Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 November 26

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.

November 26

Presidential laws

For the past month there has been a lot in the news about how the ACA roll-out has "fumbled." My question is, in US history, has there ever been any other president that had a similar experience?99.48.64.75 (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to know of any president that didn't experience a "fumble" or two. Like, for example, when Bush said "Mission accomplished!" in Iraq. Or when Jimmy Carter allowed the much-hated Shah of Iran into the US for medical treatment, triggering events that reverberate to this day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Bush never actually said "Mission accomplished!", kind of like people being shocked that in fact Palin never said "I can see Russia from my house". ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

However, he freely chose to pose in front of a huge banner with the words "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" on it while wearing faux-military attire... AnonMoos (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Google Image [bush mission accomplished photo] and many examples turn up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

He was wearing a business suit in the photo - and the military gear was real not faux as he flew in on a surveillance jet hours earlier, a move also criticized. See Mission Accomplished speech - WHAAOE. Rmhermen (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

And JFK promised to support the Bay of Pigs invasion, but didn't get the job done, simultaneously pissing off Cuban exiles, Fidel Castro, and the Kruschev, leading to the Cuban Missile Crisis and almost causing WW3. I think that eclipses any "fumble", before or since. StuRat (talk) 06:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Carter and Operation Eagle Claw. Sjö (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bay of Pigs and Operation Eagle Claw were disasters for the US. Obamacare is just a website with some problems. Not even close to being in the same league with those other things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bay of Pigs is probably the most notorious fumble of all, because it took place only three months after JFK was inaugurated and cast a pall over his whole presidency. Here is a list of some other notorious ones, though:

• • • Bush 2: Katrina; Iraq invasion
    • Clinton: failed health care initiative; Somalia intervention
    • Bush 1: "Read my lips, no new taxes"
    • Reagan: Iran-Contra
    • Carter: failed Iran hostage rescue
    • Ford: nothing major comes to mind; some might say the Nixon pardon but I don't see that as a fumble
    • Nixon: Doh!
    • Johnson: Vietnam escalation

Looie496 (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Ford: "WIN - Whip Inflation Now". Not really a fumble, more like an incomplete pass. And JFK started the wheels in motion that led to the Vietnam conflict. People tend to forget that fact. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, hardly. The Vietnam conflict had been going on for decades before JFK ever became President. What he may have done is start the American involvement in the Vietnam conflict. Also, World War II started well before 7 December 1941. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the American conflict in Vietnam. JFK was a hawk. He laid this gauntlet down in his inaugural address: "We will go anywhere, pay any price..." etc. He created the Green Berets. Obviously, LBJ made it much worse. But they were on the same ideological page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

to Louie496:

• • • Bush 2: Failure to attend on the ground Katrina, TAARP, QE1, agree on Iraq
    • Clinton: The Monica Lewinsky year long drama, DOMA, Hillarycare attempt, Don't ask Don't Tell, NAFTA
    • Bush 1: agreed with your assessment, and in retrospect Desert Shield & Storm.
    • Reagan: Amnesty, Beruit Marine barracks bombing
    • Carter: abandoning the Shah well before the hostage crisis; Stagflation; high interest rates, more OPEC gas lines
    • Ford: USS Pueblo, Fall of Saigon, some might say his Pardon
    • Nixon: Trusting John Dean, thinking John Siricia was impartial, firing Archibald Cox and not firing Jaworski, OPEC gas lines
    • Johnson: USS Liberty, Tonkin Gulf lies, full scale social security IOUs, Warren Commission signoff
    • Kennedy: Failure to participate or attend the March on Washington, agreed with Bay of Pigs (mainly aircover)
      • Just some of my initial thoughts. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 11:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no politician in a democratic country whose career does not involve significant controversy. Abraham Lincoln's election managed to provoke a war with 600,000 deaths and his policies were hated by all sides: "Radical Republicans demanded harsher treatment of the South, War Democrats desired more compromise, Copperheads despised him, and irreconcilable secessionists plotted his death." And this is for a president considered one of the greatest of all time. --Bowlhover (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I recall a history teacher telling us, "If Lincoln was such a great leader, how come it took him so long to find General Grant?" The south, of course, did not have to secede, they chose to - because Lincoln's recent predecessors did absolutely nothing to try and deal with the growing divide, and Lincoln got stuck with it. And his assassination had the unanticipated (by Booth, anyway) effect of just making things much tougher on the south in the short run. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

