Humanities desk
< August 3	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 5 >

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 4

Why did JFK Threaten to Put Sanctions on Israel For Building Nukes?

After all, Israel genuinely needed nukes for its security, especially back then. Futurist110 (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's your opinion. Others may have different opinions. HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did he? Wikipedia, at least, says nothing about that. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if JFK did or not, but one possible result of Israel getting nukes is that all their enemies would want them too, which would be very bad. And Israel also seemed quite capable of defending itself with conventional weapons. StuRat (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

During JFK's presidential term, the United States still carefully avoided being seen to be in any kind of direct active military alliance with Israel, and the legacy of Suez 1956 left a lingering impression that the Israelis were loose cannons, whose possession of nukes would not necessarily simplify U.S. diplomatic tasks. Of course, all that was blown away by the events of 1967, when the Arabs by their behavior drove the United States into the arms of Israel... -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which behavior ? StuRat (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking or preparing to attack Israel in the hope of wiping it off the map. Futurist110 (talk) 06:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't they already do that, starting in 1948 ? StuRat (talk) 06:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the fact that the Arabs didn't learn their lesson after 20 years as well as their increasingly genocidal rhetoric made the U.S. change its mind. I do want to point out that Israel's conventional weapons advantage would only last as long as the West would be willing to sell Israel these weapons, and in the event of an oil embargo threat (such as in 1973) and an unsympathetic U.S. President, Israel would be obliterated without nukes as soon as it runs out of conventional weaponry and military supplies. Futurist110 (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat -- from the U.S. point of view, the behavior of acting as pathetic bloodthirsty military incompetents, or vicious wannabe-genocidal maniacs who couldn't shoot straight, to be frank. In their loose irresponsible grandiose rhetoric combined with largely self-defeating actions, the Arab leaders revealed themselves to be far more loose cannons than the Israelis had been in 1956, and the United States pretty much just stopped playing the game of trying not to offend the Arabs in the hope that such appeasement might prevent the consolidation of an Arab-Soviet alliance. Thus the former taboo against any kind of appearance of a direct U.S.-Israel military alliance was broken, and the Arabs mainly had themselves to blame for this. AnonMoos (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy opposed Israel getting nuclear weapons, for a complicated set of reasons. You can read quite a lot of Kennedy-era documents regarding the Israeli nuclear program here. This CIA assessment is quite telling with respects to the US position — they felt that it would severely complicated Middle Eastern relations, both in how Israel would act towards its neighbors, and the likely responses of its neighbors, which would also likely blow-back with regards to Arab interactions with the United States. The calculus of this sort of thing is much more complicated than just "needed the nukes for its security" or not. Another way to put this is that from a US perspective, it is never positive for another nation to get nuclear weapons — not just because it may increase the possibility of nuclear war, but also because the US has had (since World War II) global ambitions of dominance, and nuclear weapons complicate those ambitions considerably. (The USSR felt similarly during its time, though it did give China more aid than it later wished it had towards getting nuclear weapons. France by comparison didn't have as much of a problem with the idea of destabilizing other regions with nuclear weapons — hence their support of the Israeli nuclear program, which they saw as a way to get Egypt off their back with regards to Algeria.) --Mr.98 (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

French cities with Walloon population

Which cities of France have significant population of Walloon people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.23.213 (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why, when you ask such questions, do you always take for granted dubious presumptions (i.e. that Flemish-language speakers in France consider themselves to be either "Dutch" -- last time you asked -- or "Walloon" -- this time)??? The question might be more readily answered if you didn't use ethnic- or national-identity terminology in a manner which is possibly incorrect, and most definitely loose and sloppy... AnonMoos (talk) 07:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the evidence that the OP thinks Flemish-speakers consider themselves Walloon?! —Tamfang (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on his last "Dutch" question, that's what I assumed. If I misunderstood both, I apologize (though not too much, considering...

