Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 March 29

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.

March 29

Roman Catholic marriage

Out of curiosity, can a Roman Catholic choose to marry outside the church if the Roman Catholic has family members who are not Christians and hold a wedding ceremony without a wedding officiant, or at least follow old family customs and traditions (e.g. ancestral worship, holding a wedding banquet)? Or does the Roman Catholic have to give up the culture of his/her upbringing to get married "the Catholic way"? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

See Marriage (Catholic Church) which will answer all of your questions, and more. --Jayron32 01:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, ancestral worship is not part of the list of impediments, so I assume the answer is a "yes". 65.24.105.132 (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Sort of. A person who is a practicing Catholic, and wishes to remain so, must get special permission from their bishop to marry a non-Catholic. That permission is not automatically granted. --Jayron32 02:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

How does that have to do with ancestral worship? What if the Roman Catholic does marry another Roman Catholic? Can they still choose to marry outside the church? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Even then it's not a Catholic marriage if a priest doesn't co-officiate or perform a Catholic ceremony at a different time. But I am uncertain if I fully understand what the OP means by "outside the Church" here. μηδείς (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

. . . . but it can be a deacon rather than a priest. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

[EC] If by outside the church you mean not in the building, then that's fine, though dispensation is still required. Likewise, family traditions can be accommodated. I went to a church wedding between a Catholic and a Muslim, mostly officiated by the Catholic priest, with some bits with the Muslim cleric. But a Catholic isn't even necessarily "married" at all in the eyes of the church if certain condtions aren't met. Mingmingla (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your question then. Ancestor worship is not part of Catholic theology, so a marriage between a practicing Catholic and another person who practiced ancestor worship would still require the dispensation of a bishop in order to proceed, for the Catholic member of the couple to remain in communion with the Catholic church. So it has everything to do with "ancestor worship". Unless I am misunderstanding your question. Can you state exactly what the beliefs of the two partners are that you are asking about? Though, even so, basically any marriage that is not Catholic + Catholic following the prescribed Catholic ceremony in a Catholic Church Building would require special permission, so I'm not sure it matters what particular beliefs the non-Catholic has, except to note that (as I already have) that the permission is not automatic, and that I suspect that non-Catholic Christians would have a higher likelihood of getting the proper permission than non-Christians of any sort, though as noted by the example of Mingmingla, that permission can be granted as well. --Jayron32 02:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was referring to the instance where a Roman Catholic, who comes from a non-Catholic, or even non-Christian, background holding an ethnic wedding that is closely tied with family traditions and customs. For example, an ethnic Jewish family with a child who converted to Catholicism, or a Chinese family with a child who converted to Catholicism. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, in that case the answer isn't complex. There's a prescribed Catholic ceremony, and any deviation from it requires permission from the Bishop. That's noted above and in our article. So, if one wanted to deviate from the prescribed ceremony, permission needs to be granted. Now, for any events after the actual marriage ceremony in the actual church itself (for example, at the wedding reception), I'm pretty sure that the Church doesn't care too much (within reason, of course). So the question is are you asking if the deviations are occurring during the actual sacrament of marriage or during the extended celebration thereof. The former definitely requires special permission. The latter, not so much. So, for example, if a former Jewish person who converted to Catholicism wanted to step on a lightbulb, if they wanted to do so during the ceremony itself, that requires the special permission. If they wanted to do so at the wedding reception outside of the context of the formal Catholic ceremony, they wouldn't. --Jayron32 02:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that's correct. As I understand it, there are certain regions of the world where "ancestor worship" is practiced by Catholics in good standing (off the top of my head, I would look at places like Sub-Saharan Africa and Mainland China), though it may be couched in such terms as "veneration" as opposed to "worship." I don't have a source for that, but I do remember reading about such things in the past. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, there are Catholics who are Yankees fans as well, but I still don't know that prayers to Derek Jeter are sanctioned as part of the Wedding Mass. The Catholic Church is unusually particular about what goes on in the context of religious ceremonies and I don't know that any actual Roman Catholic parish practices ancestor worship as part of the Catholic religious ceremonies themselves. --Jayron32 02:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'll first remark that Catholics don't always have Catholic marriages. One couple I know involved a Catholic and a Lutheran, a Catholic priest would not officiate the wedding as a result. When the wife later converted, they went to the Church to have their marriage blessed by the priest. In regards to the specific question asked by the OP, a Catholic can get married in whichever manner they want, it just won't always be a Catholic wedding. A devout Catholic is unlikely to get married outside of the Catholic church, and is almost guaranteed to have a religious Wedding. A Catholic who isn't particularly religious would probably have no problem having a secular wedding. Ryan Vesey 02:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

