Humanities desk
< September 30	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 2 >

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 1

US Postal Service shipping routes

I recently sent an item to Virginia via Priority Mail and Certified Mail, and just now I decided to check the item's progress on the USPS website. After seeing that it had arrived safely, I noticed that the tracking page provided arrival and departure times/dates for each location where the item had visited: it went from my post office to Columbus, to Phoenix, to Roanoke, to the destination.

Barring errors, why would mail from Ohio to Virginia be sent via Phoenix? Is there some sort of hub-and-spoke system for Priority Mail that sends most or all items through Phoenix? It's so drastically out of the way that I'm left wondering if someone made a mistake in sorting the item, a mistake that was discovered only after it reached Arizona. Nyttend (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are rare, but such routes do happen. I remember one going from NJ yo NYC that travelled tp Philadelphia, indiana, and Utah before going to NYC. My assumption is that they knew the trucks for the direct route were full, and knew that there was plenty of space on the roundabout route which would make the trip within the specified time. I assume if you ask for the manager at your local post office they will explain this. See also http://faq.usps.com/. μηδείς (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this was the situation, but errors in addressing can cause this as well. I was shipped a package which had two digits in the ZIP code transposed, from 524- to 542-, and it did indeed pass through the destination town in Wisconsin before being properly routed to me in Iowa. --Golbez (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, domestic Priority Mail is transported on FedEx aircraft. Also note that domestic Priority Mail has a time guarantee of one to three days. If FedEx only flies a route from Ohio to Virginia, say, once a week, they need to put the mail on other routes to get it to the destination on time. That's what you're paying for. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing, but I just read that Julian Assange is still in the Ecuadorian embassy

How long can he stay there at all? Couldn't the UK somehow smoke him out of it? That is, cut power and water? Or, maybe make a lot of noise to disrupt his sleep? Doesn't it sound like a good idea? --Llaanngg (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If they value getting Assange more than their diplomatic relationship with Ecuador, I suppose they could do stuff like that. Note that the embassy is Ecuadorian territory; see extraterritoriality. --Trovatore (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Manuel_Noriega#Capture and Operation_Nifty_Package#Encircling_the_Apostolic_Nunciature_of_the_Holy_See; the US followed the make-a-lot-of-noise approach to capture Noriega, who had taken refuge in the Vatican embassy. It upset the Vatican a good deal, but while Ecuador isn't a major country, upsetting them is still much more significant than upsetting the Vatican. Cutting power and water, however, would probably be a good deal more of a problem, since it's actively punishing the embassy for giving sanctuary. Nyttend (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, he can stay there as long as he likes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The questions to be asking are, cui bono and follow the money. Ecuador is an impoverished country run by socialists at the presidential and federal level. It would be helpful to know what countries are giving Ecuador financial aid, and under what conditions. Given he's holed up in London, one might suspect that keeping him locked up in the embassy is worse for Assange and cheaper for the countries that want to extradite him. Basically an ambiguous win-win prisoner's dilemma situation in game theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 00:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Ecuadorians were threatened by HM Government in 2012 that the police could enter the embassy by force under the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, [1] but presumably decided not to. I suppose they have to consider the effect that would have on British interests in Ecuador and perhaps in other South American countries. The idea of using noise outside is a non-starter, as the embassy is in a long terrace of very expensive properties with several other diplomatic missions nearby. Alansplodge (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The current state of equilibrium seems to be working in everyone's favor (except Assange's, but he's there voluntarily). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assange is the only one whose stay is ongoing, according to List of people who took refuge in a diplomatic mission, but he has a long way to go before his stay exceeds that of József Mindszenty's 15 years. British action to get him would be a serious and unusual violation of Diplomatic law. As Julian Assange, And 5 Other Top Cases Of People Trapped Inside Embassies notes - "But the actual act of "storming" the Ecuadorian embassy by British forces would cross a major boundary in international law, one so enshrined that it is hard to think of even a historically similar case. The sanctity of foreign embassies has long been a principle of international law and has been formally protected since the Vienna Convention of 1961, which enshrined diplomatic immunity and protected diplomats from fear of harassment and coercion in host countries." Somewhat similar boundary crossings, in addition to Noriega, are the Iran hostage crisis and Imre Nagy, but it seems like John William, Baron Ripperda back in 1727 is the latest case of forcible entry to extract someone given asylum.John Z (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Benghazi attack could also qualify. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about states invading embassies of foreign states. In this case, I don't see how the attackers, the Ansar al-Sharia, could qualify as that. Obviously, for terrorists, embassies are not sacred places.Llaanngg (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Iran hostage article, the hostage-taking was initiated by student revolutionaries, not by the Iranian state. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that's true and it's hard to know, the Iranian state didn't exactly apologize for the hostage taking. On the contrary, they kept the diplomats hostages for more than a year. Under these conditions I doubt it makes much difference from the point of view of international law who supposedly "initiated" what. Basemetal 20:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"[T]he embassy is Ecuadorian territory". I don't think so: according to Diplomatic_mission#Extraterritoriality "Contrary to popular belief, most diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and in those cases are not sovereign territory of the represented state." AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. News to me. --Trovatore (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After the Libyan Embassy siege, in which a diplomat poked a gun through the window and shot Wpc Fletcher, all the occupants were simply allowed to leave. In Britain it’s illegal to cut off the water supply. In the case of unpaid bills the only recourse is to take the consumer to court. 80.44.164.18 (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found more about this at Embassy of Libya, London and especially Yvonne Fletcher. Wnt (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think some key context that is very often missed is the story of the Isaias brothers. [2] Ecuador has been watching some rich bankers they say illegally made off with a substantial fraction of the company's wealth go around the U.S. enjoying the proceeds of their labor. A speculative prediction I'd make from this is that if the U.S. ever decided to extradite them, Assange would probably get a boot in the ass out the embassy door the same day. But as that depends on the U.S. helping to prosecute bankers, he's probably safer than the gold in Fort Knox. In any case, I think that by going above what their agreements actually require, Britain would appear to be taking a position strongly against Ecuador in this dispute. Wnt (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the guy saying "Don't touch me" in this ad?