) -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop asking these questions. If you are this interested in migration statistics, you need to learn how to find them yourself. Look at the kind of places people have found statistics for you before, and try similar places for your latest question. We're a reference desk - we're not here to do extensive research for you. --Tango (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Joyeux

Was Malik Joyeux a Native Tahitian?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Tahitians Wikipedia article, Yes. Futurist110 (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added him, and I am not sure about it. So that is why I am asking the question.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'm genuinely unsure. Sorry about that. I tried finding something on Google but couldn't find anything. Futurist110 (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was born in France. Joyeux himself liked to obscure his origin and the first newspaper report contained wrong information, which is probably why Wikipedia got it wrong - the problem was once it's here other places (including other news organizations who should know better) start reporting it as fact and then it becomes very difficult to dig down to the real answer.

What seems to have happened is the first report, on the accident, made the (wrong) Tahiti claim. Writing the day after the accident, the Honolulu Advertiser first said "Joyeux was born on March 31, 1980, in Tahiti". The New York Times repeated this three weeks later in an article about Pipeline: "Tahitian-born Malik Joyeux".

However, once reporters had the chance to talk to his family, the correct place of birth came out. Reporting on the funeral service, the Honolulu Advertiser said: "Thilan Joyeux, Malik's sister, said ... Her mother, Helene Joyeux, brought the children to Tahiti when they were very young and raised them as Tahitian, said Thilan, 23. "He didn't like to say he was French," she said, laughing at the memory. "He's even more Tahitian than some Tahitians."" His obituary five days after the tragedy, in the Honolulu Star Bulletin, says "He was born in France".

We might also add this info from his friend Tim McKenna: "Raised on the tropical island paradise of Moorea in French Polynesia, he started surfing at the age of 8." 184.147.121.211 (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(I fixed and sourced his article.)184.147.121.211 (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration Policies of European Countries in the 19th and Early 20th Centuries

Which European countries had the most strict and the most lenient immigration policies between 1800/1850 and 1950? Futurist110 (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Netherlands was famously lenient before 1849 according to this source, but this says restrictive immigration policies then began to be passed. 184.147.121.211 (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was that equally true of all of the Netherlands before the Kingdom was formed in (iirc) 1816? —Tamfang (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The UK was quite welcoming to political dissidents, such as Alexander Herzen and Karl Marx, and had a large Jewish immigrant population in the late 19th/early 20th century. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about the other European countries? Futurist110 (talk) 07:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather speculative, but I believe that migration control is a modern concept. In the 19th century, if you couldn't scratch a living in one country, you could go and try to make a living somewhere else. Obviously, you would find somewhere that wasn't depressed or in famine, and where your religion would be tolerated. I've tried to find a reference to support this, but have failed so far. Alansplodge (talk) 11:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I thought that many European countries in the 19th and early 20th centuries restricted immigration of non-native ethnicities (unless their population was stagnating), considering how widespread and popular nationalism was in Europe at the time. Also, I heard that many European academics back then tried using pseudoscience to demonstrate that their ethnicity was superior to others. This is in contrast to the U.S., where until the 1920s there was large support to allow white immigrants from any country to immigrate to the U.S. Futurist110 (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well certainly 19th century London supported a large German community, as well as the east European Jews mentioned above. A number of British intellectuals took up residence in Paris without any difficulty. However, as most European countries had a surplus of cheap labour, those driven away from their homes by poverty would be more likely to look to the US, Canada and Australia for an opportunity to better themselves, rather than join the bottom of a very big heap in Europe. Alansplodge (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that nationalism was somewhat less widespread in Britain and France during this time than in countries to their east, such as Germany, Italy, the Balkans, and Russia. Futurist110 (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick of Austria (Habsburg)

After the rise of the Habsburg to the Duchy (later Archduchy) of Austria, they had four rulers by the name of Frederick. If Frederick the Fair was Frederick I, the second being the son of Otto, Duke of Austria, the fourth being Frederick IV, Duke of Austria and the fifth being Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor, then who was the third Frederick.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 10:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick III, Duke of Austria, presumably. Not sure why he's not on the List of rulers of Austria though, maybe because of his age. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 11:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After over 4 years, what happens to my unpaid Softbank cellphone bill?

we cannot entertain requests for legal advice

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I studied at the Nagasaki Gaikokugo Daigaku until July 31, 2008, and even though all foreign students were ordered to turn in their phones back to their providers by the end of their stay, I was deviant; I decided that since my phone (a Panasonic 920p was years ahead of phones in America, with features that STILL haven't arrived and all, I would take it back to America with me.

