Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 July 14

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.

July 14

What is going on here?

What is going on here? This seems like some kind of Russian talent show. Why do the judges, or whatever they are, sit so that they can't see the singer? And then, why are they hitting that button, and turning their chairs around? Bus stop (talk) 04:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't see the video but that sounds like The Voice (TV series). Hack (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yup. From our article on the franchise:

"Contestants are aspiring singers drawn from public auditions. The show's format features four stages of competition. The first is the blind auditions, in which the four coaches, all noteworthy recording artists, listen to the contestants in chairs facing opposite the stage so as to avoid seeing them. If a coach likes what they hear from that contestant, they press a button to rotate their chairs to signify that they are interested in working with that contestant. If more than one coach presses their button, the contestant chooses the coach he or she wants to work with. The blind auditions end when each coach has a set number of contestants to work with."

AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks. That is an interesting arrangement. Bus stop (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It's spelt out right there in the notes to the clip: "The Voice Kids Russia - Season 1 - Irina Morozova - Non, je ne regrette rien". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, you're right, I did not even notice that. Bus stop (talk) 10:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I notice you didn't apologise for your gross failure. Does that mean that tous ne regrettes rien, aussi? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I am riddled with regret. Bus stop (talk) 12:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Eeeexcellent! -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 13:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

lol Bus stop (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Note that the reason to not see them is so they can be evaluated based on their singing alone, as opposed to their attractiveness, hairstyle, clothes, race, etc. StuRat (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Why is non-religious male genital mutilation considered normal in the US?

This has always bothered me. Male genital mutilation (euphemistically called 'circumcision' here on wiki) is traditionally a religious procedure. Now, religions condone many barbaric practices, and this is not my question. I wonder why the general population in the US (ie not Muslims or Jew) practice male genital mutilation. Here in Europe is is practically unheard of, and indeed there is a movement to ban it. Can someone explain to me why an unnecessary and indeed likely damaging 'medical procedure' on infants is considered normal in the US? 131.251.254.154 (talk) 09:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi 131.251.254.154—from where do you derive that circumcision is considered normal in the United States? If your premise is incorrect, does it make any sense trying to answer your question? And you are characterizing circumcision as male genital mutilation. Can you ask your question without the use of characterization? Would you be able to pose your question in neutral terms? Or is the characterization of circumcision as male genital mutilation essential to your question? Bus stop (talk) 10:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

There is an interesting article on changing attitudes in Britain, the US and elsewhere here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Our article on prevalence of circumcision contains statistics for various countries and regions. For the US it says "The CDC reported in 2011 that, following an earlier increase in neonatal circumcision rates, rates decreased in the period 1999 to 2010. Citing three different data sources, most recent rates were 56.9% in 2008 (NHDS) 56.3% in 2008 (NIS), and 54.7% in 2010 (CDM)". These figures are higher than the statistics given for most European countries, which are generally between 10% and 20%. The statistics do not distinguish between religious and non-religious circumcision - indeed, I'm not sure how you could reliably make a distinction between religious circumcision and cultural/traditional circumcision. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

"Here in Europe"? It is very widespread in the part of Europe in which I live. Surtsicna (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

History of male circumcision#Revival in the English-speaking world. -- ToE 11:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You can't get away with your presumption that circumcision is "mutilation". In my day, it was generally done, for sanitation reasons. And unless the doctor royally screws up, it's no loss. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Not taking any side on this rather inflammatory OP, but the sanitation argument is complete nonsense. There is such a thing as washing. Fgf10 (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The ignorance of some people is astounding. Try to get over your bias for a minute and do some basic research. Circumcision on males is completely justified by medical science. While you can wash your dingus it does get dirty before it's washed... Circumcision as done properly by western medical doctors comes with no ill side effects. For ethical reasons it should be performed shortly after birth rather that waiting until personhood has developed. Now with penile cancer the penis has to be surgically removed in order for a man to keep living. However being a man without a penis can be devastating. 99% of men who get penile cancer were uncircumcised. So just by being circumcised you can significantly reduce the chance of penile cancer. Many people prefer circumcised penis's because it is more sanitary and pleasant (extra skin adds no fun value). I wish I could post references but due to the nature of the subject I will not be.. Sorry is this seems snarky but people really should do basic research before coming to the reference desk. Void burn (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow! How about some references for those rather grand, and most certainly incorrect claims? Personal preference is of course just due to cultural bias. Fgf10 (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hahaha!!!!! That's why every normal guy has his penis either rot off from filth or from cancer? That's a ludicrous statement. And extra skin adds no fun? Really?! During intercourse it won't matter, but during masturbation? Get real. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Void burn, you need to provide evidence for the "comes with no ill side effects". How about the loss of sensation? It is reported as the most sensitive part of the male body, so there could very well be a side effect when it is removed. Obviously if you have been circumcised as a child, you could not know by personal experience. --Lgriot (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

