Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 August 29

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.

August 29

Unique Connections Between `Revelation` and Another Author's Corpus

What are some of the themes or expressions appearing in only two “places” in the Christian New Testament — the first one being the Book of Revelation, and the second being another author's corpus (including John, as well as Barnabas and Clement) ?

• For instance, the expression “first [raised] from the dead” is found only in Paul and Revelation (Acts 26:23; 1 Corinthians 15:20; Colossians 1:18; Revelation 1:5).
• Likewise, the identification of Christ as the Word of God appears only in John and Revelation (John 1:1, 1:14; 1 John 1:1, 5:7; Revelation 19:13).
• The author of Revelation, like Paul before him, writes to exactly seven churches or cities.

— 82.77.34.212 (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The seven churches is debatable. If you include the Pastoral epistles in Paul's writing, then you get an 8th church since Titus was a leader of the church in Crete. See Epistle to Titus. --Jayron32 11:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I do, and their intended recipients were indeed early church leaders, but they are not formally addressed to churches. — 79.113.235.75 (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The Book of Life is mentioned in the New Testament only by Paul (Philippians 4:3) and in the Book of Revelation (3:5, 13:8, 17:8, 20:12, 20:15, 21:27 and 22:19), although the term predates the New Testament and is similar to "book of the living" in Psalm 69:28.

"Babylon" as a metaphor for Rome (which is a common, but not universal interpretation) occurs only in 1 Peter 5:13 and Revelation (14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2, 18:10 and 18:21). - Lindert (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused by your reference to Barnabas and Clement, since they're not in the New Testament; are you also interested in the Apostolic Fathers? Also remember that the authorship of the Apocalypse is disputed, with some holding that the author is the same John as the author of the Gospel and the epistles. Nyttend backup (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

(1). They are not now, but they were once, at least in certain regions. (2). No, only these two. (3). Which is why I wrote including John. — 82.77.34.212 (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Border control and criminal record

How can the customs officer at the border know about the foreign criminal record of a passenger? Is there an international criminal records' DB? Maybe I'm watching too much Border Security: Australia's Front Line. Do governments report their own citizens to all other governments?Hofhof (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Some do and some don't. There are international police agencies such as Interpol which maintain and share databases of those with criminal records, but not all countries participate in the program. In most cases, the main background check is performed when the traveler requests a visa. The destination country (issuing the visa) will query the police of the country of origin and ask if the traveler has a criminal record before a visa is granted. Most law enforcement agencies around the world cooperate and are willing to answer such requests... assuming theykeep proper records. So a lot depends on the country of origin. Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Read the official Border Guards' Manual [1], [2] and our article Schengen Information System. 92.8.219.206 (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

as I'm fairly sure most of what you suggest is not the case. Many countries do not routinely share ordinary crominal records. While most of these do not deal specifically with sharing relating to immigration officials (customs officials are generally less interested in criminal records) they seem to make it clear such sharing is often limited [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. If you check these, you will see that some of these even deal with the EU or Australia-New Zealand. (One deals with Canada-US but it seems that's one of the few cases where the sharing is fairly advanced. Perhaps not surprising since the info already send highly public in the US.) Note that privacy limitations mean that law enforcement agencies cannot necessarily just share the information unless there are laws or policies which specifically allow it. Getting a waiver from the person who's record it is may help, but not necessarily in such a context. There are additional databases related to terrorism etc, these are generally more routinely shared although I think events in the EU have shown even there it can get complicated. I do not believe there are any general criminal record shared databases as part of Interpol. Law enforcement agencies can issue notices to tell another country to look out for a person, and similar things, but that's quite different from general criminal record sharing. Interpol and other international cooperation may allow specific criminals or suspected criminals to be targeted but they don't mean the immigration officials are going to know about a conviction for assault or low level stuff offence. See also this discussion at StackExchange where someone claims similar things [10]. [11] may also be of interest as it claims the EU in the past specifically forbade the sharing of criminal records with authorities of countries outside the EU. Note that if you apply for certain visa's in Australia or New Zealand, and from what I read also in other places, you will often be required to specifically ask the police (or whoever) to carry out and provide a criminal record check to immigration officials, for any country you've lived in for a significant period of time. There is generally no exemption for close countries and you are the one that has to ask. Nil Einne (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

