Humanities desk
< May 31	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 2 >

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.

June 1[edit]

Why didn't Thomas Aquinas' family want Thomas to join the Dominicans?[edit]

I was just reading Thomas Aquinas page, and it seemed as if the "Dominicans" were very bad or something. Eh? Why would Thomas's brothers hire a prostitute to seduce Thomas to prevent him to go to the Dominicans? I don't get the logic in that one. How is seduction tied to getting someone to do something? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Dominican Order is founded on the Rule of St. Augustine which takes first among its precepts the evangelical counsels of chastity, poverty, and obedience. Violations of these rules are generally seen as somewhat disqualificationary for being a member of such a mendicant order. --Jayron 32 01:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But what happens if a person becomes seduced and feels extremely guilty? Can that person ask for forgiveness and still take those vows? Or do the vows assume that the person must be chaste since birth? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any of those, but that's irrelevant to the narrative here, which is that his family sought to make him break his chastity, to disqualify him from membership in the order. It doesn't matter one way or the other whether you want it to be true or consistent with your own personal logic or moral code, what is important is if the family believed it to be a way to prevent his joining the order, and whether he did. We know both they and he did, because they tried, and he resisted, and most importantly because the historical record tells us so. --Jayron 32 03:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I sense snappiness, for some reason. Anyway, I'm not sure how your response answers my original question. What's so wrong about the Dominicans that the parents and family members would desperately want Thomas NOT to join? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article states "the family intended for Thomas to follow his uncle" as the abbot of a Benedictine monastery, joining the Dominicans would have been against his family's plans for him to be a Benedictine abbot. Benedictine religious life is quite different from Dominican religious life, the former was a sedentary order tied to a monastery, the abbots of monasteries had considerable financial and political influence and would have been suitable for someone from a politically connected family as he was. The Dominicans were a mendicant order, which were basically wandering preachers, with little political or financial influence. Basically, the family was trying to set him up with a cushy job that was of his station, while he rejected that for an austere life as a wandering preacher. This biography goes into a bit more detail, he had already joined the Dominicans against his family's will. --Jayron 32 04:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. That reminds of Martin Luther's own life. In a biography about him, Martin Luther disobeyed his parents by joining the monastery. His own father wanted him to become a lawyer. But he was attracted to theology. The irony of both stories is that disobedience of parents leads to societal change. And both men have families who just want the best for their children, but the men reject their parents' hopeful ambitions and seek a humbler career. Martin Luther seems to be kind of quirky. He was a monk, so he would have taken the vows. But he probably broke them when he broke away from the church of the time and married a nun. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, Luther was actually released from his monastic vows by his supervisor, Johann von Staupitz, in 1518. He was excommunicated in 1521 and married Katharina von Bora in 1525. He did become a monk against his fathers wishes, yes. - Lindert (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Dominicans were relatively new at the time, and they were still seen as a bit weird - mendicants, as Jayron says. The Franciscans were also a new order of mendicants. They were both somewhat controversial because they were so different from the old Benedictine style of monks. Also, the stories about Thomas' family trying to dissuade him with prostitutes etc. are rather hagiographical...do you believe that's what actually happened, or do you think that's what Thomas (or his followers) wanted you to believe happened? Adam Bishop (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where does exactly the Mediterranean sea begin and end?[edit]

Do the beginning and end of the Mediterranean have precise coordinates? Is everything East to the strait of Gibraltar part of the Mediterranean sea? Who chooses the geographical limits of it (or of any sea)? --Clipname (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Start with Mediterranean sea. --Malerooster (talk) 12:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is in fact the International Hydrographic Organization that defines standard names and delimitations of seas and maritime regions. You can see an entry on the Mediterranean here: [1]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediterranean is actually pretty easy to delimit (which is not the case for most seas). As the linked document mentions, its western limit is the Strait of Gibraltar and the eastern one is the Dardanelles. Everything in between is part of the Mediterranean, including various bodies of water that have their own name such as the Adriatic Sea or the Aegean Sea. --Xuxl (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Eastern Mediterranean is East of the Dardanelles. Blooteuth (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's a bit of a dead-end as far as movement of seawater goes. Alansplodge (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Submissions of creative writing manuscripts and pseudonyms[edit]