My now late, catholic mother-in-law was told by her priest that because she married a non-Catholic in a non-Catholic church she would go to hell. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Did she have a snappy comeback, such as, "It will be worth it, as long as you're not there too!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

HiLo's comment is dubious. It wouldn't matter unless it were said to her in confession, and it would only be said then if she refused to ask dispensation or get a Catholic blessing. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

What's dubious about it? It was said in the 1940s. Bigotry was alive and well. She was a very young adult, up until that point in awe of priests and the like, but perhaps not as well informed as you might be today about all the options available to her. Priests held a lot of power. There was a lot of hatred between the Catholic and protestant churches in Australia back then. My mother-in-law was a completely honest person. It was said. She despised the Catholic Church from that day on. HiLo48 (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Given the time period, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it happened. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Two points. The issue of ancestor "worship" was apparently an issue for the Church in China, but an accommodation was reached, see Roman Catholicism in China. Second, there's nothing preventing a Catholic from participating in any ceremony he likes separate from the Catholic ceremony, so long as it isn't in itself sinful for being blasphemous or idolatrous or such in some other way. It's a little difficult imagining how a Jewish wedding might be problematic, for example, unless it strangely includes the Birkat haMinim. μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the page you meant was Jesuit China missions which seems to show as much argument as accommodation. Rmhermen (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    • The article on the actual controversy itself is at Chinese Rites controversy, which refers to the accommodation issued in 1939, which the article says is consistent with the principles of the Second Vatican Council. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Odd, because according to my browser I have never read either of those articles, yet I have read Catholicism in China, which I did during the recent conclave. But I see the matter is not addressed there now. μηδείς (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• Another point: There is a LONG tradition of Catholics marrying non-Catholics in Catholic churches. What makes it happen with the RC Church's blessing is the promise to raise any children of the marriage as Catholics. If either party isn't willing to make that undertaking, no go. I suspect that accounts for Ryan Vesey's example. Priests don't just refuse point blank to officiate at a mixed marriage. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Reminds me of the story of what my grandmother said when they finally worked up the courage to tell her my cousin was marrying a black girl: "I don't care what color the children come out as long as it's Catholic." μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• The child rearing issue actually didn't occur here. I think it had to do with the fact that the wedding was both inter-denominational and outdoors. Ryan Vesey 03:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Curaçao

The worldwide and regional pages about LGBT rights are quite comprehensive, but I was unable to find the country of Curaçao addressed. We've determined that Curaçao is one of the 4 countries that comprise the Kingdom of the Netherlands (the Netherlands, Aruba and Sint Maarten are the others.) In similar political configurations (Denmark/Greenland/Faroes come to mind) the component entities are individually addressed.

If all 4 countries in the Kingdom of the Netherlands are uniform, then it should be indicated as such in the checklist chart (again see Denmark et al.) In the meantime, can someone advise me the status for Curaçao in particular? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BearWiki (talk • contribs) 04:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Laws are not uniform throughout the kingdom. Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten has more on this. - Lindert (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

information requested about a person and a debt

(Redacted) now lives in geneva, NY USA is accused of or convicted of not repaying his debt in the UK (england) possibly in connection with a hotel/motel or cottage rental. can you help me find out more information on the case against (Redacted)? 96.249.57.107 (talk) 11:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You can't make allegations about living people here (or anywhere else on Wikipedia) without providing evidence. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Seeking Pre-Raphaelite painting

I'm looking for a painting which I'm sure I've seen some years ago. It is definitely Pre-Raphaelite.