That has been thoroughly debunked. If the procedure is done properly there are no ill side effects Void burn (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should do 30 minutes of research to liberate yourself of your ignorance before trying to start debates on the reference desk. Your reading comprehension could also use some work. Out of the men who do get penile cancer 99% of them are uncircumcised. Read that carefully, twice if you need to. you said "That's why every normal guy has his penis either rot off from filth or from cancer". Depending on where you live in the world "normal" can constitute either uncircumcised or circumcised. The fact is about the percentage of men WHO GET penile cancer to begin with. Void burn (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

(correct indenting). I am a research scientist. I am more than capable of judging evidence. Provide me with some. The studies I've seen suggest a mild protective effect of circumcision for penile cancer. Most certainly there's not a 99% clear cut thing. Provide me with evidence to the contrary or stop your dogmatic shouting at everyone. The same for you rather bold sensation claim. Fgf10 (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you live in the Europe, penile cancer chance is 0.001 % in your entire lifetime according to cancer.org [1]. Given that tiny figure, I am glad my parents made the choice they made. Are you claiming that there is no loss of sensation? How can you have the sensation without the nerve endings? They are definitely cut off with the skin... Are you claming the nerve endings grow back afterwards? I am just really confused, Void burn, since you provide no reference. --Lgriot (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It's mostly left-over custom from the late 19th to early 20th century, people like the Kelloggs thought that circumcision was a good way to reduce the "sin" of masturbation (it's not). See Will_Keith_Kellogg and John_Harvey_Kellogg#Masturbation_prevention - he also thought it was a good idea to rub phenol on a girl's clitoris. Also they were really in to enemas. So make of that what you will. Here's a site that has some good historical references [2]. As for "mutilation" - that is a very loaded term, so perhaps you should use more neutral language like "non-consensual removal of parts of an infant's genital tissue" - nobody can really disagree with that. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

That's offensively wordy to this nobody. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought circumcision occurred waaaay before the 19th century. I think it was first invented by neo pagan jews who hacked some flesh off the dingus with a sharp rock? It has evolved in many different ways throughout history. Perhaps coincidence that something that originated as an insane religious belief turned out to be a useful/ethical practice thousands of years later? Void burn (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

How is it a) Useful and b) ethical if it's a non-necessary medical procedure on a non-consenting individual? Fgf10 (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Circumcised kids didn't ask to be born and didn't need to be, either. But once they're delivered, they find their purpose and happiness along the way. So do their dicks. If they later make the informed decision that they like the cut look/feel, that justifies the cutter's decision. If they find they don't, that's a character-building hardship to eventually overcome. Like Marge Simpson said, God tested Moses in the desert, not teased. Works in mysterious ways. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Circumcision is of course much older. Unlike many of the other responses, I was addressing why and when it rose in popularity among certain groups in the USA. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Please read my responses in the middle of this post. I have answered your questions there. Void burn (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Please follow our WP:INDENT] conventions. I have added an indentation to this response. When you reply without indent, it makes it look like the following comments are responding to you. Correct indentation style helps keep long discussions readable. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is the Skeptoid article on circumcision. I encourage everyone to read it. It's general points are:

-Regardless of sanitation claims (they're there, the problem is whether they're worthwhile outside of Subsaharan Africa) circumcision is not harmful if done properly

-Loss of sensation cannot be shown to occur: "While it's clear that circumcised men can and do enjoy sex, some argue that they are missing out on an even better experience, though studies have not yet shown this to be the case."