In scientific writing, authors typically use their real names, because every published paper contributes to their reputation. Sometimes, authors would change names because of marriage, but that doesn't affect the published name, and it's the published name that gets the reputation. But what about the names of creative writers? Pseudonyms are used for various reasons, but what I want to know is whether the publication company knows the author's real name for correspondence. Is it possible for a creative writer to use a pseudonym and no one knows the real name of the individual, not even the publisher or editors? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. Some writers have never been conclusively identified. See pen name for reasons and examples.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical matter it is difficult to conceal your name from absolutely everyone and still get paid. However, if you wanted to hide your identity from a publisher / editor, you could use a trusted intermediary as a go between. Attorneys are often used for purposes like this. An attorney has a legal obligation to protect his client's identity (as long as that is the client's preference), and can be used to exchange correspondence and receive payments, etc. Of course, the lawyer will expect to be paid for their services, but that is just a question of how much your anonymity is really worth to you. Dragons flight (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Tiptree Jr. (Alice Sheldon) stayed anonymous for a long time, and eventually committed suicide after being tracked down and outed by a well-meaning fan. There's no established factual connection between those events, but on reading her biography (by Julie Philips) it's hard to not face the possibility. During the anonymous part of her career, she corresponded with her editors/publisher under the pretense of being some kind of undercover spy to account for her unwillingness to appear at public events. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worth remembering "long time" here is 10 years, which is also about the length of time between her identity being uncovered and her killing herself and her husband. Her suicide note was evidently fairly old but she also evidently wrote a friend before her identity had been uncovered about her wish to do so, and spoke in the 1980s about her suicide attempts over the past 20 years (i.e. including some before her identity had been revealed). In other words, she was apparently a fairly unhappy person even before her identity was revealed. Perhaps it didn't help, but it's also difficult to call it the straw considering the back didn't break until 10 years later, about the same length of time she'd been anonymous. Nil Einne (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History programs and courses at Canadian universities and community colleges[edit]

Is there a list that shows which Canadian universities and community colleges offer history programs whether it be Bachelor's, Master's or PhD? Donmust90 (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is an annual published guide which can be consulted in any good Canadian library [2]. As for on-line resources, try this [3]. This is the results page for history programs: [4] --Xuxl (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maclean's Guide to Canadian Universities generally knows what's what, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very young children left alone[edit]

Why do parents/guardians have to take babies or under-five-year-old kids with them everywhere they go? Why can't they leave them at home or in their cars on their own or put them in the care of someone else? 31.48.57.179 (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They can't be left on their own due to their complete helplessness. They might harm themselves or someone or something else might harm them, but I can't imagine why you think they can't be left with someone else. Have you never come across the concept of babysitting? Rojomoke (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As to why they can't be left alone, there are several reasons:

1) Newborn babies can get into trouble very easily, such as being unable to roll over to get their mouth and nose off a pillow, and thus suffocating. See crib death.

2) Those who are not yet potty trained need to have their diapers changed immediately after they urinate or defecate, to limit the potential for diaper rash.

3) Babies also need feeding every few hours, since their hydration comes from this, as well. Bottle-feeding babies is one option, giving them more independence, but does supposedly have some down-sides compared with breastfeeding. See wet nurse for the possibility of hiring a lactating woman to babysit and breastfeed the baby, too.

4) For older children, they could conceivably be put into a child-safe room, where there is no way for them to harm themselves, especially if they were remotely monitored. However, the lack of interaction with an adult for large portions of the day might harm their development.

5) There's always the issue of how they would survive an emergency, such as a fire, with no adult supervision.

6) As for leaving children in cars, there temperature control is the main problem. The temperature of a car with the windows up can rise rapidly in sunlight. (The car might have been left in the shade, but then the sunlight moves.) Similarly, the temperature of a car can drop rapidly. A car could be left on with the heat or A/C running, but unless it has a thermometer control it might still get too hot or cold, and/or suck in exhaust, and/or stall/run of gas and then get too hot or cold. StuRat (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hate it when they cry for no reason. It gives me headache and drives me insane. They always take things seriously and never take a joke. If I was a parent, I would feed and change my baby and look after it day and night at home. But not take it with me wherever I want or need to go. I would leave it in a day-care centre or leave it at home or in my car. Or maybe leave it in the care of others or relatives. 31.48.57.179 (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you are just giving your parental responsibilities to another caregiver and letting that caregiver deal with the cries while you have your peace of mind. What makes you think that a random caregiver on the street is the parent anyway? That caregiver may be a babysitter, nanny, an extremely anxious parent who wants to feel secure with the baby around, or a relative. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or it could be a child predator. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you would be surprised at how expensive daycare is, and how impractical it is to put a child in daycare for short periods (like going to the grocery store, or wherever it is that you're encountering other people's kids.)