It is of a young woman, long dark auburn hair, ivory complexion, in a flowing emerald green robe. She is standing full face on and painted in full. She is surrounded by flowers - maybe standing in a bower - and carrying a basket of flowers. She is very similar to the central character in the "Beloved" picture, but she is alone in the painting.

I have done Google searches on "Dante Gabriel Rossetti paintings" "Millais paintings" and "Pre-Raphaelite paintings" but to no avail. I'm beginning to think I've made it up!

--TammyMoet (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Might it be "The Day Dream" by Rossetti? Here's a poster of it for sale (other on-line poster retailiers are available). The model is sitting, not standing, and holding a book and a rose, not a basket of flowers, but the other elements are as you describe. Tevildo (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

No, although it's definitely the same model. She must be full face with a basket of flowers wearing emerald green robes. (By the way the link you gave didn't come up with the picture, just a photo of a white sofa, 3 scatter cushions and a floor lamp!) Thanks. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The model in "The Day Dream" was Jane Morris. I don't immediately see the painting you describe, but maybe someone with better Google skills can track it down. John M Baker (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In that case, check out Jane Morris - there's a list of Rossetti pictures featuring the same model. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The description seems to be a mix of Astarte Syriaca (at the top of this page) and The Blue Bower. Are either of these any good? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The composition is similar to Venus Verticordia (which reminds me somewhat of the Blind Faith album cover), but with the robe and full length. I do wish I'd paid more attention to it 40 odd years ago! --TammyMoet (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll give you some background which may help searches. I believe I saw this picture when I visited the Birmingham Art Gallery in the mid-60s with my school. I've since found they hold a large collection of Pre-Raphaelite works, and I've browsed the online catalogue to no avail. Of course, as I was only about 7 when I went, I may have conflated two paintings. Unfortunately I was more interested in the attached Museum because it had a massive Irish Elk skeleton at the time! --TammyMoet (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Mnemosyne (Rossetti), perhaps? Ms Morris, green dress, full-face; not a _basket_ of flowers, though - a lamp(?) and an anenome. Tevildo (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah that's more like it. Is the linked picture cropped, do you know? Because I do remember the flowers around her. --TammyMoet (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Could it have been this? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that may be the one! Thank you! --TammyMoet (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, but I too remember seeing a picture of a lady in a bower-thing. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Or if you wanted a REALLY "flowing" robe, how about John Everett Millais - Ophelia. Alansplodge (talk) 08:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh that used to scare me...! --TammyMoet (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

A "complete" Bible?

I'm not a Christian, but I am interested in reading the Bible. I understand that different strands of Christianity rely on different collections of books and/or different translations of those books to make "their" Bible, but I'm wondering if there's such a thing as a "complete" and more-or-less neutral version. That is, a version that set out to provide all the texts that could reasonably be included rather than including or removing bits to fit into a particular theology. Kind of analogous to how collections of Greek myths don't worry about whether they're "true" to Homer or Hesiod and just throw it all in there. Browsing WP seems to show that what I'm looking for would have to include the so-called New Testament apocrypha, but are there other apocrypha-like texts that could also be included? There are a ton of articles, to the point where it's frankly a labyrinth and I could well have missed a seemingly obvious article that would answer my question. Ultimately, what I would like is a single "book" (electronic or dead tree) to read, preferably annotated to help me follow along, but I can't order one from Amazon until I know what it's called. :-) Matt Deres (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The two terms you are looking for are the Apocrypha and the Deuterocanonical books, which include those books which are in some denominations but not others, including both new and old testament books. There are English translations of those books; AFAIK no bible includes many of the Apocryphal gospels, which were excluded from the canon very early on; though those books are, of course, availible in English for you to read. As far as the old testament Deuterocanonical books many of those are available as part of Roman Catholic bibles. Christian biblical canons covers the various books used by various traditions, so if you don't want to leave anyone out, you can know which books to read. I'm not sure there are any single bound copies that contain every single book of the Bible together with theall of the books of the Apocrypha and the Deuterocanonical books, but you can certainly read all of them as you wish, as they are widely available in English. The ones that are usually included in some bibles are listed at Biblical apocrypha. --Jayron32 14:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of humour, the earlier a non-canonical text was excluded, the more interesting it is for people who treat these texts as merely documentary records or literary texts. The only non-canonical I'd highly recommend is Thomas (a sayings gospel), due to its relationship to Q / the earliest canonical texts. Thomas is also pretty readable and lacking in weirdness. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Our article on the Biblical canon should cover what ought to be included. Particularly for a first pass, I would skip all of the New Testament apocrypha, as very little if any of it falls under "could reasonably be included" given that the big three divisions (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant) don't use it. To include the Old Testament apocrypha, make sure you grab a Catholic or Orthodox bible, as they've got a consistent canon that is more expansive than the Protestant canon (I think, but am not sure, that the Catholic and Orthodox OT canon match each other -- if not, it's pretty close). You also should be aware of dynamic and formal equivalence with respect to translations, and select accordingly. All that said, my particular suggestion for purchasing would be as follows:

