Miscellaneous desk
< February 17	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 19 >

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.

February 18

Successful Assassinations By Bullet Ricochet

I was previously reading about the near-assassination of Ronald Reagan in 1981 and about how none of John Hinckley's bullets directly hit Reagan but where one bullet ricocheted off of the side of Reagan's limousine and hit Reagan, almost killing him. My question is if there was ever a successful assassination of a famous person due to a ricocheting bullet (rather than due to a bullet which hit the victim directly)? If so, who was the famous person that was assassinated? I apologize if this question is offensive to someone, but this is a serious and legitimate question. Futurist110 (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be asking about shooting someone by aiming the gun somewhere other than in their direction and hoping/calculating the bullet ricochets in exactly the right way so that it hits them. That seems a very odd way of shooting someone, and I cannot imagine what the motivation for such a thing would be. As for actual historical cases, I've never heard of any.

Outside of that scenario: If you aim at person A but the bullet ricochets and hits and kills person B, the law would treat that in different ways in different places. I'm sure some jurisdictions would consider the intention to kill as the primary issue, and the fact that you killed someone other than the person you were hoping to kill would not matter, and you'd still be up for murder. Other places might treat it as manslaughter of B on top of attempted murder of A. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Killing someone even unintended during the commission of a crime is called felony murder and it's a first-degree offense under common law, not manslaughter. μηδείς (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "first degree" offenses under classical common law. Some states don't even use the degree designation. And felony murder, ironically enough, only persists in the U.S., my understanding was it was largely abolished in most common law countries. I don't think it exists on a degree system; however it is often capital.

However, shooting at someone, missing, then it hitting them anyway, is just called "murder". So is trying to shoot A, and hitting B instead, unless of course you have a defense to the shooting, like say, self-defense. Shadowjams (talk) 06:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did go to the trouble of pointing out that the treatment of unlawful killings varies between jurisdictions. You're talking as if the way it is in your neck of the woods applies to all of humanity. I promise you that's not the case. The very terms "felony murder" and "first-degree" have no legal meaning in most parts of the anglosphere. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say currently, everywhere, I said under common law which is exactly what I meant, and if you read the felony murder article I linked to it clearly explains that this was indeed the case in anglophone countries until some of them passed statutory law overriding the common law. Next time I will just copy the whole article hear to make sure it's read rather than just linking to it and assuming it will be read. μηδείς (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That promises to be a most useful and welcome development. Except, you then run into the problem of TL;DR. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. In regards to my question, I meant that someone (like Hinckley) would attempt to shoot and kill someone famous by attempting to shoot this famous person directly and shoot in the direction of/straight at this famous person. However, in the scenario that I'm talking about, the attempted assassin would miss hitting his/her target directly and have one or more of his/her bullets ricochet off of something else and hit his/her intended target, thus killing this famous person. I'm not really talking about the intent not to shoot in the direction of or straight at your target, but to rather accidentally miss directly hitting your target with all of your bullets/gunshots. As for the legal explanation, thank you for explaining it to me. This is what I was thinking the legal situation in regards to this would be as well. Futurist110 (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think in most common-law jurisdictions, the relevant doctrine is not felony murder but rather transferred intent. Felony murder is a weird beast intended to incentivize armed robbers (for example) to take precautions against killing someone accidentally, because they know it will not be treated as an accident. It gets twisted into some bizarre shapes (like a robber going down for murder because the security guard killed the robber's accomplice).

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think the "underlying felony" in felony murder can itself be attempted murder. In those situations, you get into transferred intent instead, where the malice inherent in trying to kill the first party gets treated as intent to kill the one who actually winds up dead. --Trovatore (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trovatore is correct. The legal doctrine is merger (it being under Lesser included offense seems incorrect to me, but whatever). Shadowjams (talk) 06:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much but I wasn't asking about the law in regards to this, only about examples. Everyone, please try sticking to the topic at hand. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite the same thing, but a sniper presumably aiming for FDR in 1932 hit Chicago's mayor Anton Cermak instead. I know there are theories that he was actually aiming for Cermak, but it was still treated as a presidential assassination attempt. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read that there is no evidence that he was actually aiming for Cermak. I heard about this story before, though as you said before it doesn't quite fit as an answer to my question. Futurist110 (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Cermak doesn't quite say it's not true, just that there was no real evidence. Walter Winchell was a one-man rumor mill, and he may have either made it up or concluded it based on various vague rumors. A closer parallel might be when JFK was hit and a bullet went through Connally's upper body also. However, Connally (sp?) survived that particular "ricochet". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does this creatures from a Japanese space show look like any creature from mythology or swamp or horror comics?

