Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

June 7

Creating a Wikipedia article?

What does it really take to create a Wikipedia article? I created one about an actor (Malcolm Dixon (actor)) who was in a some movies that I liked in the 80's. It was quickly deleted by someone who said that he didn't see any of the movies, so the actor must not be notable. I argued a bit and I was told that the pages for the movies I mentioned didn't have a link to his page. I went to each of the movie pages and made sure that the reference to the actor's name linked to the page and then recreated the page. It was quickly proposed for deletion because it didn't have references. I went through and added references. After a few hours of messing with the weird references thing, I was told that the references I was adding don't count. I need different references. So, assume that I spend the next few days finding different references, what comes next? 209.149.113.5 (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The easiest way for one unfamiliar with process is to use WP:Article wizard and/or WP:Your first article. They will help walk you through the steps and Article wizard will require a reviewer to approve your work so you can avoid the messy process you are currently in. WP:Reliable sources should help with your current issue. Questions like these can be asked at the WP:Teahouse as well which specializes in newcomers. Rmhermen (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You problem appears to be with the notability criteria - which for actors is

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Looking at the list in your article, I don't think you can really claim that he meets those. Wymspen (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It is pointless. Before I could even get to adding interviews and all his theater work, all the work I did was reverted. It is obvious that this has to do with being in the "in-crowd". You want a "significant" role. What makes it "significant"? He had multiple major roles in multiple movies, but are they "significant"? In multiple films. How many is multiple? He has been in over 30 films. Apparently 30 is not "multiple". He has a large fan base. Really? Every actor with an article on Wikipedia has a large fan base? How large is "large"? There are many fans of Time Bandits and Labrynth who are also fans of the actors. But, how many does it take to be "large"? Makes a "unique" contribution to entertainment. There is absolutely nothing unique in entertainment. It is all recycled. "Prolific"? How many is "prolific"? Then "innovative". You want to know if he recycled old work when most people forgot about it? That criteria is all bunch of opinions that can be argued either way anyone likes. If you are in the "in-crowd", it is argued for you. If you aren't, it is argued against you. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't really think playing an oompa loompa in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory and a washing machine in The Goodies count as significant contributions to world cinema. It would be best if you let this one pass. --Viennese Waltz 18:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Who decides, for example, Matthew Alan, Micah Alberti or Stuart Allan (all of whom I have never heard of) are more worthy of an article than Malcolm Dixon (who I have heard of)? --TrogWoolley (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I would have used Peter Ostrum as an example. The claim being made is that if you played an Oopma Loompa, it doesn't matter if you went on to continue acting in movies, television, and on stage for the next 46 years. Once an Oompa Loompa, you are permanently non-notable. (Unless one of the cool kids creates the article, of course.) 209.149.113.5 (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand your frustration (as one who's written close to 700 articles since 2003; and one who's had numerous other contributions deleted/reverted). But I'd strongly caution you about carrying on with this "in-crowd" stuff. There is no in-crowd. Wikipedia:There is no cabal. There is no inner sanctum. Learn that early, and learn to deal more realistically with the challenges Wikipedia can throw at you. Help is always available. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

There are however, cliques which gain control over certain articles or areas. One of the worst problems in Wikipedia is the "PhD"s, who insist on keeping all articles they control in a state that can only be read by those who hold advanced degrees. Hence the need for a separate Simple Wikipedia, as opposed to those articles being the intro to each of ours. StuRat (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

(laughing) You really think that's what the Simple English Wikipedia is? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

During Wikipedia's narcissistic "blackout" a couple of years ago, I worked some on the Simple English site. It's surprisingly challenging, as it requires putting oneself into the shoes of someone who is not broadly fluent in English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