• Two bibles, one with a more dynamic translation and one more formal (but both avoiding stuff listed under "paraphrase"). Newer translations (i.e. not King James or similar) so as to benefit from the additional scholarship and manuscript discovery since that point. At least one with the OT apocrypha. At least one as a "study bible" that includes notes and commentary. Particularly, I'd suggest the New American Bible (Catholic, dynamic) and the New Revised Standard Version (exists with and without apocrypha, formal). Both are widely-read, modern, and well-thought-of translations. It's possible that you can find all this crammed into one multi-version study Bible, and if that's the case, hey, single volume. But two separate volumes may be a lot simpler for shopping purposes. — Lomn 14:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Lomn on all of those points, especially with using multiple translations. There also exists "parallel translation" Bibles, where a single page of text contains multiple common translations side-by-side for comparison. Personally, I use the New International Version for everyday use because I find the language to be the most "natural" among any translation I have read. I find "paraphrase" or "vernacular" Bibles like "The Message" to be far too colloquial and informal, almost to the point of being distracting, and I find the language of the various King James derivatives (such as the New King James and English Standard Version) to be awkward, and I find the NIV hits the perfect medium for me. However, I also recognize that there are problems with the NIV, especially on the way the translation treats certain passages which may present a different meaning than other translations (or the original languages) do. So, I always have other translations handy for when I am trying to answer a "hard" question; and where multiple translations appear to disagree with the NIV, I go with them over the NIV. --Jayron32 14:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, NIV is also my standard text of choice, but based on our formal/dynamic article above, it aligns closely with the NAB on that count. I figure NAB is probably the most-read modern English translation that will include the apocrypha by default, and so that left the NIV as somewhat superfluous for my recommendation. Also, regardless of translation, make sure you've looked at the guide for whatever special formatting within the text (as opposed to the study bible non-scriptural addons) means, and make note of them when they appear. For instance, the NIV puts half-bracket thingys around words that have been inferred but don't actually exist in the original texts, such as ˻this˼. I assume other translations have similar notations, though I'm not familiar with them offhand. Ditto textual notes for things like "the earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9–20" -- these are part of the translation proper and should, in my opinion, be accorded higher status (and in this particular case, "older" is generally a stand-in for "more likely to be what was originally written") than study bible content. — Lomn 15:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

As was noted above, the New Testament apocrypha have almost no relevance to any contemporary strand of Christianity, though the Deuterocanonicals/apocrypha of the Old Testament certainly have.

