Miscellaneous desk
< March 10	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 12 >

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.

March 11[edit]

President of Russia[edit]

Who is the president of Russia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.118.218 (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enter "president of Russia" in the search box at the top right. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have said they should first select the box, then Putin "president of Russia". StuRat (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Еще раз Путин, еще Распутин? μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ра, ра! —Tamfang (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MH 370[edit]

Ic is it possible that North Korean agents have hijanked the plane and taken it to unknown destination.117.194.234.95 (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's possible, but that's not something you'll find a reference for. Please don't continue a debate about this. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Whatever happened, it cannot have landed anywhere near an airport. Count Iblis (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In event of Scotland voting "yes" to independence who would negotiate terms?[edit]

I assume that the Scottish parliament would negotiate on behalf of Scotland, but who would negotiate on behalf of the rest of the UK? I don't think it could be Westminster because up until independence they will have to represent the interest of Scotland too. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the discrepancy, I expect the UK government will presume to act on behalf of rUK. It's another form of the West Lothian question. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the UK would not need to negotiate because their membership would not be affected (except that the EU might wish to reduce subsidies, allocations etc. because of the reduced area). There are, of course, regular negotiations about the UK contribution to EU funds. Dbfirs 17:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster did not mention the EU; my impression was that the terms in question were the terms of Scotland's separation from the UK. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mis-reading! I was thinking of an earlier question. Dbfirs 07:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can't predict how this would play out. A vote by Scotland to leave the United Kingdom would take the West Lothian question to a new level and could conceivably be construed as a violation of the Acts of Union of 1707, in which case the right of Scottish MPs to sit in Westminster could be called into question. If any non-Scottish parties were to question the right of Scottish MPs, it would presumably be a matter to be decided either by the Westminster parliament, through legislation ruling one way or the other on the question, or by an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Marco polo (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the North Carolina-South Carolina border?[edit]

Resolved

They're redrawing it. What I need to know is where in Wikipedia the information about this is.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's some information in our article on Lake Wylie, South Carolina, subsection "Geography". ---Sluzzelin talk 19:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Them damn yankees is takin' ahr land? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And thar takin ahr jobs! μηδείς (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, they aren't redrawing it per se. The state border has been defined, by statute, for hundreds of years. The statute defining the border has not changed at all. What has changed is that where on the ground people thought it was; it wasn't. This is fairly common as many borders were laid out at a time when surveying techniques were not what they are today. That always raises the question of how to handle discrepancies between where it says on paper the line on the ground should be drawn, and where the line really has been drawn. Do you change the statute defining the line, or do you move the line to where it should have always been? Here is a recent article about this specific border issue. These problems (relying on lines drawn in the 18th century by surveyors working with chains and poles and a lot of guesswork) is exacerbated in most of the original 13 colonies, where property lines and borders were laid out by Metes and bounds, rather than by the more organized Public Land Survey System. Besides this line (being moved about 150 feet) on the border of North and South Carolina, there's also a similar dispute as to where the Georgia-Tennessee border was; there's the problem (since resolved) of a small strip of land that was left out of the three states that border it. This has happened on international borders as well. See Derby Line, Vermont and Fort Blunder and the Chamizal dispute for some historical examples of similar surveying mistakes that caused headaches for people later. --Jayron32 19:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure, they're not redrawing it if it's currently wrong. But either they're making it right or fixing it so certain people aren't inconvenienced. But I know there must be more here.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article I linked explains more. --Jayron32 23:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should have more about it.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one here is trying to stop you. --Jayron32 17:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I put any information I find? That's the question.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Starting an article. --Jayron32 18:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's too risky. I was hoping to improve an existing article.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no risk at all. I start articles all the time. You're an experienced Wikipedian. You aren't starting an article about your garage band or about some business you're trying to promote. So you can start articles with impunity and no one will bother you. --Jayron32 22:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it were a question of private property lines, wouldn't the rule of adverse possession govern? By analogy one might suppose, if South Carolina's occupation of the land (collecting taxes and applying laws thereon) goes unchallenged by North Carolina for a couple of generations, that the letter of North Carolina's claim becomes irrelevant. What happens when a similar issue is raised concerning the border with Canada? (Compare State of Washington v. Norman, in which the state's boundary was called into question without involving the neighboring jurisdiction.) —Tamfang (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the Carolinas, it is not really a question of private property lines; it is a question of jurisdiction. To the extent that property lines conform to a mistaken state boundary line, adverse possession would apply. That is, property lines would not be affected by a redefinition of the state boundary. However, that property might now fall under the jurisdiction of a different state. The exception might be state lands, if they were originally crown lands granted to the original proprietors of Carolina before it was divided and then divided between the two colonies along their legal boundary. In that case, I don't know how adverse possession would bear. I don't know whether the principle applies to lands owned by the state. Marco polo (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Carolina before it was divided". That's what I was looking for. The article is The Carolinas. Thanks.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]