Miscellaneous desk
< August 27	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 29 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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 28

Is this illegal in the United States?

Is it illegal for a woman/mother to intentionally cause the death, birth defect, or injury (but one that is easily preventable) of her infant or unborn child? I'm thinking of cases like the mother's smoking (i.e. starting smoking because of the pregnancy), drinking alcohol (to induce fetal alcohol syndrome), taking drugs (especially illegal drugs) without consultation with a physician, shaking the baby (to induce shaken baby syndrome), infanticide, abortion, intentionally eating junk food and avoiding folic acid during pregnancy, etc. Sneazy (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infanticide is certainly illegal. Doesn't matter if you're the mother. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most related article on this is Fetal rights. There are sections on US Federal law and "example cases". Many fetal rights laws were intended to punish people who cause harm to someone else's unborn child, although they have been used against the mother as well. In at least one of the example cases in the United States, a state sought punishment against a mother under a law that was not written for unborn children at all, which makes it difficult to state whether something is illegal. In any event, the specific law, both statutory and case law, vary from state to state. Here you'll find more examples of mothers being charged with unintentionally killing or harming their unborn children. Women charged with such crimes are in general impoverished and cannot afford a robust legal defense, nor do they make for the most sympathetic defendants, and so few of these cases receive effective appeals that may provide some final decision on legality. But it would certainly be accurate to say that very many prosecutors in the United States believe it is a crime to cause death or injury to one's own unborn child. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been cases in which late-term mothers, often incarcerated, have been enjoined from drug/alcohol consumption on behalf of the child. There are also "wrongful birth" and "wrongful life" suits where civil claims have been made against parties seen as responsible for birth defects. μηδείς (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an Indiana case from 2011 where a woman was charged after drinking poison to cause the death of her unborn child: [1]. OldTimeNESter (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page has a rundown of state laws: [2] Rmhermen (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raw data of association football games

I am looking for freely available raw data of association football, most preferably long-term data of all games played in a league (specific country or Champions League) or World Cup. The data need to contain typical information of match reports incl. goal scorers. --129.132.225.23 (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This site: [3] seems to have league results tables back to the 1800's. I haven't gone through all of it, but I'd start there. --Jayron32 14:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting site. However, I was not able to find any raw data of games.
What I mean is match reports like: 23rd min: Player_A 0:1; 44th min: Player_B 1:1; 68th min: Player_A 2:1 (own goal); 92nd min: Player_C 2:2. --129.132.225.23 (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a job for RSSSF [4]. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There do not seem to be compilations with raw data on match reports, do they? 188.154.129.78 (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook account

Imagine I have a facebook account (which I clearly don't) I want to send an invitation to someone whose account is block or hide (don't know the term for when people don't want to share their account with anyone but their friends), how do I do that? (send the invitation or the request for adding me as a friend) Miss Bono^[zootalk] 14:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are blocked by that user you cannot see them on Facebook at all. You cannot search for them, nor can you add them as your friend. If their data is private and only visible to friends, you will have the option to send a friend request to them. If that user accepts, you will then be able to see their statues, photos etc. 63.95.64.254 (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, that's the word I was looking for private. Yep, the person keep private the data of the account (I just can see the name or something). Thanks... :) Miss Bono^[zootalk] 15:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it's still this way, but when I left, if you had a private profile and sent a friend request (or any message) to someone, they could see your profile (I think for a month), regardless of whether they accepted the friend request. A way for them to verify further who you are, I guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything confirming or denying that rule still exists (at least not after a quick check). So don't take it as gospel. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Camping in NYC