ApLundell (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Chan was sent to boarding school for acrobatic training from the age of 6. He describes that experience at length in his autobiography "I am Jackie Chan" and it's pretty astounding by current western standards. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that leaving a child unattended in a vehicle is illegal in some jurisdictions, for instance in circa twenty States of the US. See for example "Where Is It a Crime to Leave a Kid Alone in a Parked Car?" or This kidsandcars.org site. The actual risks of leaving your small child in a car (for example when it's hot outside as pointed out by Stu) are one of the reasons these laws exist, so you can imagine that, even in places where no such laws prohibit them from doing so, parents might not be willing to take a risk with such potentially grave and devastating consequences, and will take their babies along, even if it's just for a three minute stop at the drugstore.. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile Lenore Skenazy argues that it's likely safer to leave the kids in the car for a few minutes than to herd them across a parking lot. —Tamfang (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for nuisance, I see your IP address is located in the UK ... maybe you should move to Denmark, Japan or Germany. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A short and simple answer (aside from parents not being horrible pieces of shit who leave toddlers unsupervised) is that most jurisdictions have Child neglect laws that, among other things, make it illegal to fail to provide for adequate supervision for their children. While most parents are not horrible pieces of shit and do provide proper supervision at all times, the law exists because it doesn't always happen. --Jayron 32 05:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This thread was started by the multiple blocked NI "contributor", who has now been blocked from this IP. See WP:Long-term abuse/109.151.65.218. Please do not feed this troll. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

procedures and rules around the world - legal rules for receipt[edit]

At a former workplace (a Telstra store to be exact), we had a slightly weird rule that you had to type the customer's name on every receipt, even if it was for a $5 gimmick. We mostly just ignored the rule, because it seemed like nonsense. But someone upstairs told me it was essential for it to be a legally valid receipt. I believe this is complete nonsense, as per [5]. Does anyone know of this sort of rule (in any jurisdiction, especially in a first-world country) and can anyone tell me where it comes from? It seems to have nothing to do with the law. IBE (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here in North America, I'm accustomed to getting a receipt with nearly every purchase. I'd usually consider it pointless, nosy and inconvenient if the cashier were to ask my name. —Tamfang (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - exactly what our customers thought - like, "why do i need to give my name?" It used to weird me out, more than anything. IBE (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the old days Radio Shack in the U.S. was infamous for requiring your name and address with every transaction, whether it was a $500 audio system or a $0.50 capacitor. I got in the habit of giving addresses like 7 Cavendish Avenue. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's evidently a legal requirement (along with other things) for VAT sales receipts or invoices, to VAT-registered persons if the transaction is over 1000 PHP (about 20 USD) in the Philippines [6] [7]. I'm not sure if this only applies if the customer informs the seller that they are VAT-registered. It may not in which case the seller may be expected to ask, or simply require are customers provide the info. I doubt this has anything to do with the Telstra practice though. Nil Einne (talk) 10:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the name was being recorded somewhere and not just typed on the receipt? It used to be a legal requirement in the UK that retailers record and pass on the name and address of anyone buying television-receiving equipment, for licensing purposes. The retailers would never tell you that and would always insist it was for the warranty, even if you didn't want one. It can still be difficult to buy a TV without a name and address. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@zzuuzz Citation requested for the claim "It used to be a legal requirement in the UK that retailers record and pass on the name and address of anyone buying television-receiving equipment". Blooteuth (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Blooteuth: The Wireless Telegraphy Act (1967) was repealed only four years ago (it was in force for nearly 50 years). (citation). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here's an older citation with more detail, dated 26 November 2008, before the repeal. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@zzuuzz thank you for the references. I confirm that the noble Lady Baroness Phillips, the noble Lord Denham, the noble Lord Airedale, the noble Lord Strabolgi and the noble Lord Somers together debated the provision "We are now required by law to forward the names and addresses of all those who hire or buy television sets to the Licensing Department of the Post Office." in the WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY ACT 1967. I don't believe there was any oversight of private second-hand TV sales. A comparable intrusion was the confiscation of radios during the German occupation of the Channel Islands. Blooteuth (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the NATO phonetic alphabet, 9 is pronounced niner because...[edit]

