Humanities desk
< June 17	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 19 >

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.

June 18

Adolfo hitler and monarchism

Was Adolf hitler a monarchist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey13952 alternate account (talk • contribs) 02:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read Monarchism and see what you think. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This question may have been an attempt at humour. Or just poor spelling. See Adolf Hitler's possible monorchism. --Dweller (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the best title on this site. Thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was it Adolf hitlers wish to restore the monarchy since he was very far right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey13952 alternate account (talk • contribs) 15:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, Hitler resented monarchies, too, since people like him who were not born into power would not be able to rule the nation. He did, however, pick his fights carefully (although not carefully enough, as when he invaded the Soviet Union and later declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor). He realized that just shooting all the aristocrats would make him powerful enemies, and that he already had quite enough enemies to handle. So, he generally tried to treat them with respect, so as to not antagonize them or their supporters. StuRat (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that people who call themselves traditionalist and advocate a return to monarchism and feudalism often mention about a Jewish conspiracy to takeover the world. Joey13952 alternate account (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that makes a better scapegoat than blaming the real cause of their decline, which is common people demanding more say in government. Hard to make that look like an evil conspiracy. StuRat (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a recurrent theme? It seems Fascists and Nazis do not really like monarchies: when the last Austro-Hungarian emperor-king (K & K), Charles, tried to reclaim the Hungarian throne in 1918 the Fascist dictator of Hungary, Horthy, prevented him from doing so (see Charles I of Austria's attempts to retake the throne of Hungary). Ironically Hungary remained officially a "kingdom" all through Horthy's dictatorship. Similarly Franco only let a king regain the throne of Spain after his death. As far as I know he never made any attempt to call Alfonso XIII or the Infante Juan to the throne. So you got it backwards: traditionalists are often anti-Jewish (certainly true in France before 1940 for example) but the converse is not necessarily true. You can find lots of Anti-Semitism and theories of a Jewish conspiracy on the left too. And note Fascists and Nazis did not consider themselves traditionalists, on the contrary, they considered themselves revolutionaries. Contact Basemetal here 17:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were members of the former German royal family who stayed in Germany through the Nazi era. But articles like the ones on Prince August Wilhelm and the Prinzenerlass suggest that Hitler had no interest in restoring the German monarchy. Herbivore (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Nazi Party was actually called the National Socialist German Workers' Party which might be a hint as to their ideology regarding the monarchy. Alansplodge (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, kings and queens like to party, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

對酒當歌，人生幾何

What Cao Cao the first to use the phrase "對酒當歌，人生幾何" in his Short Song Style (短歌行), written in 208? Or does it date to an earlier influence of Cao Cao's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C0A8:AC10:A8DE:3CF:2618:B94 (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is contemporary music so bad?