lol, if I had that history teacher I would've replied: 'for the same reason it took Truman so long to find Matthew Ridgway after he almost started a war with General MacArthur', didn't Rodney Dangerfield say something like that to 'Professor' Kinnison? ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 11:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly true, although Truman had very little to do with the Civil War. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't worry about that, that's the magic of history class everything is in play, as I'm sure Truman thought of Lincoln's troubles when he had to remove a potential political rival. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 01:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs -- Lincoln's unacceptability to the South had nothing to do with any laws he was likely to pass. It had a whole lot more to do with the fact that many southerners found it unacceptable that with the inauguration of Lincoln, southerners and their friendly supporters in the North would no longer dominate the U.S. federal government (occupying the Presidency and a majority of the Senate and Supreme court, leaving the House as the the only branch of government which was sometimes not dominated by pro-Southern interests), as they had done during the 1852-1860 period... AnonMoos (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. They had gotten spoiled by Lincoln's worthless predecessors. With a northern abolitionist in the White House, the game was up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Bowlhover, there's one exception: you can die (or otherwise stop serving) soon after taking prominent office. As far as I know, William Henry Harrison's time as US President didn't provoke substantial controversy, as the only substantial controversy related to him came after his death: is Mr Tyler the President, or is he just the Acting President for the next 3-11/12 years? For practical purposes, Tyler's response settled the controversy, but legal ambiguity was only removed in the 1960s. Meanwhile, although he lived out his entire term in office, I doubt that David Curson's time as a U.S. Representative saw much controversy around his actions. Nyttend (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Ambassador Berlusconi

Apparently, Vladimir Putin intends to appoint Silvio Berlusconi as Russia's ambassador to Vatican Ciy, thereby giving him diplomatic immunity, and protecting him from prosecution in the Italian courts.

• I assume that DI normally only applies in the country to which the diplomat is accredited, so is there a specific agreement between Italy and the Vatican that the diplomats of one are covered in the other?
• Would the Italian government get any say in whether an individual was acceptable?
• Why wouldn't the Vatican just refuse the appointment? Would they be more worried about offending Russia than Italy? (I know, this calls for speculation so feel free to ignore this part). Rojomoke (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't heard this story, but it reminds me of the case of Julian Assange, where people asked questions like "why doesn't Ecuador make him a diplomat, so he'll have diplomatic immunity and be able to leave the Embassy freely?" The answer to that is that diplomats have to be accepted be the host country, and can't just be appointed at will. As you say, it's getting speculative, but the Vatican would certainly be able to refuse to give him DI, and that seems a likely scenario given that he's not a bona fide diplomat. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Most people I know do not regard the Daily Mail as a reliable source for anything. --ColinFine (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

One interesting thing about the footage from Putin's recent trip was seeing him cross himself at some point. When's the last time a Russian or Soviet leader was seen crossing himself? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Russia has always been a highly deeply religious society. The Soviets did what they could to stamp it out, but they've been gone for a generation now (how time flies). Yeltsin had some hangovers from his time as a Soviet official, so it's not surprising he wasn't given to overt displays of religiosity. But from Vladimir Putin: Putin regularly attends the most important services of the Russian Orthodox Church on the main Orthodox Christian holidays. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure diplomatic immunity doesn't work that way. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, even in the extremely unlikely case Berlusconi were to receive agreement from the Pope as Russian ambassador to the Vatican, his immunity would only apply to that state. It would not cover Italy or any actions performed in his original country before his diplomatic appointment. Now, his lawyers could argue he was only in Italy because he is in transit to his diplomatic post and therefore his immunity still applies (an exception covered in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations), but that doesn't normally work in your country of citizenship. So he would also have to renounce his Italian citizenship. But most countries won't let one of their citizens renounce if it is for the sole purpose of escaping justice. But then, this is Italy, and Berlusconi has managed to wiggle out of all sorts of legal jams before this. And he has no shame. --Xuxl (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It worth remembering we aren't talking about a typical third country situation here in more ways than Berlusconi being an Italy citizen. It's true under normal situations, a diplomat only has diplomatic immunity in a third country if they are in transit [1].