P.S. It's been a while since I've watched Border Security Australia but I'm not sure why it would lead the OP to believe that criminal records are shared. My memory of what I saw is that it demonstrated (along with Border Patrol and other shows) that very often the immigration officials did not know of any criminal records, but instead either relied on the person accurately answering the question, or managed to catch the person out somehow. I think sometimes they also use general internet searching if they have a reason to. Nil Einne (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

P.P.S. One thing to remember about such shows, as with any show, is they don't generally show the routine, mundane, boring everday case for obvious reasons. Even if someone with a minor criminal records is allowed in because they lied on the entry form, while this may be slightly interesting if no one knows of it, then the person may just have been a routine everyday entry where there was nothing to show.

Also I should clarify my point about customs officials. Customs officials do obviously work with immigration ones, depending on the country sometimes they even come from the same agency but regardless they have a shared duty to try and stop any violations. So if during customs screening you mention you spent time in prison, or say something else to suggest you may have a criminal record or have documents, emails, SMS or other messages on your phone or computer etc which suggest so, this is something they look out for since it's something of interest to immigration. Likewise customs officials will specifically keep an eye and ear out and also question you in such a way that you may inadvertedly mention details you've hidden relating to other possible violations, e.g. any information like work records or again documents or emails, SMS or other messages suggesting you plan to work when all you have is a tourist visa. They may question you about what they find as part of the 'intelligence' process. But it will be the immigration ones who ultimately deal with questions over your eligibility to enter or stay in the country, not customs ones and yes it doesn't matter if you've already been granted a visa if new information is found.

Customs officials will be personally interested in criminal records which relate to their work. So for example if you do have a conviction for drug offending, or for smuggling, or for child sex offending, this is something which will interest them to aide targeting their searches. If you have disclosed a criminal record and been allowed in anyway (which is possible for the drug offending or smuggling depending on the length of time since the sentence etc but probably difficult for child sex offending) this information would likely be shared between the immigration officials and customs ones for this purpose. Note that such cases generally involves applying for a visa beforehand as people with criminal records are frequently not eligible for visa free entry or visas on arrival. Although if you watch such shows you probably know if it's a really minor record and you do disclose it on the entry form and it's your first time, you may be granted a visa at the border if you're really lucky.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

For the Interpol thing see this link which seems to confirm the databases are for when countries are asking for help [12]. They aren't for when someone was never a fugitive, was convicted of assault and has now been released to give a random example. Nil Einne (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Also the StackExchange although it doesn't have sources does mention the same thing about Interpol. And also suggests the US and Canada also generally require you to provide your criminal records when applying for a visa rather than the officials getting it themselves. I wouldn't be completely surprised if this applies even in cases when it's between the US and Canada despite the information sharing although the sharing does mean if you fail to disclose it there's a fair chance you'll be caught at the border. Here's a source for the NZ requirements [13] and this is the Australian one [14]. I was a bit ambigious in my comment above because I wasn't sure if some countries require the record be sent directly to the immigration officials to avoid tampering but it seems both of these at least don't require that. You receive it and furnish it. I should mention these pages also make clear that police certificate is about more than just criminal record. You're often required to have something vaguely called 'good character' for entry or particularly for a long term visa. So there is interest in things that a police certificate may have such as arrests, suspicion of involvement in crimes or being part of a criminal group, court cases without conviction, protection orders (restraining orders) against you which aren't part of your criminal record per se and so may not be shared even if there is criminal record sharing. You can see the arrival card for NZ here [15] and Australia here [16] and see they don't ask about such details only time spent in prison and previous deportations/refusal of entry, even if you may be technically required to have good character. Nil Einne (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I recall hearing an account of how they do a search for criminal records in a more disorganized nation. They do have a central DB, but don't have much confidence that local offences would make it into that DB. Therefore, they first question the person about where they were born, lived, worked, went to school, etc., then they ask the local police in those areas if they have any records for that person. If they can't confirm that the person was in the places they claimed, that would also be a red flag. Certainly time-consuming and prone to error, but better than nothing, I suppose. StuRat (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

10 year multiple-entry Chinese visa

In 2015, Australia introduced 10-year multiple entry visas for Chinese nationals[17][18]. What about the other direction? Can Australians apply for 10-year multiple entry Chinese visas?