June 8

Ford manual 5 speed transmission clutch slave cylinder designs

Hello, I am in dire need to understand the manual transmission clutch slave cylinders on the Ford trucks that use the Japanese made 5 speed transmissions. I have done extensive searching for information particularly about the hydraulic line connector designs. There have been many mechanics that do not know the kind of slave cylinders inside the transmissions and there are different designs on the input of the fittings. The angles, length, widths, etc. are different to different years and when one does not know how to identify the year it becomes a nuisance to find out. I need to know how to identify the slave cylinder while it is inside the transmission of the Ford F150 4.2 engine. I know the years the 4.2 was made for Ford F150 trucks but do not know exactly if there was any difference Ford allowed on the slave cylinders from those years they installed the 4.2 manual 5 speed transmissions and how to distinguish by sight or specifications on the input hydraulic line fitting on the slave cylinder of those years. I cannot find anyone willing to give me any idea of what to look for or how to look for it except telling me, "well, just go buy some and see if they fit." The problem is they cost a lot of money and once bought and trying to fit them if they do not fit then you are stuck with the cost. I want to know how to eliminate this if someone has installed a different year slave cylinder in the transmissions unknowing to the buyer. I hope you can understand me and if not please ask me for more information. Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.171.200.30 (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you'll have more luck here: https://www.f150forum.com/ 196.213.35.146 (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Military terminology, merging units

Is there any specific military term for merging devastated units into one new unit? Say you're on the front in WWI and you have five platoons who come out of a battle with ten surviving soldiers each - do they get reformed into a new platoon, and what's the word for it? And this is a grammar question but actually, it occurs to me, what was the protocol around that back then? Maybe they'd just be scattered off to different platoons entirely? Dr-ziego (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

In the British Army, it's called a "composite" unit. For example, the war diary of the 7th (South Irish Horse) Battalion, Royal Regiment of Ireland records that on 21 March 1918 (the first day of the German Spring Offensive), the battalion had been reduced to "1 Officer and about 40 Other Ranks". The next day, "The Battn now forming part of a composite Battn of units of 16th Division..." Alansplodge (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

See also the Household Cavalry Composite Regiment. Alansplodge (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr-ziego (talk • contribs) 22:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Consolidated in the U.S. - see 3rd Arkansas Consolidated Infantry Regiment for example. Rmhermen (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Small van identification please

I just glimpsed an interesting small van that I'd like to identify. (I live in France.) It was about the width of a SmartCar - perhaps 1.5 m wide, and proportioned like a fairly typical boxy van. I only saw it for a moment but I'm fairly sure the driver was in its centre. It seemed to have some commercial sign on the side, which I mention because it signifies to me the typical usage. What make and model could it have been? Hayttom (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Does anything at microvan help? Maybe something like the Daihatsu Midget.--Jayron32 20:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Here in New Zealand, NZ Post is using Norwegian-built Paxster vans for mail delivery. These are street legal with a max speed of 50 kilometres per hour (31 mph), but are permitted to drive up onto footpaths (sidewalks) to access mailboxes. There's no Paxster article yet, but if you google the name you'll find dozens of images. Maybe that's what you saw. Akld guy (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Or perhaps the Piaggio Ape. Thankfully, they've never made it across the Channel. Alansplodge (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all, I don't think we found what I glimpsed, but I'm glad to read about the suggestions. Hayttom (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Brighton Pier Rides from an Engineering Perspective

Hello, Reference Desk Contributers, after a recent holiday to Brighton, I was left thinking about the rides on the pier. As an electronics and computer enthusiast, I am dead interested in all electronic and computer controlled items. Though some of my points here are not exactly pertinent to this subject, I feel that there are a lot of engineering questions that I could ask.

First of all, the rides on Brighton Pier, or at least the same type of rides found there; what are the expected voltages and wattages that such items would require for sufficient operation?

Also, from an engineering point of view, how are height restrictions correctly determined when designing a ride? I am particularly interested in maximum height restrictions, as they are less common and more unusual. Although these are often associated with children's rides, they do occasionally turn up on more adult rides.

I also notice that many of the rides on Brighton Pier have flashing lights. How are they actually programmed? I am an expert with computer programming, I guess that I want to know how that kind of expertise fits into amusement park rides?