According to a scientific study, pop music has been trending to be more homogeneous since the 1970s. What is the sociological explanation for this trend? Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have a brief section on this at Pop music#Recent developments, with more information in the references to that section. The popular argument seems to be that modern pop music is carefully designed to be marketable, with little talent involved. A financial argument, really - record labels consider formulaic artists to be more profitable. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The paper in question seems to be "Measuring the Evolution of Contemporary Western Popular Music" by Serrà et al, doi:10.1038/srep00521, downloadable here. I've only glanced at it, but this blog post says the database they used "contains only 2,650 songs released between 1955 and 1959, but [...] 177,808 songs [...] released between 2005 and 2009. That’s because it draws on what’s popular now, as well as what has been digitized and made available for download. And the songs of yesteryear that people enjoy today (as oldies) may not be the same ones that people enjoyed when those songs first came out." As far as I can tell, that's enough to completely invalidate the paper's conclusions. -- BenRG (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every generation has made the same kind of claim about the younger generation's music. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And every generation remembers the best music of their time, not necessarily what was popular at the time. During the infamous Summer of 69, this track was at the top of the US billboard top 100 for four weeks (though not, as is often said, during Woodstock itself). MChesterMC (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? Sugar, Sugar is a fine song. Oh, it's not particularly deep. But it makes you feel good. What's wrong with that? --Trovatore (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I can think of any number of songs from the 60s which were loathesome then and still are, regardless of their perennial presence in the "Top 40" playlists. And I'm reminded of Tom Lehrer's comment in the 1950s regarding, "Rock and Roll, and other children's records." And here's Steve Allen lampooning the lyrics of a big hit of the 1950s.[1] Going farther back, here's a song from 1921, railing against such modern music as "Shine on Harvest Moon."[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; people only remember the things which have stood the test of time, and blot out the things they'd rather forget. Two Little Boys sold considerably more copies in the 1960s than the Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields Forever single, and one of the biggest-selling singles in the US in the entire 1960s was Ballad of the Green Berets. You talk about the 1970s as some kind of golden age, but of the five most successful songs in the UK in the 1970s, two apiece were by Boney M. and John Travolta. – iridescent 09:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, The Ballad of the Green Berets, before the Vietnam war became the disaster it became. It's funny to hear someone talking about how wonderful the 70s were, considering at least half of that decade was the often-ridiculed Disco Era. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed at how often I have to eject variations on "and everybody was wearing tie-die clothes and dropping acid" from articles on the 1960s written by people who believe the whole "Swinging London"/"San Francisco love-in" mythos. (The removals documented at Talk:London in the 1960s#Removed material were a particularly impressive example.) Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1966, Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1967, Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1968 and Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1969 are good reading for people who still think it was all hippies and love; note (with the single exception of Hey Jude) just how low down those lists the Beach Boys, Beatles, Rolling Stones, Doors, Dylan and everyone else people think of as "top 1960s musicians" are. – iridescent 10:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(adding) I'm also astonished that the OP can claim "pop music has been trending to be more homogeneous", given that I find it hard to imagine ten songs less alike than the current top 10, short of including a couple of hymns or folk-songs. – iridescent 10:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem distinguishing some voices from others, though that is certainly not a new problem in the history of recorded music. I'm reminded of one of the lines from American Graffiti: "Rock and Roll has been going downhill ever since Buddy Holly died." That was a few years after Don McLean had called February 3, 1959, "The day the music died." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just thinking aloud on this, what tangible differences are there between Louis Armstrong's work in the 1920s and the 1960s? And between that and artists around at the same time - Count Basie, Duke Ellington, Glenn Miller, Guy Lombardo? There is only so much variation possible in a particular genre and until something outside the ordinary takes hold (such as Sex Pistols/ Punk rock) it plods on doing the same sort of things. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The greater bulk of contemporary music will always be bad becuse it caters for the hoi polloi. The passage of time provides a filtering system where mostly the gems are replayed. Making it appear that only modern music is mostly *#↔¿.--Aspro (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All arguments that new music sucks are invalid, because the 60s produced the 1910 Fruitgum Company which is possibly the worst band of all time. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the nature of the mass media controls the type of music which becomes popular:

Originally, live music was the only option. This allowed different styles of music to grow and thrive in every venue. Of course, you still had to get people to show up, and if you couldn't describe the music on flyers, billboards, in newspapers, etc., in a way that would get people to show up, then there was only word of mouth left.

Then recordings and radio came in, but the early ones were rather poor quality. So, the live music still drove the industry.

Later recordings and radio became high quality, and became the primary way most people listened to music. At this point they started to drive the industry, and executives insisted on music that would sell on those formats. So, enough songs to fill an LP alum, with about 3 minutes per song so they would fit on radio, between commercials. A certain consistency in style was also required, so they would fit on one of the existing radio formats.