I know the creature is the second link is a sphinx but is there a kind of sphinx it would resemble? Like maybe the sphinx in Oedipus or any other mythical sphinxes? And what does the other creature look like? Are these 2 "monsters" inspried by anything? http://wiki-sentai.wikia.com/wiki/Dora_Endos http://wiki-sentai.wikia.com/wiki/Dora_Sphinx Venustar84 (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That 2nd one doesn't look like a sphinx, it looks like a gargoyle [1], dressed up like a pharaoh. StuRat (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this the second time you've asked? The source says
Dora Endos (ドーラエンドス, Dōra Endosu?, 16): A pineapple/octopus monster with the power to cause people to sneeze uncontrollably until they die of it. His own weakness is cold water which he fears. Posing as a clown, he created soccer balls that contained his sneezing powder, using a boy named Isamu to do the dirty work in targeting many of the soccer teams.
wwhich seems quite accurate. μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hahnemann School Of Medicine, Allegheny University Of Health Sciences

In researching a neurologist for my wife I found a Dr. Frank who had the following biographical information on a doctor search website: Male, Age 52, Graduated 1988, Hahnemann School Of Medicine, Allegheny University Of Health Sciences. When I searched Hahnemann School of Medicine, Allegheny University of Health Sciences, I found that the school existed from 1994 to 1998. The two sources of information are contradictory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.124.123 (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a title for you.Dncsky (talk) 05:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking us a question? --TammyMoet (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He wants us to resolve the contradiction. That is, which is right, and how could one know not to trust the kind of search that gave the false info. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The college existed for a much longer period although it went through a number of name changes.[2] In 1988 it would have been called Hahnemann University. Rmhermen (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Omega watch bought online

I am planning to buy an Omega watch. I've compared the price offered at the local jewelry store and an Amazon.com listed vendor. The Amazon vendor sells the new watch for 40% cheaper than the jewelry store. Is this way too steep of a discount to not be highly suspicious?

Seagulllanc (talk) 09:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not impossible for it to be that cheap. Price alone doesn't tell you much. Jewelry stores may have to keep a high end watch in stock for a long time before it eventually sells - and they have high overheads that an online store doesn't - so it wouldn't be surprising if their prices were higher. Online vendors are often able to buy up stock from other businesses that have gone bust and thereby get insanely low prices. On the flip side, what would stop the bad guys from selling fake watches at (or near) to full price? So price alone isn't a solid guarantee of authenticity...although it can be a "red flag".

High-end watches are so frequently faked that I'd want to be very sure of the authenticity before putting down any significant amount of cash in either a bricks-and-mortar *or* online store. You can usually find online resources that show the tiny differences between the real watch and the fake. Go to Google and type: "spotting fake Omega speedmaster" (or whatever model name you're interested in). This will turn up many pages and videos showing the subtle differences between the real and the fake. Armed with that knowledge, in a high street store, you can examine the watch and know that what you're getting is real (and if it turns out that it's not - the store is right there and you can set the cops onto them!)...but the online store might well publish photographs of the genuine article, yet still ship you a fake - and be gone before you can get the law involved. But if they wanted to do that, why would they bother sending you the watch at all? They could just as easily drain your credit card dry and vanish without sending you a thing! So there is always a risk when buying something like this online.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would check out the Amazon vendor's ratings. Make sure that they are high and that there are many of them (preferably thousands). Also check out their return policy. If they pass the ratings test and will refund your full price and shipping, if not satisfied, then I'd take the chance. Once you receive the watch, you should have it checked for authenticity or check it yourself, as Steve suggests above. StuRat (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Omega is probably the nickname of the fly on the bicycle that keeps the wheels turning!85.211.129.233 (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kettles in the workplace

Everywhere I have ever worked there has been an electric kettle that staff use to make tea; and everywhere I have ever worked these kettles have been described as "not allowed" for various health & safety reasons. The company might provide a source of hot water, often via the coffee machine, but apparently some health & safety rule prevents it from providing water at 100°C - the highest temperature maybe as low as 70°C which anyone who likes tea will tell you makes for a terrible cuppa. (Odd then that to prevent legionnaires disease, the hot water in the bathrooms is often so hot you can't put your hands in it). I have heard of concerns about kettles such as an electrical hazard, a fire risk, a risk of scalding, but I've had one in my kitchen for many years without incident. So what are the health & safety issue with a kettle in the workplace? Astronaut (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, in my office kitchen (in the UK) we have fully-functional electric kettles as well as a wall-mounted boiler that produces water at close to boiling point, with no problems or restrictions that I've ever heard of. Sounds like over-zealous H&S to me, or do you work in a sector that has unusually clumsy or reckless employees? (The NHS recommends heating water to above 60°C to prevent Legionnaires' disease, which is very hot for hand-washing but of course way below tea-making temperature.) See also this from the HSE. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from a professional Facilities Services (i.e. repairs & maintenance) point of view, some establishments ban the use of kettles (or similar high-power equipment like fan heaters) that have not been PAT tested under the establishment's prevailing programme, and may also restrict the places such equipment may be plugged in. This is to prevent faulty equipment and mis-located equipment blowing power supplies. In my previous (FM) post on a large (20+ buildings) site, it was far from unknown for an unauthorised kettle or fan heater to blow the power to an entire office, thus preventing dozens of people from working until the fuse or breaker was replaced.