-The consent argument is flawed: babies and even children don't have the capacity to give their informed consent to anything, which is why their parents' job. Not in article, but if you want to argue that the state can/should override the parent's consent on this issue, you need to demonstrate that it significantly benefits everyone else (as with vaccination and mandatory education), or you're opening the door letting voters argue that all children should be made to attend Sunday school, or raised vegan, or whatever. Unless you just want to follow Plato and argue that all children should be raised by the state.

Calm articles like that that do weigh all aspects are more convincing than sensationalism. If anyone here really wants to discourage circumcision, follow the path given in the Skeptoid article. If anyone wants to convince people that anti-circumcisionists are a bunch of baby-cock-worshiping psychos, behave like the comment section of that article: call it mutilation (and do a disservice to victims of real genital mutilation), scream about loss of sensation (no matter how many circumcised men successfully have sex everyday), and hell, go on and say circumcised men aren't whole (as if people are defined by their genitals instead of their accomplishments).

Ian.thomson (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

That an infant doesn't have the capacity to consent isn't a flaw in the argument - it's the core of the argument. This is mentioned a few times, with references, at Ethics_of_circumcision. I'm relatively certain that people who object to infant circumcision on these grounds have no problem with voluntary circumcision performed on a consenting adult. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Where did I say that it is a flaw in the argument? I said the argument itself is flawed. The Skeptoid article points out "The problem with this argument lies in the fact that infants don't have bodily autonomy. Parents have the legal ability and duty to consent over changes to a child's body, with the requirement that such changes are made in the child's best interest." The article you mention says "Regardless of these issues, the general practice of the medical community is to receive surrogate informed consent or permission from parents or legal guardians for non-therapeutic circumcision of children." Whatever the medical community says about the child's right to consent, they still side with the parents. As the Skeptoid article points out, that's where it needs to be left until society ceases carrying out circumcision of its own accord: removing the choice from the parents will lead some of them to carry it out in non-medical conditions -- a net loss. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's England's National Health Service on the issue. http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumcision/Pages/Introduction.aspx Some of the proponents here may be surprised to see how much the pendulum has swung against the practice. The original question has still not been answered: why such a difference between the USA and some other English-speaking countries? I think it may indeed go back to the Kelloggs. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for bringing this back to topic. I'll repost here History_of_male_circumcision - which also mentions the advocacy of some Brits - Jonathan_Hutchinson wrote " "I am inclined to believe that [circumcision] may often accomplish much, both in breaking the habit [of masturbation] as an immediate result, and in diminishing the temptation to it subsequently." Lewis_Sayre was another American who was a strong proponent of circumcising all males. It seems the Americans who promoted as a way of reducing sinful masturbation were perhaps just more successful than their UK counterparts. I found some nice historical info on Australai [3], showing that prevalence of neonatal circumcision started increasing at the start of the 20th century, and peaking in the 1970s. This source for the USA [4] shows a similar trend, but USA reached 70% circumcision by 2000, while AU has been declining since its peak in 1955. Another key player seems to be Claude_François_Lallemand - this [5] page says he thought that loss of sperm was dangerous to health, and that "His ideas were not taken up in Europe, but fell on fertile ground in Britain and USA." So it seems the USA was really sold on the idea that it was a moral good to reduce masturbation, and the medical justifications came later. For more on Kellogg, check out a complete text here [6], where he explains that masturbation is heinous, evil and vile, akin to sodomy, and that it cause pimples, and is in fact the cause of most health problems. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

But that argument doesn't seem to get much attention when it comes to Female genital mutilation where the general consensus is the practice must be stamped out with no mercy. While most common FGM practices seem more harmful than male circumcision (*1), and there doesn't appear to be any health benefit (*2), the opposition to FGM is so strong that even proposals to advocate procedures that seem less potentially harmful than male circumcision under medical conditions face such strong opposition that they are abandoned [7].