Internet distribution has now created an opportunity to return more to the original situation, where every venue (web page) can have it's own style. Individual performers can also now become popular by posting videos on YouTube, etc. So, I'd expect music variety to increase in the coming years. StuRat (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot the introduction of the TV. Before the audiences could SEE the artists that played on the albums it wasn't important what they looked like and even ugly people could be successful singers. Today artists (and not only in popular music) has to be good-looking (which influences the music, since the music business isn't only about the music anymore, but about the whole package - the artist's looks and clothes, the rock-videos, and the cool shows)... and sadly audiences will never hear the thousands of brilliant talents that are considered too ugly to be famous. /Kristian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.71.52.77 (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that "the United States" isn't "the world", right? In, for instance, Britain, "about 3 minutes per song so they would fit on radio, between commercials" has no relevance before 1973 (and little relevance afterwards) except for the very limited number of bands who were aiming to enter the US market. – iridescent 14:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't think the number of British bands hoping to sell in the US market would be so limited. Also, there's the reverse, US bands played in the British market. Then there are other English speaking nations, like Canada, which similarly has commercials on radio. So, are British commercial songs, on average, much different in length than US songs ? StuRat (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bohemian Rhapsody was 5'55", but that's exceptional. Alansplodge (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and Alice's Restaurant was 18:34 long, so there are always exceptions. StuRat (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been searching for quite some time, but I have not been able to find the essay I want, by either Mark Steyn or Camille Paglia, IIRC. The thesis was that there has been no new musical genre since the 1990's Grunge and Gangster Rap. This was tied in I think with the rise of the internet mashup. Or maybe it was Jaron Lanier. I do basically think there are works like My Man's Gone Now and I am the Walrus which are still ahead of their time. Groups like the Black Keys are great, and I love some of Katy Perry's stuff, but they would easily have fit in the 70's or 80's. I'll keep trying to find the essay, but am hoping someone else here might have read it given my hints. μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steyn and Paglia have both commented about the phenomenon, but the particular argument I was thinking of Was Jaron Lanier's: Where did the music go?. μηδείς (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a child pornography case, does the prosecutor actually show the child pornography?

I was reading about a child pornography criminal case, which prompted my following thought and question. In a criminal case, of course, the prosecutor has to prove the criminal allegations against the defendant. And, by a very high standard of proof, no less. So, in a child pornography case, does the prosecutor have to actually show the actual child pornography (the photos or videos or whatever) to the jury and to the judge, etc.? I can only imagine that the government would try to minimize any additional (and unnecessary) exposure of the child porn material, and would try to avoid it at all costs. For the "protection" (for lack of a better word) of not only the child victim, but also of the jurors, etc. Nonetheless, the (alleged) criminal will undoubtedly demand proof of child porn if he faces a conviction and a lengthy imprisonment for the crime of child porn. And, of course, the prosecutor will want to present the strongest case possible, and will not want to take any chances to risk an acquittal. What typically happens in such a case? I am referencing the USA, although I wouldn't mind hearing what happens in other legal jurisdictions. Thanks. P.S. I presume it to be obvious that this is a question about a legal topic; it is not a solicitation for legal advice. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a report of a trial where the jury "watched parts of all 21 downloaded pornographic videos that showed nude children engaging in sexual acts...", and here is a relevant discussion on Straight Dope, which talks about some of the points you raise. I suppose it's not that different in principle from juries seeing or hearing gruesome evidence in murder trials, etc: for example the recordings made of the torture and murder of children in the Moors murders case. There have been cases (in the UK, at least) where judges have excused people from future jury service for life because of the extreme unpleasantness of the task they've been subjected to. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I want to point out one distinction, however. You compared the viewing of a child porn film (by the jury) with the viewing of a murder/torture film (by the jury). However, viewing a murder/torture film is not a crime at all. But, viewing a child porn film is indeed a crime (in and of itself). (Of course, this criminality would not apply in the case of a jury viewing the prosecutor's exhibit of child porn.) My point is that to prove an alleged case of child porn (i.e., it is illegal to view child porn tapes as a recreational movie), the government has to engage in the very practice that itself is illegal (viewing the child porn, albeit as a jury exhibit and not as a recreational film). That factor is not present when we are dealing with the viewing of a torture/murder film, which – in and of itself – is not illegal at all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Trauma trigger#Trigger warning, a term and practice that have emerged since the increasing awareness and prevalence of PTSD. Elements in a particular court trial relating to a prospective juror's personal circumstances would likely be considered as grounds to excuse for cause or preemptively on a per-case basis. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But, I am not quite sure what you are saying. I am interpreting your comment to mean that a victim of child porn (or perhaps sexual assault) would easily be excused from serving on a jury in a child porn case. Correct? I assume that that is true. However, a person who has never been a victim of child porn or sexual assault would still be traumatized (to some degree) by being a juror on such a case, and having to watch such materials (i.e., the government's exhibits). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Something doesn't make sense. If viewing of child porn is absolutely a crime, then anyone who sees it would be guilty of a crime, including law enforcement and court officials. That doesn't work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I think, actually, it's possession of child porn that is absolutely illegal. Not necessarily "viewing". Obviously, law enforcement authorities have some type of "exception" that allows them to view it and/or possess it. They "possess" a lot of illegal things (drugs, weapons, counterfeit bills, money from bank robberies, etc.). I am not so sure that they "possess" it, or if the are simply "custodians". Who knows? It's all semantics. And I am sure that the laws are crafted to allow the police to view/possess it, and disallow the criminals and pedophiles from doing so. I think the "tricky" distinction between viewing/possessing terminology comes from computer internet files. If I download it onto my computer, I think that that means that I now "possess" it. But, if I simply view it on the internet, I do not "possess" it. Who knows? I guess an argument could me made that some file has resided on my computer hard drive or cookie or cache or internet search history or whatever. And that fact translates into my "possessing" it. That is why, I think, there is little distinction between viewing and possessing when it comes to the internet and computer files. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, another thought. Maybe viewing it is illegal? But, it's probably worded to be "viewing it with the intent of sexual gratification" or something like that. Not merely "viewing it", period (for legitimate reasons like, for example, police investigations or serving on a jury). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The prosecutor would then have to prove intent of sexual gratification, which would probably be pretty hard. "See, Your Honour, I was only doing research for this book/art project/letter to the editor I'm thinking about." 06:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Not that easy apparently. To begin with the judge or the jury would have to believe your "I was only doing research" defense and even that may not be enough: see this for example. Contact Basemetal here 12:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And Pete Townshend, when he accessed a child pornography site, was cautioned by police and put on the sex offenders register despite his "I was only doing research" defense. See also: here and here and here. This particularly story did not find its way into the WP article apparently. Contact Basemetal here 12:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above statements. "For the purpose of sexual gratification" is relatively common wording in legal crimes. Think, sexual abuse and sexual molestation. If a guy mistakenly brushes against a woman's breast in a crowded public bus, this is a completely different situation than if he gropes at her breast intentionally. It is not simply the physical contact, but the intent behind it (i.e., whether or not it was for the purposes of "sexual gratification"). And, in any event, saying "I am doing this only for research" would be a weak defense, easily disproved by other evidence. Just because someone says it is so, does not make it so. A jury can see through their BS excuses. And the lawyer's job is to aid the jury in seeing through the BS excuses (i.e., presenting evidence to the contrary). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the original premise of the question, viz., any case of looking at child pornography is criminal, commits the fallacy of accident. One commits this fallacy when one applies a general principle to a case where it doesn't really apply. For example, it's wrong to cut people with a sharp object, but that's what surgeons do, so what surgeons do is wrong. Similar reasoning applies in this case. Llamabr (talk)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spree shooting questions on spree shooting site demolition and perpetrators committing suicide or not