If you are prepared to read several translations (keep in mind that the reading will take a lot of time), you might also consider reading a translation of the Septuagint, the ancient Greek Bible. Most English translations are based primarily on the Hebrew (Masoretic) text of the Old Testament, but the Eastern Orthodox prefer to use the Greek Bible as the standard, which is quite different in some places. You could try A New English Translation of the Septuagint. - Lindert (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be worth looking at the NT Apocrypha, if only to learn what doesn't count as canonical as well as what does! --TammyMoet (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The most comprehensive 'canonical' Bible that I'm aware of is the NRSV 'Common Bible' edition, which includes Psalm 151, 3-4 Maccabees, and various other texts only considered canonical in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, in addition to all the regular apocrypha included in Roman Catholic and some Anglican Bibles, and the core text. If you are interested in NT apocrypha, the best I've ever seen is M R James's Apocryphal New Testament, which includes many, many wacky apocryphal gospels. You may also want the recent new edition of the Gospel of Judas, and any of the several recent-ish books to include the Gospel of the Thomas (not the infancy one, but the 'Didymus Judas Thomas' one that was found in a rubbish pit in Egypt). Thomas may represent an authentic, otherwise-lost 'saying source' - but the only copy we've got shows clear signs of Gnostic influence. Another set of intertestamental apocrypha are the Dead Sea Scrolls; I recommend Geza Vermes' The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You probably want to start with a copy of "The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha", probably the most recent one based on the New Revised Standard Version. I can't recommend any particular book for the Gnostic Gospels, and such like: most of the ones I've seen seem to have been very poor. 86.164.59.34 (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Aw, crap! I was typing a reply shortly after Tammy's post, hit 'save page' and left the house only to return some hours later to see the edit conflict screen and my reply vanished. I haven't had a chance to really look through Alex and 34's comments and links yet, but some of the earlier stuff can maybe help me phrase my request a bit more intelligently. In the article on Biblical canon (thanks for the link!), there are a couple of charts handily coloured in to show which streams of Christianity include or ignore various books. What I want (I think) is something that at very least would create an entirely green column from top to bottom on those charts. Does that make sense? That article also led me to Antilegomena, which is a helpful word I'd never before encountered, and which also seems to include the kinds of things I'd like to see included (I don't think that stuff is on those charts, but maybe I missed it). I think perhaps my use of the word Bible was poorly chosen since it implies a particular "authorized" version; what I'm looking for might be better described as a bunch of texts a religious scholar might want to have on hand so that when some crackpot starting quoting the Apocalypse of Peter or something, he could pull the book of the shelf and check it out. Matt Deres (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Well it depends on what sort of stuff you want. There's certainly books that collect New Testament Apocrypha (Gospels, Acts, Apocalypses), but would you also want other early Christian writings, such as Liturgies, Martyrologies, Epistles, instructions (the Didache, for example), the Early Church Fathers, etc? Once you start broadening your net, the quantity of stuff that has survived is vast. Not everything is available in English. 86.164.59.34 (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have found Robert J. Miller's The Complete Gospels an excellent work. μηδείς (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I pretty much recommend that book as well, though the translation (formally known, I believe, as the Scholar's Version/SV) is not the best. It gets the point across well enough, but something about "μαμμωνά" being translated as "bank account" strikes me as a little... well, what's a nice way of saying "half-assed?" Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

"Semi-buttocked"? "Unicheekular"? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

LOL! Sorry, my bad. I own and can read the Greek New Testament, so I sometimes forget that not everyone else has recourse to the primary source for at least the canonical four. μηδείς (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

That's some food for thought. Or canon fodder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

EU/Canadian Citizenship

Because Canada is part of the British Commonwealth, it is technically part of Great Britain (UK). Since the UK is an EU member, are EU citizens allowed to reside in Canada without long-term visas just like EU citizens are allowed to reside in other EU countries without long-term visas? If so, would the inverse be true as well: EU citizens residing in Canada without long-term visas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.226.37.22 (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Your first statement is wrong. Canada is part of the Commonwealth of Nations; it is a co-equal part of that organization with other members, including the United Kingdom. It is not technically a part of the United Kingdom in any way at all. Any question that follows from that assumption is unanswerable, because your premise is completely wrong. --Jayron32 16:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to be completely clear, Canada is not a member of the EU and does not offer visa-free residence to the citizens of any EU members, not even the UK. Marco polo (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The connection to the UK lies only in the shared Monarch. It can be confusing, but here: Monarchy in Canada. Mingmingla (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Being British makes things easier to obtain residency, but for other reasons. Canada has a point system in place, proficiency in English brings 24 points, and the passing mark is 67. Other criteria are degrees, work experience, age, spouse, and French. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Assuming that by "inverse" you are asking about Canadians residing in the EU, then no, that is not possible. As mentioned, Canada is not part of the UK and therefore not part of the EU. When I (a Canadian) lived in France, I had to get a long-term visa and work permit from the French consulate, which was valid for several months, and then I had to get a residence card from the Prefecture in the département in France where I was living, which had to be renewed every year. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there an article that covers a modern war on the Korean peninsula?

