Miscellaneous desk
< September 24	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 26 >

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.

September 25

Republic of Vietnam,January 1973. Reduction of Criteria for the award of The Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal.

I am searching for, a copy of, and ref number of a, Directive, a Decree, or a 'memorandum, issued by the Armed Forces of the Republic of Vietnam, or the Government of the Republic of Vietnam, on 28th of January 1973, to 'Allied/Australian Forces' serving in Vietnam during that time. I have already seen a document issued to the United States Forces, but this does not relate to 'Australian/Allied' forces! The datal restriction of January 1973- March 1973 is mentioned as the 'period' of which I believe is only for US Forces. It is not relevant I believe, for the Allies/Australian Forces! (I am 'not' searching for the, USA, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 32 Vol 3, Title section 578.129) the'Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal', although, this question relates to this, 'the Reduction of Criteria' to 60 days for the awarding to servicemen of the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal'!

I believe that there 'exists' an 'Original' document from the South Vietnamese, to which the Allies Australian Forces, (Australian Government, or Australian Embassy in Saigon, or the Australian Armed Forces, would have been sent regarding the 'reduced' criteria of 60 days for awarding of the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal. (The previous Criteria was 181 days in country before a Servicemen in the Australian Forces could be awarded this Medal!) I have searched the Internet and requested from our Government and other relevant Gov't Departments, Archives, and the Australian War Memorial, to no avail. Even through freedom of information.

This request for information is for my use in an appeal to prove that as a National Serviceman in the Australian Army, in Vietnam in 1969. I believe that I should be entitled to this award from the South Vietnamese Government of the day, I served 127 days on Active Service with an Infantry Battalion in 1969.

There are approx 5,000 Australian Servicemen, 'not entitled' to this award from the South Vietnamese Government because, through no fault of their own, were returned to Australia in under the then required 181 day criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasho 2 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Removed duplicate, Rojomoke (talk) 04:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I couldn't see anything, but I doubt that the contents of 50 year-old diplomatic dispatches are likely to end up on the internet. I take it that you've seen the Report of the Inquiry into Eligibility for the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal and Report of the Inquiry into the feasibility of amending the eligibility criteria for the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal and that the Australian Government has accepted the last report in its entirety? [1] Good luck with your search, but I don't think you stand much chance of changing their minds. I expect you know that already. Alansplodge (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Public bodies in the uk

I've read the Wikipedia articles but it doesn't really make it clear. In the uk, what is the difference between a ministerial department, an executive agency, a non ministerial public body, a non departmental public body, and a public corporation? In addition, why are there publicly funded corporations which are statutory and non statutory?

And which group do organisations like the NHS, emergency services, state schools and universities, public research institutes, the BBC, channel 4 and Network Rail sit in? These all don't seem to fall under any of them yet all of them are clearly not private companies with private investors since they are all on the whole funded by the taxpayer. 46.233.112.29 (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The British system was never formally designed or structured - it has just grown gradually over a fairly long period of time. THat has led to a very wide, and overlapping, set of names. I doubt it would be possible to produce a completely clear set of definitions which distinguished between them all. Wymspen (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something in the articles British government departments, executive agency, non-departmental public body, state-owned_enterprise#United_Kingdom, National Health Service, BBC, Channel 4 or Network Rail you don't get? Feel free to come back to us with specific questions. Fgf10 (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they don't answer my questions and some of those articles contradict each other. 46.233.116.150 (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which questions do they not answer? Can you be specific? Fgf10 (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These things are a confounded mess, partly because British people don't really care about these kinds of things, partly because we've been doing them for so very long and partly because governments love to mess with the bloody things every five minutes.