There has been another spree shooting in the United States, and because of this I'm asking more about this (see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 October 29#Mass shootings and suicides, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 December 16#Mass shooters killing themselves, and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 April 3#Mass shootings outside of North America, and also non-American shootings where the perpetrator committed suicide. for my previous questions here on the topic).

1. In the United States at least, sites of spree shootings have either been completely renovated (Columbine) or even demolished (2006 Amish school shootings, Sandy Hook). This leads to three questions: a. why the demolitions/renovations? While from a look around (in the case of Sandy Hook), it is so that the people of their locales can move on as well as to prevent people from using parts of the structures as souvenirs, is this really the case? b. Do such demolitions/renovations generally have the support of people involved: relatives of the victims, survivors, local government, locals, the police, etc.? c. Are such demolitions/renovations very common, i. in the United States, and ii. outside the United States? A news article I read earlier (unfortunately I cannot remember the link) said that, at least in the United States, renovation or demolition is the preferred fate for shooting sites, particularly for school shooting sites, but is this really the case? Is there a list which discusses such demolitions? Are there cases where spree shooting sites were not demolished/renovated? And are similar practices done to shooting sites outside the United States?

2. I know that List of rampage killers exist, but other than the 2011 Norway attacks and the 2012 Aurora shooting, what are examples of spree shootings, both in the United States and elsewhere, that were widely reported by media (at least to the same or similar extent as incidents like Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook), and where the perpetrator didn't commit suicide? Although answers can include those where the perpetrator didn't commit suicide but was instead shot by either the police or others, I'm mainly looking for incidents where the perpetrator(s) was/were arrested. The aforementioned article gives possible leads, but it does not state which ones were widely reported on and which ones weren't.

