeed, the Supreme Court ruled in Helcopteros Nacionale v. Hall[2] that a Texas court did not have jurisdiction to handle a crash that happened in Peru. There are thousands of district judges; sometimes they make mistakes. To get more examples of the UK exercising jurisdiction over matters that occurred abroad and by individuals who have never set foot in the UK, do a google search for extraterritorial jurisdiction. The UK routinely does this, particularly with war crimes. Gx872op (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The points here are well made, about the complexities of the modern world with its extensive internationalism - something which, if the OP is sincere (which some of us question), he may be unfamiliar with. The fact is that many corporations have their tentacles in many countries, and while it may a good thing overall, it can get vexingly tricky due to the manifold laws and jurisdictions. I myself work for an international company, and I can assure you that things can get very complicated, and we retain full-time legal staff to deal with that complexity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would read the extensive coverage that The Guardian website is giving to this story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football). Basically as others have said law in the international system is complicated, and the main concern appears to be not whether or not the court can 'decide' on the Liverpool sale case, but rather what sway the court holds in terms of the ongoing interests that those involved have in the US (at least that's the suggestions i've heard). ny156uk (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. plaintiffs' claim says Dallas is an appropriate jurisdiction because "all parties are subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas based on their continuous and systematic contacts with Texas, the intentional tortious conduct they have directed at this State, and/or other conduct and contacts with this State as alleged herein." That's clearly boilerplate language, and I don't know the background of it. If the case were to go to trial, or at least if it went to an appeals court, that point might be debated further.

It's worth noting that jurisdiction shopping is common in civil law. For example, it's common for patent-holders to sue tech companies in rural Texas, since that area is supposed to have owner-friendly juries, and you can sue someone anywhere the offending product is sold in the U.S. It's not limited to America -- "libel tourism" is the term now used for plaintiffs who sue for libel in a country with strict libel laws, such as the U.K, when the natural jurisdiction is elsewhere. In one instance, a Saudi businessman won a libel judgment against an American author in England over a book that was not sold directly in the U.K. It's also interesting that the British judge in the Liverpool case has one-upped the Texas judge by ordering the U.S. plaintiffs to withdraw their U.S. claim or be held in contempt of court in the U.K.! -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prison ID of Valerie Suzette Friend

I'm trying to find the prison ID of Valerie Suzette Friend, who was a federal death row inmate. I'm trying to find out her location, to see if she is in Carswell (with the other two federal death row inmates).

Her news story is at:

"Lecco and Friend Sentenced to Death." WOWK. Tuesday May 29, 2007.

"A federal jury on Tuesday sentenced two Mingo County residents to death for murdering a drug informant. George "Porgy Lecco, 57, and Valerie Friend, 33, received a death sentence recommendation for the death of 33-year-old Carla Collins in April 2005. "

So we know she was a federal DR inmate. It's just that I can't find her record on the inmate locator at http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/LocateInmate.jsp

According to:

Goad, Julia Roberts. "Friend escapes death, gets life." Williamson Daily News. October 2, 2009.

She now has a life sentence, but she should still be listed in the BOP database

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find her, either. If I were you I would contact each reporter of the news stories about this (such as here and here; both have e-mail links) to ask whether the reporter or editor has any insight. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article from July 2010 says, "In addition to the cooperation in the Lecco case, Friend is helping authorities who are investigating allegations that corrections officers had improper sexual contact with female inmates at the Carter County Detention Center in Kentucky, where she has spent much of the five years she has been in custody, he said." Dalliance (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, so she must not have been incarcerated in the federal system. Thank you for helping me :) WhisperToMe (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Americans ancestry

