Humanities desk
< April 1	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 3 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 2

Archive of Preservation Magazine

Does anyone know where I might find an online archive of Preservation Magazine? I'm trying to verify a cite from the August 2004 issue where the ref has a dead archive link and there's no alternatives. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 05:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried contacting them? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'd do if nobody here knows offhand. :) Seriously, I wouldn't expect them to quickly get back to me on such a question. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 07:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then you'd best get right on it! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have them. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The irony of this is striking. KConWiki (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could already see before I asked they didn't have the past issues on their site, so it was not surprising that asking them turned out to bear no fruit. Thanks for the wild goose chase, I guess? :) Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 04:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preservation Magazine preserves all that does not preserve itself. Does Preservation Magazine then preserve itself? GalacticShoe (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent issues are on their website here. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have issues going back that far. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archive.org is your friend! <https://archive.org/search?query=title%3A%28preservation%20magazine%29> DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not in this case. Already tried. My search and your search doesn't turn it up. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For posterity's sake, the National Trust for Historic Preservation doesn't keep back issues online before 2015 (roughly 9 years back), and they have indicated there's no third-party location for such. Of course, if anyone ever can identify a location for this material, please let me know, as I would like to verify a citation. There's no WP:DEADLINE so really, anytime is fine. If I remember, I will try to search on a trip to an actual library, but I won't make the trip for a single citation. Thanks everyone for trying. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@StefenTower: Try WP:RX. Another editor may have access to the issue you are looking for. RudolfRed (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I had no idea we had anything like that on the Wikipedia. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 04:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the closest thing to an extant high seas road, pier or railroad?

Maybe the Chunnel? If the Dover Strait was a little wider the middle would be outside the 12 mile limit. Could countries extend their territory just by building a really long bridge, tunnel or pier with the border in the middle though presumably that'd be only for the actual structure they couldn't claim the air, earth or water below, above or to the side that way? Or would the structure be international waters in the middle but that would make carjacking piracy triable in admiralty courts? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bridge, itself, is a structure. Structures are not sovereign territory. For example, an oil rig in the ocean does not extend sovereign territory. Normally, the exclusive economic zone is considered to be 200 miles from land. So, you would, in theory, need to extend a bridge more than 200 miles to claim an area outsize the existing EEZ. That is a good four times the length of existing long sea bridges. Related, you will find attempts of people finding a structure in the sea, like an abandoned oil rig, and trying to claim it as sovereign territory. That has not worked. So, if a country were to take some structure out in the ocean and claim it is part of their sovereign territory, giving them 200 miles of EEZ around it, it would likely be refuted by other countries. Further related, what if you build land far out into your EEZ or even beyond? As an example, China has been doing that. There are disputes that the islands they are creating are not official and should not be considered sovereign land with a 200 mile EEZ. Why? That overlaps neighboring countries. As you dig into this, you find that silly arguments between countries are really about owning the ocean, which can be drilled for oil or other valuables and which can be used as a shipping corridor. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Nine-dash line for what 12.116.29.106 is referring to. The prevailing version of international law (see United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) is that "rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf" (though they can have a standard territorial sea of 12 nautical miles). Artificially expanding the land area of a "rock" and then using the result to claim a 200-mile EEZ would be extremely controversial at best; an international tribunal did not look favorably on similar Chinese activities as part of its ruling in the South China Sea Arbitration. AnonMoos (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How small can cause an EEZ line most nations recognize? Would U Thant Island count if it wasn't in internal waters or enlarged in the future? North Brother Island which confined many contagious people, Typhoid Mary for decades? Ellis Island which has a pretty big building and a bridge to Jersey City? What counts as human habitation? A naked survivalist would have to be able to live indefinitely in complete autarky if he arrived the right season or almost everything has to be imported for even one human to live even freshwater, and poop exported, all at great cost? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Island is in United States internal waters, so an EEZ is irrelevant. Several islands in the South China Sea that might be considered rocks under traditional legal interpretations now have a permanent military or coast guard presence, as do the Liancourt Rocks... AnonMoos (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If God put it 1 mile off Cape Hatteras, Cape Agulhas or Cape Horn it would affect the EEZ edge location if it was adjudged big enough right? Most of Ellis Island is landfill too, as is Nut Island and U Thant Island. Also if another Surtsey formed but in water no one claimed EEZ or otherwise could it become a relatively lawless land in no country? If more than the population of the lowest full member moves in would the UN make them a full member if they wanted? Could the first country that settles it claim it? Could militaries fight for the right to own it and colonize with assault rifles, grenades etc without annoying inviolability of a country sticklers? What if it was a large artificial dump of soil? If a billionaire can dump enough soil to build on can he make his own absolute monarchy or country-less island of blackjack and (non-pirate non-slave) hookers? Not what I'd spend it on but this would appeal some if they had $100 billion. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding an island one mile off the coast is not really the issue, since that would expand the territorial waters or EEZ by a small fractional amount. Expanding a rock not near any coast, putting a military presence on it, and then drawing a 200-mile EEZ circle around it is the real point of contention. Gambling ships stationed outside national waters were popular during the 1930s, but don't really exist near the U.S. now. You're missing the element of Libertarian politics; for at least 50 years some Libertarians have dreamed of setting up a laissez-faire paradise; one effort was the Minerva Reefs (see Republic of Minerva). These days the Libertarians mostly seem to be into "seasteading"... AnonMoos (talk) 09:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay apparently the 13th mile is not the high seas and it seems like immigration and other customs laws can be enforced till the 24th mile it's not just for arresting people that cross the line then cross back before they can't be touched. It seems like a yacht registered in one of those flags of convenience would be allowed to unobtrusively hang out or watch an eclipse in mile 24 to 200 without polluting, interfering with radio reception or licensing in the country and not be considered entering the country for customs purposes but the article isn't clear. But they couldn't extract like fishing, or drilling for oil. And a few high seas crimes are arrestable by anyone like piracy and slaving, while high seas murder would be arrestable by the nominal flag state and possibly also the countries of ship, victim or murderer? If you look on Open Street Map the line where the country and subnational state ends is marked though Wikipedia's article seems to give full immigration powers till 24 nautical miles. The article also mentions a right of innocent passage (a ship shortening an A to B up to as much as they can without running aground or touching baseline, without spending excessive time in country). Which seems to contradict this being part of the country for customs purposes. Anyway if a country built a 24.01 nautical mile pier or a 48.01 nautical mile bridge could anyone just go to the sidewalk of the 0.01 miles without crossing the inner EEZ border and hang out? But no fishing. And if someone gets out of their car in the middle and robs another car would they have to be tried for piracy in maritime court? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell the longest span over open ocean is the Donghai Bridge in Shanghai, about 30 km. But I don't know how interesting the sea gets under these bridges such that you could it the "high seas". But for example, the Seven Mile Bridge in southern Florida USA has comparatively shorter open-water spans, but it is designed to withstand hurricanes on the ocean. Of course neither gets into international waters, even if you had a 12-mile limit. (I imagine a big part of the trick to do that in future would be for countries on either end to agree to build a connecting bridge in the first place, absent some open borders treaty as the EU has.) SamuelRiv (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really the same, but the 12-mile Crimean Bridge is intended to cement the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Alansplodge (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]