Actual Heath & Safety regulations vary by jurisdiction, but it would be unsurprising for national regulations or a company's internal policy to forbid the use of kettles outside of a proper kitchen facility. A kettle used in an office might well be placed in an unsafe position and accidentally scald oneself or a co-worker. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.220.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of things like this that are put down to "Health and Safety" have nothing to do with actual health and safety regulations, and more to do with insurance conditions, wanting to avoid being sued in the event of an accident, or overreactions to having been sued in the past. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been in an office with an electric kettle, but pretty much every office I was in had a microwave oven. These can be used to heat water to boiling, although you may need to use pot holders to grab the handle of your cup (or you could plunk the tea bag in and wait for it to steep, then cool, before removing it, if nobody else needs the microwave). The microwave was not allowed in one of the offices, so was hidden in a large file cabinet. :-) StuRat (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting suggestion, but we all know that you have to add the water to the tea and not the other way around - see How to make a perfect cup of tea - British style. A regular supply of tea is pretty much essential if you want to get any work out of British people. All of the British Army's tanks are fitted with a built-in water boiler called a "BV" (Boiling Vessel), a piece of equipment not required by any other army.[3] Alansplodge (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can always nuke it in one cup, remove it with a pot-holder, then pour it over the tea in a 2nd cup. This has the advantage of a cooler handle on the cup you drink from.

I myself drink "tea" constantly, although it's really herbal tea, or tisane, since I avoid caffeine and sweeteners (natural or artificial), which I would need to add with real tea. Celestial Seasonings Bengal Spice is my personal favorite for hot tea, and I switch to Bigelow peppermint flavor for iced tea, in summer. StuRat (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... and have you won Witch Weekly's most charming smile award five times running? Why are you informing us of your current favourite tisanes? 86.163.209.18 (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting page from the HSE. The kettles in the places I've worked (all low risk office environment) are usually in a small kitchenette containing a water cooler, a coffee machine, maybe a fridge, and some cupboards for supplies such as sugar, tea bags, etc. There is also a water supply and sufficient electrical outlets. Considering that the coffee machine is a much more complex piece of machinery, it seems odd to me that the humble kettle has been picked out as a particularly unsafe piece of equipment. Astronaut (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The types of hot water service may vary from office to office, but one thing that's almost guaranteed to be there is a sign to the effect of "Please clean and tidy the area after use; you wouldn't leave it like a pigsty in your own home, so why do it here?". I've seen variants of that in 40 workplaces if I've seen it once. All I can say is that obviously none of the authors have ever been in my kitchen. :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My experience is that when there's a kitchenette there's an urn or a kettle. But when there's no kitchenette people bring a kettle into the office and balance it on the edge of a desk, or put it on the carpet, in which case it really is hazardous. Demand a kitchenette! And keep it a bit clean. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, "please clean and tidy after use"? The sign that confused me in the place I currently work, is a sign like that, which adds, "we have a dishwasher, so use it!" I looked down, and there indeed was a dishwasher. I'm still recovering from the shock. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point here is that the "urn" can be an officially approved appliance attached to an officially approved outlet (into which nothing else may be plugged, and hopefully, no office or other essential machinery depends on the same circuit), and the whole thing is officially checked and maintained on a regular basis by people (a company) who are somehow insured to do such things in such a setting. (And possibly also "trained" to do so.) Thus the risk is greatly mitigated. By contrast, a random kettle plugged into the nearest socket, is just... not as nice from the company point of view.

In the rigidly controlled society that is Saudi Arabia, in a youtube video that's all about his mates and having fun and where the nearest football pitch is, you will see that they have a proper urn capable of producing 90C water just the same as we do. [4] at about 3 minutes 55. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

biased article

hi,

there is an entry on wikipedia that is heavily biased. i have edited it but it gets changed back almost immediately. is there any way of flagging up the article at the top of the page to warn that it is biased? the rating at the bottom shows that its heavily biased with a score of 1.3. how can this be fixed? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollinsondrs (talk • contribs) 17:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should discuss this on that article's talk page or on the general Wikipedia:Help_desk. This page is for general fact checking, like "How high is Mount Everest" ? StuRat (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Stu, this page is not for general fact checking, like "How high is Mount Everest?". If anyone asked that here, we'd direct them to Mount Everest, where there's a whole section about its measurement, the different heights that have shown in different sources, and the reconciliation thereof - meaning we wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel. And we'd remind them they need to do their own searches first, before coming here. What this page is, first and foremost, is a reference service for things that are not easily locatable in a quick google search or some reasonably simple search of some readily available resource. I'm surprised that, after all these years, you'd dumb our purpose down to what you said. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Referring them to an article or web site which answers their Q is still an answer. We could also handle Q's where two different sources list different heights, which would take a bit more research to explain. StuRat (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've ignored my point entirely and introduced your own straw man. But never mind, I don't have the energy right now. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stu is correct, you should ask such questions at Wikipedia:Help desk, where they will probably suggest that you put {{POV-check}} at the top of the article, and this will produce a banner saying This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page. They'd probably also suggest you explain your concerns on the talk page of the article after doing so (you will need to explain in more detail there, preferably without referring to the rating at the bottom).