Some say the reason is to make it easier not to mishear as "five", because nine and five sound so similar. But others say it relates to the German word for no. Which is correct?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OR: Distinction from "five" is what I was told when I learned it. On poor quality comms channels, consonants become obscure before vowels, so saying "niner" with two syllables contrasts with the single syllable of "five". In addition, I was taught to pronounce "five" as "fife", which has a shorter vowel sound than "nine" (and "five"). "Niner" might also avoid confusion with "nein", but occasions where one would use "nein" when a numeral was expected would be relatively rare, especially as one would in addition be mixing two languages. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.9.8.213 (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in the NATO phonetic alphabet, the number zero is said as "zero". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article NATO_phonetic_alphabet#Digits says it's to avoid "Nein", but that statement is unreferenced, so far as I can see. ApLundell (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Under noisy conditions short single syllable words can easily be obliterated by a single pulse of noise. The "niner" pronunciation makes the word longer and differentiates it from other digit names if either the first or second syllable of the word is obscured. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The length can't be the cause. Other digits have single syllable phonetics. (1,2,3,5,8) ApLundell (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a book on aviation communication that directly addresses the question. --Jayron 32 01:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I was small, people didn't have personal telephone numbers. There was a black telephone connected by wire to the house and that was it. Someone I called asked me for the number so they could call back. The area code for the city (Oxford) was 0865, so I recited the number starting "nought - eight ...". After I hung up my mother chided me for using the word "nought", as she said it could be mistaken for "four". Area codes were constructed on similar principles to postcodes - Oxford's was originally 0OX2, which became 0092 with the change to all - figure dialling, thus one of the few to have an "00" area code. The code was changed when the "00" prefix was made the access code for international calls. 81.148.187.1 (talk) 09:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you: I wasn't aware of the 0092: I knew that Oxford was 0-UN-5 (for University) but had never thought about why. In those days, British phones had the letter O on 0, and not on 6 (as I believe American phones had - I heard that advanced as the reason we went to all-digit phone numbers when international dialling arrived). Looking at List of dialling codes in the United Kingdom, I see that other names such as Oswestry and Orpington originally had 00 codes (0073, and 0072), but were likewise changed in 1968 to codes where letter O corresponded to 6. --ColinFine (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the 00 prefix could lead to even worse confusion than nought vs four, since it indicates a license to kill. I hope there were no fatalities when they made that switch. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Red distress flags on broken down US cars (1960s)[edit]

In Point Blank (1967 film), a sniper hides in the structure of a bridge over the Los Angeles River. Once he's finished, he returns to his car, which he has left parked on the bridge. Presumably parking is forbidden there; so he has left the hood up (indicating that he has broken down) and he has put a red tag (which appears to be stiff cardboard) on the vehicle's antenna. I imagine he did so to avoid the police paying attention to the car, or it being towed, while he was waiting to do his shooting. He puts the hood down, removes the card, and drives off.

Context alone would suggest that the tag means something like "I have broken down, and have gone for help" - kind of a neat idea, in a pre-cellphone time. For your convenience, a shot of the car and the red card is here. Beyond what I've inferred, can anyone tell me anything concrete about these cards? What were they called? Did they have any legal standing? Who issued them? Were there other colours, which meant other things (medical issue, out of gas, etc.)? Were they used in other US states?

Thanks for your help. 87.115.179.227 (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was different in the 1960s, but for as long as I have known in the U.S., the convention is to hang a white towel or piece of fabric from the car; it's generally taken to be a request for help with a broken-down car. See here --Jayron 32 00:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought doing that would ensure some people came along quite quickly to strip the car of anything valuable. Dmcq (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Agreement withdrawal process[edit]

I'm trying to understand the exact process by which US might withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Unfortunately the reporting on this subject isn't very clear, not even from the great New York Times[8]:

   The Trump administration plans to invoke the accord’s formal withdrawal mechanism, a winding legal process that will take four years to complete and would lead to an official exit on Nov. 4, 2020, the day after the next presidential election. A future administration could, if it chose, rejoin.