3. Are there any statistics on the fates of rampage killers? As in, are spree shooters more likely to commit suicide be arrested? A cursory glance at List of rampage killers and its subpages imply that rampage killers are more likely to either commit suicide or be killed than be arrested, but are there any statistics which either confirm or deny this? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sites of horrific crimes are often bulldozed, presumably to redevelop and improve the lot so that it can be sold again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not done for that reason, it's done in the name of the victims. To erase the scene of the crime and to ensure that it doesn't become a ghoulish tourist attraction. e.g. 25 Cromwell Street. --Viennese Waltz 08:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For those unfamiliar with "25 Cromwell Street" see Fred West, an English serial killer. Another notorious British address was 10 Rillington Place, also demolished soon afterwards. Alansplodge (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's done for various reasons. Here is a discussion.[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at the Additional information portion of The Amityville Horror for a house that was not destroyed, and see what happened to the people living there. 192.12.149.16 (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) Mass murders are highly traumatizing events not only for the victims and witnesses, but also for the affected communities, so to support the healing process and to close what is basically a gaping wound in the social fabric the buildings they occurred at are often destroyed, or in cases where this is not possible, renovated. Especially after a school shooting a complete overhaul of the structure is frequently performed, because otherwise it would be a constant reminder of the terrible events to hundreds of already traumatized students. As has been pointed out above, another reason to demolish these buildings is to get rid of what might become an unwanted tourist attraction, or to erase what is perceived as a stigma to the town. So, generally these actions are endorsed by the affected people and communities, and in some cases, e.g. the house of David Malcolm Gray, they are even conducted by a helpful citizen by the means of criminal arson. How common these demolitions/renovations are I cannot say, and I don't know of any lists or articles dealing with the matter, though I suppose the decision very much depends on the severity of the crime and the amount of media coverage it gets. Are there mass shootings sites that were not demolished? Well, the town of Hungerford is still standing, I guess, as is the village of Luxiol, but if you are talking specifically about indivudal buildings I suppose you have to do your own research. Your chances of finding a few places in healthy condition are pretty good, though, considering that the house where the Villisca axe murders were committed is still standing, and the same is true for the former home of Fritz Angerstein in Haiger. Regarding similar practices in countries outside the U.S., I'm sure people are dealing with mass murder sites in a similar manner all over the world; e.g. the Gutenberg Gymnasium in Erfurt, Germany, where 16 people were killed by a student in 2002, was completely renovated after the shooting.

2) What do you consider "widely reported? If you are focusing on coverage in the United States with an extent similar to the one on the Columbine massacre you will be hard-pressed to find anything prior to 1999. 24-hours news coverage is a rather recent phenomenon and in the past mass murders generally were not granted as much space in the media, because it wasn't considered that important. The major national newspapers mostly printed an article or two, sometimes merely giving the basics, and only the reporting in local newspapers lasted longer and was more detailed. If you are looking for a similar scale of international news coverage, well, there's probably nothing prior to Columbine, and even today very little is comparable. It sticks out that much. Anyway, as a general rule I would say any mass murder outside a very few select western countries gets little to no coverage in the international press, so you can safely ignore everything that occured in Latin America, Africa, Asia, as well as Eastern and Southern Europe. Considering that you are only interested in cases where the perpetrator survived, or was killed by police these are the cases prior to Columbine that I would consider as recipients of wide news coverage:

Ernst August Wagner, 1913. Considering the year it occurred news coverage was quite extensive even on an international level, and it had a profound impact on the scientific community.
Charles Starkweather, 1958. A major case in the U.S. with high impact and some mention internationally.
Charles Whitman, 1966. Extensive coverage in the U.S., lasting impact, more than a fleeting mention on an international level.
James Oliver Huberty, 1984. Decent amount of coverage in the U.S., though its lasting impact and the international coverage were only moderate.
Colin Ferguson, 1993. Major case in the U.S. with extensive coverage and high impact, especially due to Ferguson's trial, on an international level rather irrelevant.
Martin Bryant, 1996. Extensive coverage all around the world, profound impact on Australia.