Finally, out of pure curiosity, how much do the types of ride on Brighton Pier cost? Some of the rides, such as The Booster and Air Race intrigue me.

I appreciate that you may not have an engineering background, but I still expect to enjoy your thoughts here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collegiate199861 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Collegiate199861 (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The Air Race ride "replicates the experiences and sensations of an acrobatic airplane flight with banks, loops, dives and weightlessness"[1]. It is manufactured by Zamperla[2] and consumes 100 kW - 109 kW drive power.[3][4].

The Booster ride may be the one made by Fabbri seen in this POV video. "Spin, turn upside down and be catapulted 130 feet into the air!"[5]. It consumes 180 kW, normally from a 3-phase 380 VAC 50 Hz supply (detailed technical information here).

Height restrictions on Brighton Palace Pier:[6]

Under 0.9m - too small for Trampolines, Carousel, Fantasia, MegaSlide

Under 1.2m i.e Kiddies just under 4 feet (3' 11.24") - too small for Galaxia, AirRace

Under 1.3m - too small for TurboCoaster

1.2m to 1.4m - Must be accompanied by someone over 1.4m with a wristband

Here are email addresses for the pier info@brightonpier.co.uk and the Air Race manufacturer zamperla@zamperla.it. Blooteuth (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

June 9

Batman’s Ras-a-gul’s mask

Where to buy from, and does it even function as displayed in the movie? 116.58.205.46 (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Ra's al Ghul ("Ghoul's Head" or "Demon's Head") is a fictional supervillain appearing in American comic books published by DC Comics, commonly as an adversary of the superhero Batman. Fan references: [7] [8] and a video about the character's history. A DIY guide to Ra’s Al Ghul's Costume. This rubber mask doesn't do a lot. Blooteuth (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

This reminds me of when the Star Wars toy marketers produced plastic light sabers, and some kids were upset that they didn't actually work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, small kids don't know what's possible, and deceptive ads certainly encourage their misconceptions. When I was a kid I got a toy "Star Trek phaser". Now, I didn't expect it to vaporize anything, but I did expect a beam of colored light to come out, as it did in the ad. I was disappointed. StuRat (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Glasses for reading, when making a speech

Hello. I've just been given reading glasses. I'm also a minister of religion and so often lead services, alternatiely reading from a book and looking up at the congregants. I've never worn glasses before so can anyone help me work out: what do I do with them in services? If I leave them off I struggle to read; if I put them on, when I look up I struggle to see and it's presumably bad for my eyes. What do you think? THanks 176.35.31.63 (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Three options - get bifocals, get half lenses, or let them slip down your nose so that you can look over the top of them. Wymspen (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Out of those three, the following fourth option would be best: See an optometrist. They are trained to give professional advice on exactly this problem. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Especially regarding the "presumably bad for my eyes" part, which may or may not be valid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The result of following the fourth option may be glasses with Progressive lenses which give the advantage of bifocals but without the distracting border line between segments. Blooteuth (talk) 23:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

By substituting a distracting border area. Well, that's a matter of personal preference. I don't think I'm stepping on anyone professional toes if I point out that frequently putting glasses on and off causes wear on the glasses frames, particularly if you get in the habit of doing it one-handed. --69.159.63.238 (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

As a suggestion from a fellow glasses wearer: when you look up at the congregation, don't try to focus on details/individuals, allow that view to remain blurred. I appreciate this may conflict with a natural desire in the circumstances to 'connect'. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.208.38 (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Another option is to put your reading glasses on to read, then take them off when not reading. This can actually be helpful, as it serves as a sign to the audience that a transition is occurring. So, you put on your glasses and they know to grab their Bibles or hymn books, and you take them off and they know to put them away. Hopefully you have room on your podium to put them down there. Now, I don't suggest you do this with every glance towards the audience between reading lines, for those you can just leave them on and not worry about the audience being blurry. StuRat (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Yet another option is half-glasses, where you just look over the top of them. They are reading glasses but only half the lens area is used. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

2nd AmTrack Battalion,

Elements of this battalion were deployed during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lancehurley (talk • contribs) 15:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

What is your question?--Jayron32 17:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

June 10

Is calling for "Bastille Day" on a forum illegal?