1. Four years from today would be Tuesday, June 1, 2021[9], so either someone screwed up the date math at NYT or the "four years" timeline isn't exact. Which is it?

2. Assuming it's exactly four years to withdrawal, and assuming that Trump loses the 2020 election. A new POTUS will be sworn in on January 20th, 2021, just before the withdrawal takes effect. Can the new POTUS cancel the withdrawal process at the last minute? Or is the withdrawal process irrevocable once initiated?

(I realize the new POTUS, whether in 2021 or 2025 or even later, always have the option rejoining the Paris Agreement, but it might look slightly better on paper if the US never technically left it in the first place, hence my questions above.)

Scala Cats (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All that's happened is an announcement that a formal withdrawal process will be initiated at some unspecified future time. It hasn't been initiated yet. But even if it's initiated today, a 4-year process would see it extend out to 1 June 2021. However, there's going to be a presidential election on 4 November 2020, which is 7 months before the end of that 4-year process, and a new president could choose to stop the process the day after he/she is elected. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's part I'm asking about. If there's a new president, is he legally allowed to stop the withdrawal process as defined by the text of the Paris Agreement?

Some withdrawal processes can be stopped by the initiating country if they so chooses. Some withdrawal processes cannot (Brexit comes to mind). It all depends on the exact legalese of the treaty in question. So I'm asking for reliable sources on whether the Paris Agreement's withdrawal process can be legally cancelled or not by the withdrawing party. In other words: "Is the withdrawal process irrevocable once initiated?" Scala Cats (talk) 01:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Paris Agreement took effect November 4th, 2016, after a specified minimum number of countries had ratified it. According to the terms of the treaty, no participant can formally begin the withdrawal process until three years after its effective date, i.e. November 4th, 2019. Further, a declaration that a nation wishes to withdraw doesn't become effective until (at least) 1 year after the country has submitted their formal notice that they intend to withdraw. Hence, the earliest date that any country can leave the treaty while complying with its terms is November 4th, 2020. That's where the exit date comes from, which is a little less than 4 years from now. Dragons flight (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to Trump the next presidential election will be on 3 November 2020. I think we can trust him on that. 81.148.187.1 (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well there wasn't any enforcement mechanism anyway so the actual leaving date doesn't mean much. The main official effect is that the US formally is ignoring climate change. I think this will make other countries more clear about the business and may I think despite the lack of any enforcement eventually lead to tariff barriers against America to compensate but that wouldn't be till after the formal withdrawal in four years time. Dmcq (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does not mean that the US is completely ignoring climate change... it means that the US has rejected the specific remedies to climate change that are set out in the accords. In other words... the the rejection is political and economic (what to do about climate change) rather than scientific. Blueboar (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't actually many specific remedies set out in the accords. The accords were just a bunch of voluntary targets of reducing emissions along with a requirement the developed countries should help out poorer countries with financing both for adapting to a low emission economy and in adapting to climate change albeit without any actual binding commitments on how much they should contribute. (To be clear, the funding goal is $100 billion per year, although all Paris actually did is extend this to 2025 from previous agreements and suggest it should be increased, it still didn't establish a mechanism to decide how the developed countries achieve this, so there's no actual requirement they do so. Similarly developing countries are encouraged to help out if they can, there was resistance to any wording suggesting they need to, although such a wording wouldn't have actually required them to anymore than it requires the US to contribute any specific amount.) The only things the accords really set out was agreements to monitor and report on emissions and their financial contributions and to continue discussion, set more voluntary targets etc. The primary specific part was an agreement to attempt to limit temperature rise to well below 2 degrees C from preindustrial levels but as this had no actual specific mechanism behind it, it was fairly pie in the sky, with 1.5 degrees C being an even more pie in the sky goal. I guess you could say the US has decided rather than limiting emissions they want to simply adapt to climate change, but even that isn't really clear. The only thing they seem to have clearly rejected are the monitoring and reporting mechanisms. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]