Its camera was so cool, that I was looking forward to using it even after the service got cut off.

Last I heard, I owed ~$765 (in a time when the Yen was still ¥105/$1.) I figured that they would not be able to trace me back to my home address, and I was right.

I got to use my phone for "free" in America (even though international roaming charges were quite up there) until at some point, I no longer had service. The camera also stopped working even though it had nothing to do with a service connection.

I tried getting a HyperSIM Card from an online vendor who never shipped it; so I am still dubious to whether such cards even exist. (Do they? And where can one buy them and actually receive said card?) Purportedly, I would've gotten to keep using the phone for free with all functions restored had I obtained and installed said HyperSIM card.

Now I wonder: Estimably how much more in late and other fees would my Japanese phone bill have accumulated? Why haven't they found me all the way back to America yet? (I know Softbank has a few U.S. operations.) Are they likely still looking for my address & other relevant info? Would they report me to the American credit reporting agencies if they found out where I was?

And finally, say that I return to Japan in 5 years or so, just for a vacation or on business. What happens when I debark at the airport? Thanks. --70.179.170.114 (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, in summary: you screwed someone and need legal advice on how to get away with it? OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact the company you were dealing with or a lawyer. μηδείς (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Jason Russell now?

asked and answered

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have a hard time finding online what Jason Russell has been doing since March. Last I heard, he had a public breakdown of some kind; he lost his mind and was brought to a mental hospital.

Don't you think since a lot of people are known to continue some form of their cause or another behind hospital walls, Jason would do that too?

But do we know what Jason is doing wherever he's being held, when he gets out, and what he plans to do as soon as he's out?

I wish somebody out here had an update about him. There's been nothing new on Jason since mid-March. --70.179.170.114 (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You asked this a few days ago. Asking the same question again is not going to get any more information. As we're talking about the private health condition of someone, Wikipedia doesn't know anything that you won't find on Google. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's -only- because the replies fizzled out. I was expecting a better turnout but it didn't come, so I had to give it a 2nd go. --70.179.170.114 (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replies fizzled out because nobody had anything else to say. --Tango (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't ask live questions twice.μηδείς (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of religion

Why is there a general global trend for societies to go from animism to polytheism to monotheism as they develop? Why weren't Hinduism and Shinto, which are polytheist and animist, respectively, affected by this shift? --108.206.7.65 (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the second part of your question suggests an answer (or rebuttal) to the supposition in the first part. Our article History of religion has links to some relevant articles. Does it help?

Relatively few societies independently evolved a monotheistic religion - while many people in the world adhere to monotheistic religions today, that is due more to the persuasive power (whether by words or by the sword) of such religions than to any evolution as a consequence of social development per se.

