Humanities desk
< August 11	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 13 >

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.

August 12

British crown dependencies and global intercourse.

Greetings!

As of late, I've been researching the geopolitical quirks concerning Guernsey, Jersey, and the Isle of Man and their rather quaint role in international relations. Namely, I've read about when they represent themselves before organizations such as the EU, UN, WTO, and when they defer to the authority of Great Britain.

Thus far, however, I've encountered numerous (rather equivocal) claims that although they are not members of the EU, they generally apply nearly all EU laws and regulations, and also that while they are not even observers at the World Trade Organization, their status mirrors that of the U.K. All this really confuses me.

If, for instance, somebody in America or Japan wished to co-ordinate manufacturing and logistics operations in Man, how may he go about doing so apropos international trade regulations? Does America or Japan (again, for instance) recognize the Isle as a "most-favored nation?" Or—much as with Monaco and France—would they simply treat it as part of Britain for excise and duty purposes?

I apologize if this question seems akin to splitting hairs, but the wikipedia articles on both the WTO, and on each of the crown dependencies remain strangely silent (or unclear) on this matter. Pine (talk) 11:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Isle of Man Government, Treasury Department: Customs and Excise - International trade and the IOM says; "The Isle of Man, by virtue of its unique Customs and Excise Agreement with the United Kingdom and European Law, is treated as part of the UK and European Union (EU) for Customs, Excise and Value Added Tax (VAT) purposes." Not sure if this fully answers your question though (not really my field). Alansplodge (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IOC treats the Isle of Man as part of Great Britain for the purpose of the Olympics; they made a big deal this year of Mark Cavendish being Manx. --Jayron32 18:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably more accurate to say that the United Kingdom treats the Isle of Man as part of itself for the purposes of eligibility for the "Great Britain" team. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth mentioning that a number of sovereign states that aren't EU members apply some EU laws. For example, the members of the European Free Trade Association (currently Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein) have agreed to follow laws relating to the single market so that they are able to participate in it. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caliphate system during Rashidun Caliphate

Is there a website that shows how the caliphate system looked like in diagram during the Rashidun Caliphate's time (meaning Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.23.37 (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the website is called Wikipedia. See Rashidun Caliphate. Looie496 (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "diagram". Many consider it a kind of golden age, even though three of the four were assassinated, and it ended in the First Fitna... AnonMoos (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statue identification

Hi all,

I was in Cornwall recently and I saw in front of a house a statue that looked rather out of place. I took some pictures of it and uploaded them: 1 and 2. Does anyone know what this is a statue of? It looks like something from the Far East, but I'd be reticent to be any more specific. Thanks Thelb4^(talk) 16:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's a replica of a terracotta warrior. Mikenorton (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This one [1] (in the museum) is almost identical. Mikenorton (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Available for $36 on Ebay. Looie496 (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Looie, I managed to wipe out your post above while trying to sort out an edit conflict. Alansplodge (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timing of VP candidate announcement

Does anybody know why Mitt Romney chose the odd hour of 9:00 am on a Saturday morning to announce his selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate? --Halcatalyst (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

US TV networks run their political discussion programmes the following day - Sunday morning talk shows#United States. The Romney campaign will have had proxies lined up, read to appear on those programs to sing Ryan's praises. Announcing on Saturday gives them the whole day of dominating the political news and time to get those proxies into the political shows' Sunday lineups; with a bit of luck they'd hope to totally dominate the political discussions for both days. If they'd announced on a weekday they might have had to contend with some other political story like an announcement of some economic report. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Because the USS Wisconsin (used as a backdrop) had a Bar Mitzvah booked for later in the day?

Because Romney knew all the liberals would be busy watching MSNBC (already committed to hours of Olympic water polo and rhythmic gymnastics), thus delaying how long it would be before an anti-Ryan response aired?

OK, Sorry...to be more serious... I agree with Finlay ... the announcement was the big news event of the weekend... by announcing early on Saturday, the Romney campaign guaranteed that it would be a topic of discussion throughout the weekend... and be the lead story on both the Saturday and Sunday news shows (note: many of the Sunday news shows actually tape on Saturday afternoon). Blueboar (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also (although much less important than it used to be) overall sales of newspapers in the US are a bit higher on Sundays - announcing on Saturday morning gives the editorial staffs of those papers most of the day to polish the stories they already have ready (about Ryan and the other contenders) and write a "what Romney picking Ryan means" story before they put the paper to bed at teatime. [This all assumes that Romney's campaign staff think that people who matter electorally read newspapers - it's not entirely clear that this is really the case.] Additionally there's always a risk (for any candidate) that a few days after the announcement someone will come forward and say that person done them wrong somehow in the distant past (real, trivial, or just imaginary), so if they announced on say a Tuesday they'd risk those diversions being the story on Sunday. They want their first big-exposure Sunday to be about Ryan and his views, not interviews with his first girlfriend or his college roommate or some nutter who claims Ryan ate his hamster. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

mmmmmm... hamster.

Despite all the speculation above regarding how Saturday was a good day, the campaign actually intended to make the announcement on Friday.[2] Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The CBC ran this AP story claiming (here) that the announcement was set to be on Friday but was postponed because of this week's killing spree.

Romney advisers had hoped to announce Ryan's selection Friday in New Hampshire, but the funeral for the temple shooting victims was scheduled for that morning.

Plans were scrapped. A new location was selected. The announcement would come Saturday morning at the USS Wisconsin, the battleship named for Ryan's home state. Tom Haythornthwaite 21:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)