Incidentally, if this is about organic milk, your proposed addition doesn't look ludicrous, and does have a respectable source, but might fall foul of WP:MEDRS or somesuch, and this is why we discuss such things on article talk pages if people object to them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct Demiurge. I left OP a note on his talk page explaining why I and another editor reverted his addition, and referred OP to Talk page. His edits are a) using an older source that has been superceded by more recent reviews, and b) breaks a compromise we reached -- he is trying to add health claims to a section focused purely on chemical differences.Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies, very helpful — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollinsondrs (talk • contribs) 23:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do "criminal bars" exist?

In many European Donald Duck comics, there are shown small, poor-quality bars frequented by shady characters, many of whom are criminals. Usually these bars are located outside the city centre, near the harbour in case of a coastal city. They are named along the lines of "The ugly old mongrel" or "The rusty crowbar". That the customers are criminals is openly known, and accepted, by both the customers and the landlord. The landlord is apparently not a criminal himself, but sympathises and socialises with his criminal clientele. However, in one story I read in German, the chef doesn't cook the food - he robs it from a nearby Chinese restaurant. Do such bars exist in real life? JIP | Talk 20:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In Melbourne in the 1920s my grandfather-in-law ran a pub where Squizzy Taylor and friends were regular customers. It may not be that the landlord "sympathises and socialises with his criminal clientele". Nor would all the customers be criminals. But business is business. There's a market niche. Someone will fill it. HiLo48 (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, even if the proprietor doesn't want criminals in his bar, it may not be so easy to kick them out. He may not know which ones are criminals, may not legally be allowed to kick them out, in some jurisdictions, and may fear for his safety if he confronts them. StuRat (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "robs the food from a nearby Chinese restaurant" part does not exist, no. People who do that repeatedly, outside of comedy, end up getting firebombed, and I've seen it happen (although, it was done very VERY ineptly). More common is that the local Chinese (or other) restaurant will not only have food services, but also financial services. Read the autobiography of Howard Marks for more information. This latter, is, of course, as much a USA thing as a European thing. See The A Team for more information. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are also biker bars which may cater to a very select clientele. Rmhermen (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A notorious pub in the East End of London during the 1950s and 60s was the Blind Beggar in Whitechapel. We even have an article about it. Alansplodge (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Blind Beggar was still open up to at least around 4 years ago, and I would assume still is - I passed it several times and drank in it once while attending annual events in the vicinity. It advertised its Kray Twins connection with a very large tarpaulin-style banner outside, and I'm fairly sure I recognised one of the customers at the bar from newspaper (crime report) photos.

In the late 90s I visited a quiet country pub in a village near Reading (Berkshire) one Friday afternoon. Apart from myself there was only one other (male) customer, chatting to the lady behind the bar. Although I wasn't trying to eavesdrop, I couldn't avoid hearing their conversation, and it became quite evident after a while that the mutual acquaintences from the London area about whom they were reminiscing were mostly career criminals. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This directory page gives the Beggar a "welcomes children" icon. It was reasonably civilised when I had a pint there about 15 years ago. Most of the local inhabitants are Bangladeshi now apart from an incongruously white area in Greatorex Street. Alansplodge (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are bars and restaurants that are known in local areas to be frequented by Mafia men. Dismas|^(talk) 03:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know bars in Yorkville, Inwood, and Riverside that go silent when a stranger walks in and used to frequent a Bar-Restaurant in Brick where you could hire someone to do or get most anything. μηδείς (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, which Yorkville, Inwood, Riverside and Brick (disambiguation) are we talking about? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That information was not withheld accidentally--although you are free to speculate--and I meant to say Old Bridge, not Brick. μηδείς (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually prefer my bars a little on the seedy side. You meet a much more interesting kind of people there, while there's no one who's just there to be seen. That said, criminal bars don't have to be "small, poor-quality" places. I used to frequent quite an upmarket place in Aix-en-Provence and a few times saw well dressed men collecting envelopes (containing protection money) from the owner. Astronaut (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have though if it was a proper bar for criminals they'd be giving the owner the envelopes. Dmcq (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]