(*1) At least we think so, I'm not sure how well studied this actually is since it's such a politicial hotpotato, people may be reluctant to seriously challenge any preconceived ideas. For example I wonder whether type Ia and Ib only being distinguished by a subtype may contributed to Ia being seen as rare. (*2) While we only really got any good evidence for a health benefit for male circumcision recently, the difference in the anatomy suggests it's unlikely there is any significiant undetected health benefit, at least for the least damaging FGM procedures.

Of course the fact that many of the common practices are so horrific doesn't help. And it's understandable how people who have witnessed, let alone experienced these practices, will feel about anything seen as endorsing or accepting these practices. But at the same time if such strident opposition against seemingly less potentially harmful practices is justified simply because they are a legacy of more harmful practices, can we automatically rule out strident opposition against a practice with a greater possible harm (i.e. male circumcision) than the proposed alternatives?

Our FGM article in the Female genital mutilation#Criticism of opposition section and some other sources, e.g. [8] discuss the various issue and controversies and views of a double standard somewhat. The accepted name is of course another sign.

An interesting point that relates to some of my earlier comments is that the campaign against FGM has primarily concentrated on the practices in parts of Africa and the Middle East which as mentioned, seem far more harmful, frankly horrific compared to male circumcision. But there seems to be some move towards the same campaign against the practices in other places particularly SEA where the general practices are possibly already normally the procedures which seem less potentially harmful than male circumicision [9], albeit possily nor normally done in a medical setting. (As mentioned, this relates to my earlier point about the lack of clarity of the figures.) Interesting enough, it's possible there was already a move towards less harmful procedures there [10] (although it doesn't seem like the procedures were generally anything like those in parts of Africa and the Middle East that cause the attention, in fact possible never really more harmful than male circumcision). If this takes off in a major way, it would seem to be poke even more holes in the idea it's automatically wrong do advocate the same for male circumcision.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying male circumcision are necessarily comparable to any FGM practices, nor that the campaign against FGM is wrong, nor that we should have a similar campaign against male circumcision, nor that a similar campaign would work.

I'm simply saying that the idea that it's definitely the best option is keep medical circumcisions because otherwise people will carry out the practices non medically seems a little flawed since the campaign against FGM which appears to cover any procedure, no matter of whether it's seemingly less likely to be harmful than male circumcision, suggests other alternatives could be considered. Regardless of which people ultimately feel is best (for each).

Nil Einne (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Equating female genital mutilation to mere circumcision is highly offensive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Lawrence E. Stager

Good Morning! What is the full name of Lawrence E. Stager? What name is the E.? Thanks... --195.32.24.254 (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes, he's Lawrence G. Stager. No clue which is right. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Why don't English speakers learn Latin anymore?