Is there any place where people who lives in NYC can go camping? Miss Bono^[zootalk] 16:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some googling indicates that the Black Bear Campground in Florida, Orange County, New York claims to be the "nearest full-service campground to New York City", but that's still a considerable distance. See [5]. Looking at the New York State Parks website, the nearest state park with camping to NYC is Sebago State Park, see [6], near Lake Sebago, which is near to the town of Florida above. So both of those appear to be the nearest to NYC. --Jayron32 16:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's camping in the city (as opposed to just 'near' it) that you want, then our Floyd Bennett Field article says that it is "the only public campground maintained by the National Park Service that is within the limits of an American city, and the only legal campground in New York City." However, it also says that it is "classified as primitive – with only portable toilets, and no electricity provided." - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant a quiet place, where a celebrity can spend the whole day with his family without being bothered. It doesn't have to be in the city, just a comfortable place. Miss Bono^[zootalk] 17:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are places nearish to New York City where celebrities are known to be semi-anonymous, if only because there are only celebrities and the very rich that live there. For example, The Hamptons. --Jayron32 17:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, super. I will read the article and will come back sooner for another related question :P I know there will be :). Thanks! Miss Bono^[zootalk] 18:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Catskills and Adirondacks are where New Yorkers mainly go if they want to get out into the wilderness. Looie496 (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are not quite luxury accomodations, but there are colonies of homeless camping illegally in Pelham Bay Park and there have been stories of people living in caves in Central Park including a teenage girl, Susie Grunfelt, who did so for a month and a middle-aged man who did so for about a decade in the 90's--although I can't find a reference for him. μηδείς (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian views

I'm struggling to find any reliable guide to the views of the people of Syria on possible outside intervention. Could you direct me to any polls, Syrian groups with declared views, or any other fairly reliable guide to the general views of Syrians themselves. Basically, I'm trying to work out whether few, many, or most Syrians are in favour of some intervention from foreign countries, and what sort of intervention they would want if so.

Thank you for providing sources, not opinions. 86.163.2.116 (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Syrian has an opinions page. I'm not clear on whether the writers are expats or still living in Syria. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

adding: ~~Poll: 70% Of Syrians Support Assad, Says NATO and~~ Analyzing the largest Syria crisis Facebook polls (Syrian facebook users). 184.147.119.141 (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first of those sources is most definitely not a reliable source. Another of their leading stories currently asserts Ungodly Sex & the Satanic Giants–Hiding In Plain Sight!. If you follow through to this report, you'll find it's not data from a "poll" at all, but the opinion of "a range of activists and independent organizations that were working in Syria". --Dweller (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks, I struck it. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you two for this serious attempt at an answer. The second link doesn't seem to have any dates on that I can see, and I don't have a Facebook account to check on the polls. How recently were they carried out, do you know? 86.163.2.116 (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose many people want to intervene there either. The only question at the moment is about some punishment attack to stop Assad thinking about using chemical weapons again, i.e. make such actions be a net negative to him militarily. And as to that I see the UN mission won't even check if the government forces did use chemical weapons only whether they were actual chemical weapons. Why they can't have a munitions expert determine the trajectories and take other evidence about that I don't know. Support or lack of it for intervention in Syria would be fairly irrelevant to that. Dmcq (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add your name to the list of reliable sources? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to point out that the answer to their question might be irrelevant to what they wanted it for. Dmcq (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why didn't you just say that, rather than the personal commentary/opinion that the OP asked not be provided? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to remove my and your contributions then feel free to do so. I's no skin off my teeth if they have asked to not be advised they may be wasting their time. Dmcq (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this Q can be answered. That is, during a civil war, you aren't going to find the fully-inclusive, unbiased, scientific polls you are looking for. I suppose you could do a poll among refugees who've left the nation, but they presumably would have a pro-intervention bias. StuRat (talk) 05:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the real answer is that the average Syrian citizen would prefer that all the warriors would just go away and never come back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the OP's request for sources, not opinions? --Viennese Waltz 13:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nanny speaketh yet again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name of diamond shape to ward off witches

I was told many years ago that the " Diamond Shaped " Piece of wood above a Shed Door was to ward off Witches ? and someone did name it , but ive searched the Internet with no luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.230.126.0 (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of Hex signs? Though, usually they are many diamonds assembled in a star shape. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think 151 is referring to the diamond-shaped bit of wood you can see above the door in this image, for instance. It certainly seems to be a feature common to many sheds, and it is fairly plausible to me that it could originally have been designed to ward off witches or evil spirits, but I can find absolutely nothing written about it. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I always assumed those were the knobs that would let you access the Pylon's interdimensional gateway. μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The technical term is a ridge end cap, incidentally. They come in various shapes - I don't know why diamonds are particularly prevalent. Tevildo (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My recollection, and I can't find anything reliable to verify it at the moment, is that it's so that the devil (or witches, perhaps) can't sit on the end of the roof. There seems to be a forum discussion at [7] .Straightontillmorning (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)It looks like a decoration to hide and/or protect the joint where the front roof timbers meet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]