3) A couple of years ago I've done some calculations with the information present in the list of rampage killers and found that the survival rate of rampage killers is varying by region. In Asia about 25% of rampage killers are either killed or commit suicide, in Africa and Europe it's about 33%, and in the Americas and Oceania/Maritime Southeast Asia about 50% of rampage killers do not survive their attack, with the difference that in the Americas they mostly commit suicide, while in Oceania/MSEA they are generally killed either by police or by civilians. You should bear in mind, though, that the LoRK lists only cases with a relatively high number of victims, and a higher number of victims generally decreases the perpetrator's likelihood of survival. If you are looking for more information on the matter, there are plenty of scientific papers on mass murders that include statistics on the perpetrators' outcome, see e.g. Lester et al.: Mass Homicide and Suicide: Deadliness and Outcome, or Fox/Levin: Extreme Killing

(Lord Gøn (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Lord Gordon

Can somebody help me identified who this Lord Gordon was mentioned here? The text reads Lord Gordon and Lord Charles Beresford (making me assume that both men were Beresford) but then the caption of image on the next page uses it as if it is a surname. They were both on the ship Clio stationed in Hawaii in 1865.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably Lord Douglas Gordon, although he was a couple of years young to be a midshipman at that time (but I believe that exceptions were sometimes made for sons of the nobility). Looie496 (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see much of that. What is the date? Lord Lewis Gordon (3 May 1848 – 7 September 1870), not a peer but the second son of a marquess may have served on HMS Clio when it visited the Sandwich Islands in 1865.
121.211.12.111 (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Clio was in Hawaii in the spring of 1865 according to this. It was about to transport Queen Emma of Hawaii to Panama on her trip to Europe at the time. I think they were both sons of English peers. If there is anyway to find a source directly stating which Gordon was on the Clio as a midshipman in 1865 that would be great. I check Beresford's memoir but he doesn't mention his accomplices in the prank by name. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if Lord Lewis Gordon was on Clio but he was on HMS Captain when he died in 1870.
121.211.12.111 (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Douglas Gordon or Lord Lewis Gordon would never have been properly called "Lord Gordon", as he never held a peerage himself nor was in the senior line to one. (It's a common error, but the same sentence names Lord Charles Beresford correctly.) "Lord Gordon" could be the first grandson of a Marquess of Huntly, though the present marquess's grandson is called Lord Strathavon. —Tamfang (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first son of a marquess gets a courtesy title (if one exists) and the rest of the sons of a marquess are called Lord. If the writer didn't know Lord Lewis Gordon's name he would call him Lord Gordon.
Sleigh (talk) 06:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Birth at sea

Hi, in the following scenario what would this persons citizenship rights. Parents are British nationals. They are travelling abroad on a cruise liner bound to the United States, the wife is in the final stages of pregnancy. If the woman gives birth while en route to the United States, and the first country the child sets foot in is the United States, what would their citizenship rights be. Would this be applicable to all countries or just the United States. Thanks in advance --Andrew 18:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See British nationality law and United States nationality law. The child will be granted British citizenship "by descent" in almost all cases. Since the child is neither born in the USA, nor has parents with that nationality, it will not receive US citizenship, though he/she may obtain it through naturalization. - Lindert (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) We have an article on birth aboard aircraft and ships, which lays out the style of issue presented. Generally, "destination" is irrelevant, and "nation of registration of the vessel" only applies as a last-ditch option to avoid stateless persons. — Lomn 19:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That article points out that birth aboard a US-flagged vessel is not considered birth in the United States (unless the vessel is in US water, which is part of the United States), so that jus soli from Fourteenth Amendment does not apply. A United States Navy warship is a different matter, not the same as a US-flagged merchant ship, because a naval vessel is considered sovereign territory of the nation to whose navy it belongs. That is unlikely to be significant for two reasons. First, the US Navy probably would not allow a female sailor who was known to be pregnant to serve in the crew of a ship on an extended deployment. Second, the crew of a naval vessel, with a few exceptions, consists of citizens of the nation in whose navy they serve, so that jus sanguini already applies and it is not necessary to identify jus soli. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, warships are sometimes used to evacuate civilians from overseas hotspots; in 1986, 200 British and European refugees were evacuated from South Yemen by the Royal Yacht. [4] Alansplodge (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Born at Sea: Migrant Gives Birth Aboard Navy Ship After Rescue. Alansplodge (talk) 07:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]