There are far more surviving religions which are polytheist or animist, and in many parts of the world the trend has been different or ever opposite to how you describe. In India, for example, a non-theistic Buddhism was overtaken by a revamped, polytheistic Hinduism. In China, the monotheistic "heaven worship" was overtaken by (and in some sense incorporated into) the polytheistic Taoism, which itself gave significant ground to Buddhism. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also Ancient Egypt's Atenism, one of the oldest known examples of monotheism. It has even been linked to the development of the Abrahamic religions, though that's controversial. It was quickly replaced by the preexisting polytheism after Akhenaten died.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The theory that there's a "trend for societies to go from animism to polytheism to monotheism as they develop" is most closely associated with Auguste Comte (see Law of three stages), although the notion was certainly repeated and developed by others during the nineteenth century. I think you'd be hard put to find many contemporary scholars who accept such a natural progression, at least in the crude form implied by your question. Deor (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most monotheists are also not really monotheists either. Though not admitted as such, demons, jinns, angels, saints, prophets, and satan are themselves gods. In some instances, they are surviving subsumed deities of conquered religions. The modern western image of the devil for example, is a conglomeration of various ancient gods who have been demonized after their worshippers converted (usually forcibly). In the middle east, the devil is deliberately conflated with local gods (baals), including dragon/serpent ones like Tiamat. When Abrahamic religions spread into Europe through Christianity, it again usurped the local pantheon who were recast as the devil. Notably retaining Poseidon's trident and the cloven hooves and horned heads of pagan nature gods like Pan and the satyrs or Odin in the Wild Hunt. It can even work in reverse. In the Philippines for example, instead of displacing the local religion, it instead merged with it. The local creator god Bathala became identified with the Christian God, while the various lesser deities were either forgotten or relegated to angelic roles. In the middle east, the local nature gods (jinns) were adopted into Islamic folklore as the third sentient creation. Saints, idols, monuments, shrines, angels, Mary, Santa Claus, these are all elements of polytheism and ancestor worship peeking under the blanket of monotheism.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obsidian Soul's notion that the presence of supernatural beings such as saints (the souls of good dead people) violates the idea of monotheism, which is the belief in one God (not the belief in only one supernatural being) is an idiosyncratic one that seems to mimic certain forms of Islam and radical Unitarian protestantism. Catholics, for example, don't consider saints gods, or themselves polytheists. μηδείς (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The chauvinism that "God" has a special meaning independent of what is actually practiced is typically monotheistic. Though you classify them as merely "supernatural" they are worshipped in the exact same way "God" is, despite excuses of them merely being intercession or whatever. See deity.

"A deity is a supreme being, natural, supernatural or preternatural, with magical or superhuman powers or qualities, and who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred. Believers may consider that they can communicate with the deity, who can respond supernaturally to their entreaties, and that the deity's myths are true."

Go on. Show me how and why satan, saints, jinn, shrines, idols, or angels are not deities. Then show me how it differs from henotheism in a meaningful way.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so you are defining them as divine, instead of supernatural, just not supreme. The Romans did something similar. So what? Why do you expect me to argue with you? You gonna send me to Ref Desk Hell? You are entitled to define your terms however you like. Not that anyone else uses those words the same way you are choosing to do so. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An awful lot of Catholics seem to pray to Mother Mary. HiLo48 (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And to patron saints, or any favourite saint. There's a difference between praying to some departed person who's believed to be in Heaven and can intercede on behalf of the pray-er, and claiming they're God. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about claiming they're a god? Where does one end and the other begin? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Catholicism, and Christianity generally, reserve the term "God" for one supreme being. Whatever special status any other beings may have, they are not God and are not even gods. There is, by the religion's definition, only one god, God. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible makes a distinction between one true God and many false gods. (Exodus 20:3; Deuteronomy 7:16; Daniel 3:18; 1 Corinthians 8:5, 6)

—Wavelength (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the point. It's a matter of terminology. Thus the claims of the propensity of human religions to turn into monotheisms over time isn't really justifiable when similar practices as those of polytheisms, etc. are still in place. Just under a different name. Whether this is officially sanctioned, condemned, or explained away by their clerical bodies or their philosophers doesn't really matter that much overall. Christianity itself started out being contentious among Jews precisely because of Jesus' claims of divinity. And the concept of the trinity and how to reconcile Jesus with monotheism has continuously split off churches from churches over the centuries. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 05:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with ObsidanSoul's take here. You could easily redefine the terms from the ancient Greek pantheon and call Zeus God, with all the other gods as lesser dieties. There's nothing advanced about monotheism. It's just terminology. 112.215.36.172 (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was objecting to you characterizing what I said as idiosyncratic. Because I'm certainly not alone in the observation that most claims of monotheism doesn't exactly hinge on any meaningful differences but terminology. Instead of ancestor worship, they're saints; instead of demigods, they're prophets; instead of avatars or lesser gods, they're angels; instead of a rival god, it's the devil; instead of a mother goddess, it's Mary. Heck, angels even have their specific dominions mirroring the roles of the lesser gods in the polytheistic pantheons. Nuriel creates hailstorms, Michael dispenses mercy, Azrael dispenses death, Camael is the heavenly police, Samael is the entrapment officer, etc. And the jealousy of the Old Testament Abrahamic God implies that "false gods" is really just another term for "not my god". It's one of the perennial arguments in Abrahamic religions. And they're not alone in that oxymoron. Nontheistic Buddhism for example, has also undergone a similar shift. From being a religion that only includes gods as incidental, to being a religion that worships Buddha as a god. By saying "anyone else", I'm guessing you mean not you. Ref Desk has a hell?