I'm asking because:

1. These type of international visa agreements are reciprocal in many cases.

2. Americans and Canadians get this treatment, so I'm wondering whether Australians get the same thing as well.

I tried searching for various combinations of the keywords "10-year Chinese visa for Australians" but all I'm getting is the Chinese-nationals-entering-Australia case, not the other way around. Mũeller (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Speaking from my experience as an American, I'm guessing not. Unless you're planning on staying the rest of your life, most of them have time limits. The foreign teachers and I had to get ours renewed every year (which the school handled and never had any trouble with), and after five years we'd have to leave the country to get it renewed (one friend of mine would go to Hong Kong for that but she had some connections).

Here's the Chinese embassy in Australia's page on visas. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. That's slightly surprising then; usually it's the more prosperous nation that gets the upper hand in these kind of negotiations.

So if Australian can't get 10 year Chinese visas, then what's the maximum duration for which they can apply for? 5 years? 2 years? Mũeller (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Note the above sources seem to refer to a multiple entry visa for Chinese tourists to Australia valid for 10 years. I don't know how long you can stay in Australia with it, but I doubt it's even close to 10 years. It also mentions that the US, Canada and Singapore have similar agreements. These sources [19] [20] say US and Canadian citizens can get a multiple entry 10 year L visa (for tourists [21]) and in the case of US at least (not sure about Canadians) M (commercial and trade activities [22]) and Q1, Q2 and S2 (visiting or fostering familiy members or relatives in various situations[23] [24] [25]) visas. X1 visas (study of more than 180 days) can be 5 year multiple entry [26]). I don't know how long the maximum stays allowed for each, except for S2 which can't be more than 180 days. I presume, but don't know for sure, that S2 validity is probably for the duration of study but don't know for sure and I also don't know if you're allowed to stay if there is a long break at the end of the study year. But anyway, it seems to me that it's likely US and Canadian citizens do get a similar deal as Chinese citizens get for the US and Canada; so I would expect it to be the same for Australian and Singaporean citizens. The precise details, possibly including duration of stay per visa, may depend on the individual agreement, but we can assume for Australians it probably covers the L visa at a minimum. Nil Einne (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

This confirms [27] [28] the Australian visa for Chinese citizens is for 3 month stays only with a maximum of 12 months in any 24 month period, and applies to tourist and business visit purposes, so the Chinese counterparts will likely be L and M (maybe also Q1, Q2 and S2, not sure). Note that it appears to only be in trial stage and this started in 12 December 2016. So it's possible that the Chinese counterpart has not yet been implemented if the agreement doesn't require it yet, but will be. Remember the fact that the agreement was signed in 2015, doesn't mean it has been implemeented yet. (Although the US agreement was I think signed in 2014, and seems to have been implemented on the Chinese side since 2015.) I couldn't find any mention of a 10 year multiple entry visa for Australian citizens, but it's not helped by the large number of sources talking about US citizens. If you really want to know, your best bet is to ask the Chinese embassy in Australia. Nil Einne (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

[29] suggests the duration of stay for US citizens on the 10 year multiple entry L visa is 60 days with a possible extension of 30 days. I.E. a total duration close to 3 months. I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same for Australian citizens if and when implemented. (Potentially Australia could allow 2 months with a 1 month extension under the agreement, but they probably don't consider it worth the hassle. Of course it's possible the agreement doesn't even require 90 days. If Australia normally grants 3 month tourist visas, they may not consider it worth it to vary this just because it's longer than required by the agreement.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)