There's a lot of information floating around about the likelihood of a war with North Korea, and what it would look like if it actually happened. Does such an article exist already? All I can find is one about the war in the 60's. I'm looking for something like World War III, but specifically about North Korea. PraetorianFury (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused what you want, so you're probably going to have to clarify: 1) Do you want a Wikipedia article about such a possible conflict, or are you looking for an article somewhere else in the world? 2) Do you want serious academic articles about a possible new Korean conflict, or do you want some "alternate history" or "future history" type fictional accounts of such a war? Or do you want something else entirely? If you can tell us more specifically what you're looking for, we can maybe help you find it better. --Jayron32 18:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm looking either for a Wikipedia article about such a possible conflict, or academic articles about a possible new Korean conflict. I've been browsing reddit and everyone has their own theories. I'm curious what the experts are expecting. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

North Korea–South Korea relations may present the best starting point for post-Korean War conflicts on the Peninsula. There are links to follow from there to various actual fighting as well as various summits and talks that discuss such issues. --Jayron32 18:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Tyvm! PraetorianFury (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW, the Korean War was in the early 1950s. You were probably confusing it with the Vietnam War, which reached it's peak in the 1960s. StuRat (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

In a sense, the Korean War has never ended, it's just been under a truce for a few decades. Jayron's link should help. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

As to "what it would look like if it actually happened"; see North Korea: The War Game, "In recent years Pentagon experts have estimated that the first ninety days of such a conflict might produce 300,000 to 500,000 South Korean and American military casualties, along with hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. The damage to South Korea alone would rock the global economy." Rather more detail is in an article called N Korea Military Tactics In A War With US by Han Ho Suk, Director Center for Korean Affairs, which seems to have been written from a North Korean perspective. It rather amusingly refers to the North Korean strategy as "Blitz Klieg" (several times). Alansplodge (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Rather more realistic is Korean nightmare: Experts ponder potential conflict (CNN). Alansplodge (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I read both of these articles from top to bottom. Chilling how 100,000 South Korean casualties is an optimistic estimate. And then running around in the anarchy of post-Kim North Korea trying to find all the WMDs before terrorist capture them... This is a nightmare. PraetorianFury (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Though wikipedia got a article on Predictions of Soviet collapse it does not have article on Predictions of collapse of North Korea

which I will pray to happen as quickly as possible. Solomon7968 (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

It was pointed out on the evening news today that North Korea does kind of thing every year about this time, except they're rattling the sabers a bit louder this year. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. This is something I have not seen before. Not in recent years, at least. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Server location and law

If I have a company in country A and am running a company website from a server located in country B, which law applies to the website/server, country A's or country B's? More specifically I am interested in the following situation: A=Poland, B=France and law="the law which says that there should be a message warning users that the website uses cookies". Just out of curiosity, what if the website is run from several servers in more than one country (e.g. via Load_balancing_(computing))? bamse (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Although specific info about that subject, concerning Wikipedia itself, pops up from time to time, for a given hypothetical situation you would need to consult an expert on international law. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The law isn't even clear on this. Kim Dotcom, physically in New Zealand, a citizen of Germany, operating a company in Hong Kong, with servers in Canada, was charged with violating laws in the United States. These things get complicated, and even the legal system isn't quite sure what's supposed to happen. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

In this _specific_ case, the law Directive 2009/136/EC applies to both countries, as both are members of the EU. However, it's not possible to answer the more general question. Tevildo (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

See personal jurisdiction, extraterritorial jurisdiction, and long arm statute. Shadowjams (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)