In the case of the NHS, you'll save some time by starting at NHS England (or the equivalent body for whichever part of the UK you're interested in). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grover Cleveland numbering

Who was it (i.e., what agency, organization or individual) that officially decided that Grover Cleveland should be counted as both the 22nd and 24th U.S. president, instead of just the 22nd? And when was the decision made? Either would have been logical, just wondering if there is some official listing, such as the National Archives or the White House, etc. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 15:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If he was only counted as 22nd, then we would have the oddity of the 22nd president having served after the 23rd. StuRat (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He was both the 22nd and 24th; the 23rd, Benjamin Harrison, served between Cleveland's 2 terms. Arthur, the 21st, came before Cleveland's first term. McKinley, the 25th, came after Cleveland's second term. Georgia guy (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did any participant not already know that? —Tamfang (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That "oddity" applied for 57 years, from 1893 until 1950, and it didn't seem to cause a problem. Then LDRs (latter-day revisionists) came along and changed things, but not for the better. (Mind you, 1950 was, in all other important respects, a wonderful year for the world.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harry S. Truman wanted to adopt the more logical numbering system, but he was overruled. It would be interesting to find what the "official records" referred to on that page actually are. Tevildo (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The decision that Cleveland was "22nd and 24th" was made by the State Department in 1950. See at the bottom of this page.

Of countries that have been around for a while, I think the US is unusual in that they've only once had an elected leader serve non-consecutive terms. Here in Canada we don't usually speak of prime minister by number, but if we do, Justin Trudeau is the 23rd. If we numbered them the same way the US numbers presidents, he'd be the 28th. Similarly in the UK, Theresa May is the 54th person, counting from Robert Walpole, to hold the position, but in US-style numbering she'd be the 76th. --69.159.61.230 (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most presidents who don't get re-elected are seen as having been to some extent repudiated, hence the failure of Jimmy Carter or GHWB to run for re-election. Cleveland was very popular, and only lost due to fraud by his opponent, and actually won the popular vote. See United States presidential election, 1888. μηδείς (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland was kind of a different case, as he got something like 90,000 more popular votes than Harrison, but he failed to win the electoral vote. United States presidential election, 1888. Carter and Bush 41 ran for re-election (i.e. for a second term) and lost, and then they decided to do other things. TR, of course, ran for a third term, and had the Republican Party not insisted on sticking with Taft, he could have been the next Grover Cleveland, at least in this narrow sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly in Australia. Malcolm Turnbull is the 29th PM, but in US-style numbering would be the 35th. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed here before, probably more than once. The numbers essentially refer to administrations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To that, there are some reference works (not all) which count every time a president is sworn in as a new administration. For example, those sources list Lincoln's first administration lasting 4 years and his second administration lasting 5 weeks, followed by the administration of Andrew Johnson. Semantics. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 03:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Him having 2 different numbers does make it seem like he has an alter-ego, like, say, Grover and Super Grover. StuRat (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Maybe there was an antipresident. --ColinFine (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was no fraud in the elections of Cleveland or Harrison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.77.218 (talk)

I did actually read the relevant articles, and I remember the allegations from US History II. Harrison and Cleveland split these four states, with Harrison winning by means of notoriously fraudulent balloting in New York and Indiana. and Blocks of Five μηδείς (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had removed my comment and the troll put it back. Feel free to delete it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. At this point it's clear enough what's going on. I removed your signature from the first post--the troll owns it now.μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to compare Prime Ministers in parliamentary systems, it should be with Speakers of the House. US congressman are elected every two years, and the majority party (normally) elects the Speaker, who controls the business of the House. His or her role is purely legislative, although he is second in the line of succession for the presidency, if the President and Vice-President are unable to serve. (The president, not the speaker, holds the powers of head of state and commander in chief.) Six people have served non-consecutive terms as speaker, Sam Rayburn served three non-consecutive terms as Democrat from Texas, with a Massachusetts Republican serving before and after his second term, as the political winds shifted. Speakers can also be removed with the equivalent of a vote of no confidence. Recently, Newt Gingrich, Dennis Hastert, and John Boehner have resigned when faced with the possibility of being voted out during the middle of a two-year term. μηδείς (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]