Since when did English speakers stop using Latin in important documents? Writers in the 19th century seem to use a lot of Latin-derived words. Was Latin a requirement for the educated class back then, and as a result, it became natural to create English words derived from Latin? I noticed that early scientists also spoke Latin as the lingua franca and gave themselves Latin personal names. 66.213.29.17 (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm a native English speaker, and I learned Latin. We have some relevant info at lingua franca, List_of_lingua_francas#Greek_and_Latin, Contemporary_Latin#In_science. Currently English is the lingua franca of academics, and you'll see plenty of e.g. German and Chinese researchers publishing papers in English-language journals. This book [11] seems like it would have a lot to say about Latin's decline as a lingua franca. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Learning and using a dead language rather than communicate in the common language was one way for the upper class to put themselves above commoners. This was always bad for commoners, who couldn't understand Latin, making them unaware of what their lawyers, doctors, and priests were saying. Thus, as the world has become more democratic, use of Latin has declined. Even those with total contempt for the common man now see the benefit in pretending to be a common man. StuRat (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Priests and lawyers and doctors didn't communicate with illiterate people in Latin. They might write things in Latin that their clients couldn't read, but they weren't speaking to them in an incomprehensible language. That would have been a bit counterproductive... Adam Bishop (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Also, to a layperson, a modern lawyer's or doctor's technobabble is so incomprehensible they might as well use Latin. (Not to mention that tons of technical terms are Latinisms, but even if they were formed from native Germanic material as common in German, technical jargon would still baffle laypeople.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Until a few hundred years ago, it was illegal in many nations to write a Bible in the local language. So, the common man, even if literate in the local language, still had no way to read it directly, instead having to trust whatever the Church told him it said (and of course, it says so many conflicting things, that by picking and choosing, you can make it say whatever you want). StuRat (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know where you're going at the end there (the Bible says confusing things no matter what language it's in? Yeah, no kidding), but it was never really illegal to translate the Bible. The Latin Bible was itself a translation, and there are lots of translations before the Reformation. But if you have a Bible translated into your local language, and you still can't read, what good does that do you? Also, the people who translated the Bible into vernacular European languages tended to belong to heretical sects, so naturally the church was opposed to it in those cases... Adam Bishop (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how the replacement of Latin by English as a lingua franca is a big improvement – unless you've grown up Anglophone in the first place, of course. The advantage of Latin that Latinophiles like to point out is that it is a foreign language for everyone, so nobody has an unfair advantage (the same argument is used in favour of Esperanto and other conlangs/auxlangs). Granted, Italians, for example, did have an advantage over Germans and Europeans over Asians when Latin was used, but the advantage was far less pronounced than with English, where Anglophones – and to a smaller extent native speakers of any Germanic language – have a huge advantage over non-Anglophones (or non-Germanic-speakers in general, respectively), which constitutes a language-based form of privilege on the part of Anglophones, and a form of structural discrimination of non-Anglophones. (In the case of Esperanto and other IE-based conlangs/auxlangs, the situation is similar to Latin – they're far from optimal from the point of view of non-Europeans, but still considerably more democratic/egalitarian choices. The advantage of native speakers of Germanic languages with regard to English is not much greater than that of Italians with regard to Latin or IE-based conlangs/auxlangs, but at least barely anybody has a bigger advantage in those cases.) Basically, the Anglophone world engages in a form of linguistic colonisation. (The rise of the auxlangs was only possible due to the gap between the decline of Latin and later French as linguae francae and the rise of German and later English to replace them.) A final point, Latin was no more a "dead language" in the medieval and early modern period than Arabic is now. (Even English has "dead language" aspects – a great divide between the written and the spoken everyday common language –, mainly the orthography, which is notoriously 600 years out of date. That makes English roughly as "dead" as Late Latin was in Romance-speaking Europe.)

To recap: If anything, Latin is a more democratic lingua franca than English. Your idea that it is otherwise reveals a glaring Anglophone bias, and is an exemplary demonstration of privilege blindness. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

If I said English, I meant English in English speaking nations. That is, it's preferable to use the local language, whatever that might be, than Latin. As for international communications, that's another matter, and I suppose things like species names can be Latin to make them "neutral", that's not a problem. But actually trying to communicate in Latin seems a bit silly, considering what a small portion of each nation's population can understand it. StuRat (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Modern linguists have admitted that English is a Germanic language and consequently stopped trying to force the language into a Latin-based grammatical framework. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Huh? That has nothing to do with the original question. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

No, that's correct. Quoting the OP, "Latin as a requirement for the educated class". With Latin there were aspects involved in learning anything, including literature. The 1905 Annandale (Concise) dictionary states in its introduction specifically and insists: "English is a teutonic language". That assertion sounds almost deliberately provocative and appears rather unexpectedly in the context of that introduction, without imposing it any particular loss of coherence however. I would suggest that traditional classification methods inherited from a scientific Latin tradition at the time were being superceded by novelties similar to the set theory, for example. --Askedonty (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The edition I was referring to is a "Pronouncing Etymological" edition, but it is doubtful that the "Literary" edition [12] would be in contradiction with it. --Askedonty (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

It's enough of a challenge just to get native English speakers learn proper English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Anecdotal Data: My aunt, who is in her late 50s, started Latin a couple of years ago, and has just taken her first exam. Latin is certainly a minority interest, but it's not dead yet! RomanSpa (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

That's for sure. Never underestimate yourself, always keep testing out your serendipity! --Askedonty (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Li Yong