I remembering reading something somewhere (helpful, I know) that was something along the lines of 1 in x Americans are desended from whomever. Anybody know of something like this? Personally, I'm decended from John Alden, and I'm sure a decent percentage of other Americans are as well. Grsz¹¹ 17:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is similar to Descent from Genghis Khan. I know I had a history teacher in grade school who was descendant from Ulysses S. Grant. My grandfather talks about our family descending from Charlemagne. Although whenever someone purports this, it's not readily proven, and a polite "really?" works nicely. schyler (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone in Europe is "descendent" from Charlemagne due to a book that someone published a long time ago that listed all the descendants of Charlemagne. The problem with the book is that wealthy (or even somewhat well-off) families could get into the book by just purchasing one of the ancestors. After it was published, people took it as fact and suddenly everyone was some part royalty. It really makes ancestry.com a bunch of garbage because people use the book as proof of their ancestors on there. ...searching... Found the book for sale here. -- kainaw ™ 19:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Charlemagne had 20 "official" children, and there are ~1200 years (or 40 generations) since his reign. Assuming only 2 surviving children per generation (i.e. the replacement rate - it should really be a lot higher for the first few generations, if Carlo the Big is in any way typical), and no inbreeding (we know that this is a wrong assumption, but what the heck ;-), he should have about 10¹² descendants if you start with his generation, and 10 times more if you start with the generation of his official children. So it's not impossible that everybody of recent European descent has him somewhere up in the tree. Of course, you probably also have about one million average yokels somewhere in there - the exponential growth works both ways... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The average yokels being the ones who get the actual work done. :) To be descended from some old-time figure, they have to have been prolific enough to start with a broad based, as you're suggesting. I think I read that there are no longer any living descendants of President Lincoln, and that's in no small part because he only had one child that grew to adulthood. And anyone checking to see if they're descended from his predecessor, President Buchanan, is likely out of luck. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Lincoln's last confirmed living descendant, his greatgrandson Robert Todd Lincoln Beckwith, died in 1985. There is some possibility that Timothy Lincoln Beckwith may be Robert Beckwith's son, but he claimed it wasn't his son, and Timothy has never had a paternity test. --Jayron32 22:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're forgetting other possible illegitimate offspring besides Timothy Beckwith. There may be Lincoln descendants around due to the fact that birth control (prior to 1967),if it was practised at all, was notoriously unreliable.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have it backwards. Timothy Beckwith's mother claimed that Timothy was legitimate, Timothy's father denied that he was (he basically disowned him as his offspring) while Timothy has been officially coy on the matter, refusing to confirm or deny his own legitimacy. In otherwords, he is either a) a legitimate decendant of Honest Abe (if his mother is to be believed) or b) of no relation to the Lincoln family (if his (not-)father is to be believed). --Jayron32 06:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That still does not negate my point. It's possible that either Honest Abe himself or his son fathered illegitimate offspring. That was what I was trying to say.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alden had 11 children. If you assume that they each had on average 2 children who became adults and their descendants too, and if you assume that there were 16 generations since his death (323 years / 20 years for each generation), then there are today 720,868 descendant of Alden. --Lgriot (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the descendants of Pocahontas? There are a lot of Vitginia families which claim her as an ancestress.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Stephan Schulz above: if you take a person who lived long enough ago and whose family didn't die out early enough, then most likely everyone on Earth today is descended from them. It is this reason why I claim to be a son of Beren and Lúthien – but then you know royal blood doesn't make you a better or worse person in any way. – b_jonas 14:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarships

I am an American Permanent Resident (Green card holder) and would prefer not to become a citizen. To what extent would my scholarship opportunities be limited, and does this vary according to prestige of school? Thanks. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarship opportunities are going to vary from school to school, and I doubt there's a strong correlation between scholarship delta as a foreign national and "prestige" (however that's defined). Generally, US universities seem to encourage foreign national attendance, so while some scholarships will definitely be off-limits to you, I don't know that I'd assume that less is available collectively. All that said, rather than getting a vague handwavy answer here, why not just contact the admissions departments of some schools you're interested in? You'll no doubt get a more detailed and more accurate answer. — Lomn 13:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting record - Canada's election to Security Council

Is it possible to see which countries voted for, or against Canada's election to a non-permanent seat to the Security Council? 132.205.215.33 (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This UN webpage says that recorded votes are only undertaken if specifically requested beforehand. Normally, only a summary of the result is made available. Dalliance (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a secret vote. No one can know who voted for whom unless countries declare openly who they voted for. But it is not in their interest to do so, as many had promised their vote to all three candidates. --Xuxl (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]