In this posting I argued for people who have access to classified information to start leaking information. Someone replied saying that my posting is in itself a violation of the law:

"You do understand that this post is treason under federal law right? You are calling for an over throw of the government, that's what "Bastille Day" was, the start of the French revolution... your comments are very, very dangerous, and I know for a fact... the secrete service, FBI, NSA and other government agencies are monitoring ALL of these boards and they know your true identity... This is a very, very foolish post, and it is too late to take it down they know where you are... not smart."

Count Iblis (talk) 08:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

If you encourage someone to break the law, then you are certainly laying yourself open to a conspiracy charge. But the broader issue- aren't people calling for tugged overthrow of the government all the time? SWP, etc.? There is also presumably a difference in advocating something and actually doing something to further that end. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't actually find any indication in conspiracy (criminal)#United_States that encouraging someone to break the law can be conspiracy. Conspiracy is an agreement to break the law, and usually requires at least one overt act by one of the conspirators. As to whether it's possible to prove the existence of an agreement without two-way communication, that's beyond my limited expertise.

In the United States, my understanding is that it's generally legal to advocate the overthrow of the government, even the violent overthrow, as long as it's a theoretical political position. See Yates v. United States. Of course, this should not be taken as legal advice by the orginal poster. --Trovatore (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

As you know, you tied our hands a bit by telling us about the background of the question. Without presuming to offer legal advice, I would suggest that Brandenburg v. Ohio and imminent lawless action may be of interest. --Trovatore (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Expressing an opinion is covered by the First Amendment. The respondent may have been bluffing you - like they do with "legal threats" here. But to be on the safe side, you should probably contact an attorney. Although that could snowball. Your best bet might be to just stay away from that topic in public venues. And by the way, I do concur with the writer's comment about Bastille Day. That was a poor analogy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

You know that there's a yuge difference between expressing an opinion and encouraging treasonous actions, right? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Treason is very narrowly defined in America. Mere words seldom amount to treason. Taking up arms against the United States would be a different story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

And so does leaking classified information during a time of war! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Has the most recent arrested one, something-Winner, been charged with treason? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The US has prosecuted only about 30 treason cases in its entire history. The last one was Tomoya Kawakita for actions during World War II. So no, no one recent has been formally charged with treason. While there is some ambiguity, many believe that the law requires giving aid to an enemy nation upon which the US has formally declared war. Despite engaging in many military conflicts, the US has not issued a formal declaration of war since World War II. Dragons flight (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually Adam Yahiye Gadahn was indicted. If they hadn't offed him extrajudicially, we might have someday had a test of the question of whether you can have an "Enemy" in the meaning of Article III section 3 without a formal declaration of war.

In any case, whether or not al-Qaeda was an "Enemy" in the relevant legal sense, it's quite clear that Gadahn did "adhere" to them. The idea that calling abstractly for the end of government secrecy could be "adhesion" to a particular "Enemy" strikes me as extremely strained. But once again, no one should take this as legal advice, and I am not a lawyer. --Trovatore (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

It is if the leaked secrets aid the enemy even slightly! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. Evidence or go away. --Trovatore (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The definition of treason is all the evidence I need: "levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, GIVING THEM AID AND COMFORT" -- so if you leak government secrets and this ends up helping the enemy, then THIS FALLS INTO THE THIRD AND LAST CATEGORY OF TREASON (giving the enemy aid and comfort)! So admit that you lied and shut your yap! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 04:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

No, there are only two categories. The first category is making War against the United States. The second is adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. To get into the second category, adhesion is required. So basically you're completely wrong about this, as about everything else you've said about this thread. --Trovatore (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