Who is the guy saying "Don't touch me" in this ad? It's about 20 seconds into the clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPD8kPiOygA

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski interacting with Christine Quinn, both paid political commentators at CNN. Here is a longer video of that 1 August 2016 interaction, with the excerpt coming from 4:09. Christine Quinn and Corey Lewandowski Bicker Over Trump’s Khan Remarks is a NYT article on the event. -- ToE 23:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quest, since you are asking about an official Gary Johnson campaign ad, there are a couple of other videos you may enjoy viewing. First are some unofficial Johnson ads made by a professional producer unaffiliated with the campaign. Here is the playlist. Several are more inspirational than issue oriented, but they have superb production quality and are more moving than any mainstream political ad I have seen. My favorites are "Choose" (set to Robert F. Kennedy's speech on the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.), "What If", and "A Third Choice" (currently #4, 5, & 6 on the playlist). The other is the very funny pitch made by "Dead Abe Lincoln" in the spot for the pro-Johnson vote pairing site Balanced Rebellion. (Currently with over 28 million views.) This was produced by Harmon Brothers, the Mormon marketing firm responsible for the hilarious pooping unicorn ad for the Squatty Potty. -- ToE 12:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Thank you, ToE, for answering my question and for providing the links. I am watching them now. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the Squatty Potty spot, what is it that the prince contrasts with Rocky Road? —Tamfang (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See #1 on the Bristol stool scale. -- ToE 13:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I suppose he was comparing it to that, but was contrasting it with "a smooth stream of froyo that glides like a virgin swan." This presumably corresponding to BSF type 4. -- ToE 13:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qoodrut - poet

In "Biographical Sketches No.1 - D.L.R". Calcutta Monthly Journal. For the year 1838. Calcutta: Samuel Smith and Co.: 1–16 1839., which deals with East India Company British employees at Calcutta in circa 1820, reference is made to the translation of poetic work. The phrase used is "Qoodrut's odes". Who was Qoodrut? There seem to be very many Indian poets, and our chappie might well be from some other Asiatic land. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the translator was David Lester Richardson I would say it is more likely that "Qoodrut" was either Indian or, possibly, Iranian, since at the time poetry in Farsi was very much an integral part of Indian culture (just as an example Ghalib actually wrote more ghazals in Farsi than he did in Urdu, for all that he is considered one of the greatest Urdu poets and even in the 20th century a poet such as Muhammad Iqbal wrote both in Urdu and Farsi). I suspect thid poet must be well known but by another name or another spelling of his name. I'll look into it. Basemetal 23:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Qoodrut" almost certainly, in my opinion, stands for the Muslim name "Qudratullah" sometimes written "Qudrat Ullah". Since I can find no well known Indian or Iranian poet with that name from the appropriate period (before 1800) it is possible this is some lesser known name of a well known poet, as many ghazal poets (for example) were known by several names. All I can suggest at this point is you take a look at the better known Indian or Iranian poets of that period and see if none of them were also called "Qudrat Ullah". Basemetal 00:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Qoodrut" also gets a mention in The British Indian Monitor: Or the Antijargonist, Stranger's Guide... on the Hindoostanee Language (p. 423) by John Borthwick Gilchrist, 1806. Alansplodge (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly (?) "Shah Qudrat ullah Dihlawi (d. 1205/1790) was born in Delhi and gained reputation as a sufi poet" - see: Dictionary of Indo-Persian Literature by Nabi Hadi (p. 493). Alansplodge (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. I've got more digging to do on Richardson, who's currently getting an expansion, so I may yet find more info. Knowing the likely contemporary transliteration and the example helps muchly. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the passage in the Calcutta Monthly Journal is that is was the father, Colonel David Thomas Richardson of the Bengal Establishment, who translated one of Qoodrut's Odes in the Weekly Review. DuncanHill (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as one reads on in the British Indian Monitor article linked by Alansplodge above, we find on page 429, after the ode by Qoodrut has been rendered and translated, the comment "My friend, Colonel D. T. Richardson (whose extensive knowledge of the Oriental languages and poetic talents are far surpassed by the goodness of his heart) obliged me with the above translation freely versified, which I have now the pleasure of submitting to the public in his own words". DuncanHill (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Good catch; thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He seems, from what I have been able to glean so far, to have been an interesting cove. There's a piece on The Victorian Web here about him. DuncanHill (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; that's a great article. I'd love to know more about the Sarah Lester / Violer Oliver juggling act, and to understand how David Lester Richardson came to be called 'the richest ensign in India' by his uncle. The article also usefully specifies the relationship of David L. and Mrs. G. G. Richardson, which currently dangles somewhat in both of their articles. Some sort of illigitimate nephew-in-law. All sort of India-hands have the most fascinating lives; though the more recent Adrian Carton de Wiart remains my gold-standard for improbable lives. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Thomas's will is available from the National Archives for £3.45 here. DuncanHill (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]