Magpies and Wild Rabbits (Li Yong)

This page says the artist lived from c. 1430 - 1495 and that the picture is from the 13th century. How does this fit? -- Cherubino (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Like a square peg in a round hole. But seriously, what worries me more is that I can find no trace of that Li Yong fellow. The only site I could find that mentions him is the site you linked to. Contact Basemetal here 18:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

PS One Google Books result does mention a Tang painter named Li Yong but I still couldn't find anything from the period(s) relevant to your painting. Odd. Contact Basemetal here 18:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The source is clearly unreliable. I suggest you contact the people who run that website.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The Cleveland Museum of Art need an award for worst search engine ever. "Magpies & wild rabbits".—eric 03:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

It can't be any worse than the Wikipedia archives search process. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

You don't get what you want and you don't get what you need. You get what you deserve. That's capitalism. (Yeah, right) Contact Basemetal here 11:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

This paper says [13] for "Magpies and Wild Rabbits" in Cleveland: Sung dynasty, 960-1279: Artist Unknown. No Li Yong/Yung here. -- Cherubino (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Offshore processing of refugees and irregular migrants to the European Union

Is there any suitably large island the EU might be able to use for a migrant processing centre, where people rescued from the Mediterranean could be humanely looked after and the genuine refugees sorted from the other chancers, who would be flown home? Seems like the only real options at the moment are to let them drown, or set them free in Italy or Greece to go wherever they want, neither of which seems like a good idea. 213.205.251.155 (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Britain? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Lol :D 213.205.251.155 (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

But seriously. Is there somewhere big enough, in the Mediterranean, not currently inhabited by people, used for anything much, or important to an endangered species of plant or animal, that could be made safe and secure for this? 213.205.251.155 (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't make a lot of sense. Uninhabited usually means uninhabitable, these days. It'd cost a lot to staff the place, and to ship the migrants where you think they should end up. And then that boat might capsize.

Better to set up in the place where most seek refuge. That way, only the "undesirable" need a long trip to elsewhere (from a real airport), and the "legitimate" ones are already pretty much there. Somewhere like Britain. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

We could fit handholds underneath all the Eurostar train carriages too, for maximum efficiency. Assuming you're being totally serious of course. 213.205.251.155 (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

There's Gavdos. Might work, hypothetically. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

That's the sort of place I was thinking of. From the description in the article, it seems like it could even use the investment. 213.205.251.155 (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Mediterranean islands are rather popular for holidays: Cyprus, Malta, Crete, Corfu, Capri, Ibiza, to name but a few. Rockall is uninhabited but has disadvantages. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Might work for the babies, if they're not the rolling sort. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Round hole, square pegs only please. 213.205.251.155 (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You might want to look at List of islands in the Mediterranean. 184.147.127.87 (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Migrants don't want to be processed. They would not go to such an island (as they know their plea may get refused) . They just want to get to the promised land as soon as possible; where British ATM's advertise that they offer free cash free to use cash machines and they can get welfare housing with all bills paid.--Aspro (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I was implying they wouldn't be given a choice. When boats were intercepted, presumably by an EU member state's navy, the people in them could be taken to the processing centre. At gunpoint if necessary. We owe migrants safety, but not necessarily a free pass to go anywhere no matter what their reasons were. 213.205.251.155 (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me but it seems to me you're making one of two assumptions here, either that if only such an island could be found (and incidentally what chances are there that the EU just never thought of looking at a map?) the EU's immigration policy could be made to start making sense, or that the EU's immigration policy does not simply because no such island could be found? I think I would question either assumption. But leaving that aside, what would you say is "suitably large" and how have you determined that? Do you know how many people would have to be processed? How long their processing (and thus their stay on such an island) would take? How many people would be required to process them? How many people would be required to run such a facility, to feed them, watch over them, keep them from trying to swim away if the island was too close to the shore, keep them from killing each other, supply them with water, food, dispose of the waste they would produce, build the facility, bring in fuel, fly those accepted into Europe and those denied out of Europe and so on and so forth? For 15 years there have been thousands of illegal immigrants crowding into the Pas-de-Calais area in France, trying to get into Britain through the Channel Tunnel (a daft idea in itself it seems: how many have actually managed to cross?) and Europe has not even tried to do anything about it. What likelihood is there that a sensible European immigration policy only depends on the presence of a suitable island in the Mediterranean? Contact Basemetal here 21:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking of the Australian policy of sending all refugees to islands in the Pacific, which I did think had cut the numbers of boat people quite a lot, and quite quickly. If they are actual refugees, Nauru is safe. If they just fancy a nice life in Australia, which Australians don't seem to believe they owe them, Nauru is a deterrent. But you're right, for Europe, I really don't know what sort of size the processing centre might need to be. 213.205.251.155 (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Also occurred to me that if this island was in Greece, which is bust, building the facilities and hiring staff could be a useful bit of investment from the rest of the EU. 213.205.251.155 (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually it's an open question how much the Pacific Solution or in particular the offshore processing (as the latest Pacific Solution includes trying to settle them there if possible) actually stopped the boats compared to other factors. Be it other facets of the Australian policy (i.e. pull factors) such as forcing the boats to return, towing them if necessary and apparently even paying the "criminal scum" (or whatever the current Australian buzz word is for people smugglers) themselves and possibly turning a blind eye to sinking boats if possible (and keeping quiet about them if it isn't election season) and of course the latest policy of never letting them settle in Australia. Or be changes in the number of people near Australia looking for a new home due to various geopolitic events (i.e. push factors).