LIAR -- the constitution says there are THREE categories, and giving the enemy aid and comfort constitutes treason either with or without adhering to them! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith, which you did not on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Thank you, and happy editing! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Why should I assume good faith in your case when you just BLATANTLY LIED about me -- I haven't visited the humanities desk in YEARS! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 08:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It goes a bit more than "overthrow of the government". The events commemorated by Bastille Day resulted in the summary killings of a great many of the aristocracy. Calling for a "Bastille Day" is calling for an armed uprising in which you intend persons to be unlawfully put to death. Akld guy (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

'Lawfully', I think, following the masses' mandate of absolute power. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Lawful power resides in Congress and the President, not in the masses -- you understand this, right? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 08:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

You realise this was regarding what Bastille Day actually was, right? You realise that is the context of the question, right? You realise you made a totally subjective assumption that deaths caused in 1787 were unlawful, right?

You don't? Right. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course they were unlawful under French law at the time -- that's not a subjective assumption, that's objective fact! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Using Bastille Day as a metaphor does not equate to violent overthrow of the government. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Just on the face of it, your post falls under at least half a dozen different statutes: conspiracy to mishandle classified information, incitement to criminal activity, very likely also incitement to violence and/or incitement to terrorism (the "Bastille Day" reference can certainly be construed as such), conspiracy to aid the enemy during a time of war (this, BTW, is potentially a death penalty offense), and because of the context in which you made this post it likely also falls under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (if so, this means, among other things, that it may fall under the jurisdiction of the military commissions established by President Bush, where you will not have the same rights that you would normally have in a US court.) And you may also have broken other laws which I forgot to mention, but this will do for a start. In short: you are in one whole sh*tload of trouble (to put it mildly), and I certainly wouldn't want to be you! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

You have provided no evidence for these baseless claims. Go read Brandenburg v. Ohio --Trovatore (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

You go read the Authorization for Use of Military Force and the National Security Strategy Guidelines (which in combination supersede Brandenburg v. Ohio in terrorism-related cases such as this one!) 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, you've provided no evidence whatsoever for this absurd claim. Statute laws and executive-branch reports do not "supersede" case law interpreting fundamental constitutional principles. --Trovatore (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

They do if the military commissions are involved, because these are a completely separate system which is not part of the judiciary and not answerable to the judiciary! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Give evidence or go away. --Trovatore (talk) 03:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the IP has a clear idea of how things work in America. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The evidence is, the Authorization for Use of Military Force gives all the authority to deal with terrorists to the PRESIDENT, not the courts! And the National Security Strategy Guidelines further make ANY action which helps terrorists in ANY way an act of terrorism in itself -- so, technically, making any ruling which hinders the President in fighting terrorists would make the judge a terrorist! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 04:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Let's see Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Rasul v. Bush, Boumediene v. Bush, etc. The Supreme Court of the United States has been unambiguous in their authority to review and overturn decisions related to military tribunals if they violate the constitution. I'm sure the Justices will be surprised to learn that you think that makes them terrorists, which is just total nonsense. Dragons flight (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

See also Ex parte Milligan — you can't try civilian citizens in military tribunals in the first place, terrorism or not. (Not that there's any connection between calling for the disclosure of secrets and terrorism, anyway.) --Trovatore (talk) 05:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The last case of these is superseded by the Authorization for Use of Military Force, and in the other three the supreme court has BLATANTLY OVERSTEPPED ITS POWER to even HEAR them, and committed TREASON by overturning the President! So they ARE terrorists as per the National Security Strategy Guidelines, and President Bush should have had them dragged off to Camp Gitmo (and in any case should have disregarded their illegal and treasonable rulings, just as Lincoln had done in Ex parte Merryman)! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 07:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It's really quite impressive. Every single thing you have said in this discussion is wrong! 100% batting average, and out of a lot of at-bats too. --Trovatore (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