However we are talking about Italy and the Vatican here. It's unlikely the situation is so simple, since the tiny size and nature of the Vatican means it's difficult for diplomats to function if they don't regularly go to Italy for purposes other than simply transit (and they will always need to go through Italy for transit). For example, even simply things like shopping may require a trip to Italy since I'm not totally sure the Vatican shops will have everything a diplomat wants. Not to mention things like schooling for children, entertainment etc. Are we even sure most diplomats live in the Vatican?

This would likely be resolved by the agreements between Italy and the Vatican. Either the Italy will need to be consulted and agree to grant diplomatic immunity to putative Vatican diplomats inside Italy as well, or they will have agreed to automatically grant it.

A quick search about the concordat of Lateran Treaty governing relations between the Vatican and Italy finds [2] which shows article 12 (which doesn't seem have been modified by the amendments [3]) which seems to be suggest it's mostly the later. I didn't check that carefully and probably wouldn't understand it well enough anyway, but I would have thought there is still some what Italy can reject/expel diplomats appointed to the Vatican. Otherwise theoretically a diplomat could regularly go on murderous rampages in Italy and provided the Vatican agrees to keep them Italy couldn't do anything. But perhaps Italy made the assumption the Vatican wouldn't do that or they will unilaterally reject the treaty if this happens.

There is of course still the fact Italy is not really a simple third country for Berlusconi. But on the other hand, I'm not sure this makes a difference. The reason why this is normally relevant is because a diplomat doesn't of course have diplomatic immunity, unless granted by local law for some reason, in his home country. But what we're actually talking about here is the home country is Russia who appoint a diplomat to the Vatican. And presuming the Vatican accept that diplomat, Italy have agreed to extend diplomatic immunity to said diplomat (I presume backed up by local law). In other words, the fact that Berlusconi is a citizen of Italy may be largely an aside unless there is something in the treaty which I didn't notice or the law about it not applying to Italian citizens.

Of course I'm not saying this will happen. I do agree with others it seems unlikely the Vatican will accept (beyond the effects on their relationship with Italy, would they really want Berlusconi as a diplomat anyway?) It seems unlikely Russia will even try, despite the dominance of Putin, they aren't exactly North Korea. Not to mention it'll hardly be the first time a politician or Putin himself for that matter said something in jest they had no intention of doing.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Mrs. James Brown claimed diplomatic immunity from a traffic ticket because she was married to "The Ambassador of Soul". - [4] RNealK (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

General citing style used in the hard sciences

Is it generally the case that MLA is used in journals of biology, chemistry, and physics? 75.75.42.89 (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Most journals have their own specific style that you can read about on the journal's "information for authors" section. For example, here is Nature's description of how to write references, and you'll see a link to an example last page where they show what the formatted refs should look like. There is no explicit mention of a writing style, and I have not seen such in any of the journals I have submitted to. Most journals' referencing guidelines more or less resemble MLA or APA citation styles. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Maldives Greater India

Is Maldives considered to be part of Greater India? The description of the map on the article Greater India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.45 (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The terminology is unclear to me, but have a look at the article Indian subcontinent, where (in the first paragraph under "definition") there are three references for the Maldives sometimes being considered part of a greater region that includes India - whether this matches the definition of Greater India I'm not sure. 184.147.136.249 (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Maldives is threatened by rising sea levels caused by global warming. Maldives will soon be no more.
Sleigh (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)