See for example these largely counterpoints of view [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]] [20] [21] (last two same thing I think). And note that both the Howard and Abbott policies have relied on a great deal of secrecy over what's actually happening, which they and supporters (see the later Quandrant link) claim are a necessary part of the policy. But this makes it very easy for them to claim great success.

One more thing these sources do hint at, that I also saw in others I'm lazy to find again, is the possibily some of the effects are temporary or a one time thing, e.g. people are first unsure and the numbers drop, but once they realise that after living through the hellhole offshore processing centre, they'll make it to their destination, things heat up again. (If you try the earlier mentioned new Australian policy of actually settling them somewhere else, this may have a somewhat different effect, but this wasn't your question and you need to find someone to accept them that will comply with your legal requirements which as Australia with their small number of refugees have found, isn't easy.)

And one thing not really mentioned in these is the possibility of third party countries policies and actions also affecting the situation. (This can be seen as either a push factor or pull factor depending on your POV.)

Also unfortunately most of these are old and don't well consider stuff post 2013, however I think the first link is interesting, it did predict the current fall and also mentions how it didn't seem to have fallen yet (at the time) despite Gillard's policies. While I'm sure Abbott government supporters will have plenty of reasons on why they say he was successful but Gillard (and Rudd the second time around) weren't even though their policies were similar (but as the first source says, Gillard's policies at least didn't seem to have so much of an effect). E.g. people not believing they were serious or whatever [22].

A final point is as much as the offshore processing may have an effect without the other factors, it's not really clear if it's politicial or legally possible to do the same in the EU. In other words, you don't need to just find an island, but you may need to make it as much of a hell hole and be as slow at processing as they are in Australia and you need to get the people and the ECHR to allow it.

And note this may include denying media access, and a compliant media so people don't really know how bad it is. Successful demonisation of boat people helps, such that the media and people aren't so interested in counter POV. It also means there's little politicial opposition to such policies. (These also apply to the wider secrecy and wider policies.)

One "advantage" the EU does have in terms of making it a hell hole (not so much in terms of finding a place) is the numbers they're dealing with compared to Australia. One big disadvantage is the wide diversity between countries, so even if, for example, people in the UK may be willing to accept Australia's solution, it doesn't mean most people in all other countries in the EU will.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing the assumption is that, by keeping them offshore, they would not be entitled to all the generous benefits they get once they manage to land in an EU nation. I'm not sure if this is the case. But, if it is, perhaps those boats full of immigrants that are intercepted could be redirected to anchored barges, modified to house the illegal immigrants. Of course, we really also need to eliminate the cause of all this illegal immigration. For example, NATO (Europe and the US) needs to wipe out ISIS and the various other terrorist organizations in Africa and the Middle East, so those people can all stay (or return) home. Then there's the economic problems that cause immigration. Time for a Marshall Plan to solve those, again paid for by the EU and US (maybe Japan would help, and who knows, perhaps even China). Yes, this will all be very costly, but ignoring the problems will only make them bigger and more expensive to fix. StuRat (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