What part of "The President is authorized to use all necessary and proper force against those nations, organizations and/or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the 9/11 attacks, or harbored those persons" don't you understand?! And note that it DOES NOT say "except US citizens" or "unless the supreme court says otherwise"! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 08:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Trovatore has it right. The relevant rule in the US is that the First Amendment broadly protects speech even when advocating criminal activity, except when the speech is designed to produce an imminent lawless action. This standard requires both that the speech advocates for criminal activity that is imminent (and not merely at some indefinite time in the future) and that the speech is likely to produce such criminal activity. I won't offer an opinion on whether your post meets that standard, but I've never heard of any prosecutions for inciting imminent lawless action as the result of broadly directed comments made in a public forum. Every imminent lawless action prosecution I've ever heard of involved a speaker with actual knowledge that specific members of his audience were likely to act on his call to violence / criminality. Of course, anyone (including the government) can look at your comments and judge you positively or negatively based on their content. But that is different from the consideration of whether an actual crime was committed. Dragons flight (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

You posted this on the Washington Post's newsblog, which is moderated. The first thing that might happen is that someone complains about your post and it is taken down. The next thing is that the Washington Post could disable your account. If they take it very seriously they could report you to the FBI. Then you would get some FBI officers coming to talk to you to persuade you not to put such things up in future. Since neither of the first two things have happened, the third isn't likely to either. If it does, you could contact the ACLU. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, in Britain (which like the U S is a common law jurisdiction) sometimes judges produce a decision which conflicts with the law as everyone thought existed at the time. In those circumstances Parliament may pass a statute expressly saying that the law is what it was thought to be. So far as I know, Congress can amend the Constitution by passing a statute ("amendment") to change it. 213.104.49.143 (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

No, an amendment is much much much harder to pass than a mere statute. You're correct that it can be done, technically. It requires a 2/3 majority in both houses, then ratification by 3/4 of the states. (Unlike a statute, an amendment cannot be passed by Congress alone; it requires the assent of the states.)

(There is another possible technique, a constitutional convention, which bypasses Congress altogether and sends amendments for approval directly to the states. It has never been used. There was a constitutional convention, but that was the one that wrote that procedure.) --Trovatore (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

See Constitutional amendment#United States. I'm surprised we don't have a standalone article, but maybe it's redundant with Article Five of the United States Constitution, which also see.

I was wrong that a convention bypasses Congress altogether; seems that it would have to be Congress to call the convention in the first place. However Congress doesn't actually have a choice in the matter, so I was almost right. They have to do it whenever 2/3 of the states request one, and there doesn't seem to be any way for them to do it otherwise. --Trovatore (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

To do what we're expected to do here, and draw people's attention to our own articles, the IP (the one who has up to this point been regarded as being consistently wrong- except by themselves) can see a recent object lesson, here. In front of thousands of people, an American citizen publicly stated that "that if the same laws were applied to U.S. presidents as were applied to the Nazis after World War II [...] every single one of them, every last rich white one of them fromTruman on, would have been hung to death and shot—and this current administration is no exception. They should be hung, and tried, and shot. As any war criminal should be", referring, of course, to the administration of George W Bush. And regardless of the meltdown that Fox News went into, no-one got arrested, charged, or convicted of treason  :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Only because the National Security Strategy Guidelines are not being enforced like they should be! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:E957:E363:9DD1:1743 (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Bill Stepien, Bridgegate, Trump

we don't speculate about criminal matters, see WP:BLP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why wasn't Stepien prosecuted for his role in Bridgegate? Also, what has Donald Trump said about Stepien after taking him on as political director?2602:306:CFC8:DDB0:ACC0:1F97:E6AD:B0E5 (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC) The article indicates that they didn't really have anything on him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC) Sorry, I disagree. The article indicates the opposite--1.) the "cover" text, and 2.) the claim by Wildstein that Stepien was in on it. I'd like to know why he wasn't prosecuted. I'm also interested on any comments by Trump or the White House concerning Stepien when he was hired as Political Director. Thanks.2602:306:CFC8:DDB0:790A:A48D:2C1C:AA9C (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC) the "cover" text message wasn't mentioned in the article, I just realized.2602:306:CFC8:DDB0:FCD6:929D:31DF:E0F9 (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC) Hat per WP:BLP μηδείς (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)