-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am an atheist. That being said, my understanding of Christianity is that Mary and the other saints only have supernatural powers insofar as God grants them. My "understanding" of polytheistic religions is that Hermes does not depend on the dispensation of Zeus for his juju, while Mary cannot gainsay Jesus. μηδείς (talk) 04:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are. There are plenty of supreme beings in different polytheistic religions who have the power to grant or take away juju. Monism even makes that juju simply different aspects of one giant juju of everything. And lastly, with the control of juju comes the control of evil. But I digress, that's worth another 20 more pages of endless discussion. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 05:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being late to the discussion (too much Olympics to watch!), but I broadly agree with Obsidian Souls's argument, and would additionally adduce the example of Voudun, in which various African deities or Loa have been subsumed under the identities of Roman Catholic Saints, but are in their new context still effectively gods/godesses. (Voudun also identifies the Catholic God and Christ with equivalently supreme African-origin deities, but believes them too important to bother them with everyday concerns, so turns to the lesser Loa just as Catholics direct their prayers to/through Saints).

A similar process is quite consciously employed in Wicca and related Neopaganist movements (disclosure: my own path), where pre-existing and new deities may be viewed as either independent entities and/or aspects or facets of the Lord or Lady according to momentary context. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.109 (talk) 11:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Religious doctrines are too variant in their details to try to make very meaningful statements about trends across different cultures. It's like asking about trends in the use of first versus third person narration across languages. There's plenty of material to summarize, but too much to really generalize accurately. 70.59.11.32 (talk) 06:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

108.206.7.65 -- The real shift has been from religions whose characteristics are closely tied to one particular ethnic/cultural group and the details of its way of life, and which often somewhat ignore or have an equivocal relationship with morality, to cosmopolitan religions of individual salvation, which are suitable to be adopted by a number of ethnic/cultural groups, and where there is a strong emphasis on personal morality and redemption. In the Mediterranean/European area, the cosmopolitan religions of individual salvation have been heavily influenced by Judaism, and so monotheistic, but in other areas the outcome was different. Buddhism (especially the Mahayana version) fits very well within the cosmopolitan religions of individual salvation model, and in east Asia, people can be both Buddhist and Confucian, both Buddhist and Shinto, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agatha Christie story/play

About two years ago I watched a PBS Masterpiece Mystery play from a story/play from Agatha Christie. I can't remember anything about it, other than it was based in Egypt and there was a fun story in it about death and a man in a tavern. What was this play? Albacore (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious thing to suggest would be Death on the Nile, presumably in its Suchet incarnation. I don't remember a tavern, mind, but much doings on a luxurious boat. Is there an Agatha Christie where someone doesn't die? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that she has written about 10⁷ novels, she may have run out of murder plots and settled for burglary or kidnapping once or twice. I vaguely seem to remember a more juvenile-oriented storyline which did not feature a murder. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christie's Parker Pyne stories appear to encompass only the occasional murder. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can recommend Death on the Nile (1978 film). It is not a PBS production or import per se. μηδείς (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient tear stain

Are their such things as ancient tear stains? I know their are ancient blood stains that can still be seen/detected.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tears are mostly just saline without being comprised of great masses of cells, platelets, with distinctive proteins, nucleic acids, and glycans like blood is. Tears are far more ephemeral and less distinctive than saliva, even. Tears don't stain; they wash clean. There aren't any forensic techniques which could use tears even if they were far more abundant and easy to recover. They have a handful of hormones in them depending on their type, but in tiny quantities. 70.59.11.32 (talk) 06:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salt deposits could be left behind, or perhaps the tears caused water-soluble ink to run, say while reading a letter informing them of the death of a loved one. StuRat (talk) 08:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]