My assumptions were that a huge and growing number of people want to make the trip, that not all of them are genuine refugees, that they have delusions about Europe being the Promised Land where everything is perfect, and that we have no chance of solving the problem humanely unless providing safety gets detached from providing a free pass to go anywhere. I don't believe letting them all in is politically sustainable in Europe, but stopping them crossing at all would mean a naval blockade of the entire south and east Mediterranean coast, and would be the worst possible option in humanitarian terms. There needs to be a deterrent that they would notice before even deciding to leave their own countries. 213.205.251.155 (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned previously, warehousing them on an island doesn't actually solve the problem, it just delays it. That is, people will just accumulate there until any location you pick will fill up, and even providing them with the basics will become prohibitively expensive (you can ship some back, but sending those facing starvation or who came from a war zone back would be tantamount to murder). It might work short-term, just to give the EU a breather, but then you do need to actually use that time to solve the problem. StuRat (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Even if the actual refugees with a good claim were resettled in Europe proper, while the rest were deported all the way home as fast as they were identified? Plus the deterrent effect of this warehouse camp even existing? 213.205.251.155 (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how we could "solve the problem" in terms of making everyone on earth happy to stay put in their own countries, or by convincing Europe to allow unlimited immigration. Tony Blair thought he could perfect the world by force, and look how that ended up. A place like I suggested seems like the best realistic option. 213.205.251.155 (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to make the world perfect, just end the current violence on a massive scale and improve the economy to the point where people can make a living at home. Most people have a natural reluctance to move to a foreign nation, so, as long as they think they can survive at home, most will stay there. As for Tony Blair, the reason not to take out Saddam was that he might be replaced by somebody worse. Well, this is the somebody worse. It can't get much worse than ISIS, so they should be taken out next. StuRat (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Even that seems a long way beyond the abilities of any EU member states, and certainly much harder than processing refugee claims competently. Even if the West was to wipe out ISIS, I'm sure someone would find a way of making a new mess in the space thus created. 213.205.251.155 (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

We've taken out far tougher enemies than ISIS in the past. Right now they are like the Nazi's who bicycled into the Rhineland, easily defeated if we would just make the effort. Later on, who knows. StuRat (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Not disputing that NATO could flatten ISIS, at least back to being a mere insurgency. I just doubt anything stable would arise in their place, since they wouldn't have been overthrown by the locals. If the West builds another useless puppet government with no local support beyond a few bandits and looters, it will fall to bits once our troops are eventually withdrawn - and I think we both know that eventually they would be. 213.205.251.155 (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

We have to change that model of leaving soon after the victory, as it leads to disaster. The US military is still in South Korea some 55 years after the Korean War (although it never officially ended), and this has so far kept North Korea from invading (not because the small US force there could stop NK so much as attacking the US force would ensure a massive US response, and North Korea knows this). So, we need to keep some military in place, probably for decades, during nation building. The US could take the lead in the actual war, with the EU taking the lead in the occupation force. StuRat (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you everyone who replied. My question was answered (Gavdos) by InedibleHulk. Now I just need to become dictator of Europe, and start building. Same thing we do every Tuesday night, Pinky... 213.205.251.155 (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to get you started on your newly found vocation: "Sieg heil mein fuhrer" and as its Tuesday night, who's going to buy the first round? Its no good asking Goebbels as he has no xxxx'x at all.--Aspro (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The French used to send large numbers of people to islands in French Guiana, until 1953. They do not seem to have much of a population at present. Edison (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

This "safe desk job" better not come back to bite me in whatever world tribunal we use when I'm 94. Being an accesory to the "cleansing" of a hundred Gavdosians could get me eleven and a half hours in prison, at least at this rate. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)