Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2017 September 14

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.

September 14

Most historical event

request for opinion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I say Neil Armstrong stepping on the moon is the most historical event in my opinion as he became the first person to step on a celestial body for the first time in human history. For all of human history prior to this, people can only witness celestial body when looked up at the sky, that is how celestial was termed, after the Latin word for sky. Give us what you think is the most historical event, whether it be Apollo 11, Columbus discovering America, or even the beginning of agriculture. PlanetStar 03:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC) Sorry, but this is not the "what you think" Desk. Please read the instructions at the top. We do not answer requests for opinions.--Jayron32 03:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC) hat per Jayronμηδείς (talk) 05:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Visually spectacular future

request for opinion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I saw the movie Valerian where it takes place centuries in the future and it's very spectacular visually. It makes me wonder that we may see a Valerian-like future in real life with space colonies like the Alpha Station seen in the film or beauties of aliens and of alien planets. Would you agree that future (esp. centuries from now) will be more visually spectacular than present times? PlanetStar 03:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC) No. Space, for the most part, is empty and black. Not visually appealing. Also, for those back on Earth, many forests and "amber waves of grain" may be gone in the future, replaced with factory produced food via hydroponics, etc. The only natural thing which I expect to be more attractive in the future is more algal blooms, some of which are dramatic, but deadly. I suppose global warming could also make some pretty things, like more and bigger hurricanes and flowers in the arctic. As for alien life, the most likely form of alien life we would find would be brown sludge. StuRat (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC) It's people, Stu? Soylent Green is people? Your dystopian leftist nonsense is nonsense Stu. From 1900 to 2000 the almost entirely deforested US east of the Mississippi was reforested due to improvements in technology. Meanwhile, the Eastern Block had the worst pollution in Europe, except where population loss allowed regrowth of areas like the Pripyet Marshes around Chernobyl. I don't know how beautiful the future will look, but Shanghai is Spectacular, while Democrat-run Detroit is a cesspool. μηδείς (talk) 04:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC) You put a weird political spin on the Q. I didn't say anything about communism or capitalism. Increasing population on Earth will increase demand for resources, which leads to deforestation. Sure, a few spots will be kept pretty, but large areas, like the Amazon, will suffer. This is simply an extrapolation of current trends. And Detroit was until quite recently run by the Republican governor, via an Emergency City Manager. (Flint, Michigan had the same honor, leading to the Flint Water Crisis.) As for China, air pollution often makes the larger cities rather gray, which is not visually appealing at all: [1]. StuRat (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Hat per Jayron's rational, this is a request for opinion μηδείς (talk) 05:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC) That would be rationale. But it's rather odd to reply to a Q and then hat it. StuRat (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Stu, I hatted the thread because I have the ability to think better of my earlier actions. I'll point out that according to your "following current trends" statement is the usual nonsense of the activist environmentalists. According to the trend from 1850 to 1920, according to this government map, the US would be entirely void of trees at this point. Yet much of the east is reforested. According to trends, we should be knee-deep in flies by this time last year. Such scientific/market ignorant arguments are used by the left (and some on the right) to argue "we need a department of X!" That is political. But the bottom line is that we have a horrible record of predicting the future over just a decade or two. And there's no non-opinion answer to this question. That's why I followed User:Jayron32's reasoning and hatted this post. I won't respond again, but you are free to post a question within the guidelines, such as one about trend-based predictions. μηδείς (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC) If you rethought it, I'd expect you to have removed your post. The link you provided does not show, as you claim, that there were predictions of total deforestation of the East Coast of the US. The top 3 pics show decline in old growth forest, while the larger pic shows current trees. There's no incompatibility in the decline in old growth forests and a continuing population of new trees. Did you, by any chance, get that link from a right-wing site which misrepresents the data ? As for the extrapolation of current trends, the world population will continue to grow, barring a nuclear or biological war. Those people will need things, many of which require wood (housing, furniture, fuel), and others of which require cleared land to produce (food, cotton, fuel). Most of the new population will be poor, so high-tech solutions will be out of reach to them. I would agree that extrapolating only a decade or two of human population data is iffy. But we have human population numbers going back thousands of years, and it has only had a few declines, such as due to the Black Plague, in all that time. The trend remains ever upwards. StuRat (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Equatorial Guinea airlines

List of air carriers banned in the European Union#Banned airlines by country says that all airlines based in Equatorial Guinea are banned from entering the airspace of any EU country. However, CEIBA Intercontinental apparently has scheduled direct flights to and from Madrid. Does this mean that CEIBA Intercontinental is not actually banned? The article on the airline says only that it "was" on the banned list. --Viennese Waltz 09:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Nope, CEIBA Intercontinental is still (or was 4 months ago) explicitly on the list of banned airlines. Not sure how they've had flights to Madrid since 2012. Perhaps the flight is operated by another airline? No longer a penguin (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

As reported in this Voice of Africa article, on March 15 this year Equatorial Guinea's aviation minister announced that his country was coming off ICAO's blacklist according to audits given and received, and that it would "go to the European Union to request that they are coherent with respect to international agreements, by taking our country off their famous blacklist in order that our airlines can operate in European countries." On this government website's page, from the same time period a few months ago, he announces that lawyers are dealing with the matter and that flights to Madrid will be resumed, and also says the European Union would have nothing more to say in that matter (this despite the EU, not ICAO, being the body who decides who is on and off the list). I found nothing more recent regarding the EU's blacklist ---Sluzzelin talk 13:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

There does seem to be a flight [2]. I'm not sure how it gets around the ban other than the possibility of being operated by someone else as suggested by Nlap. Most sources suggest the aeroplane used is a 777-200ER aalthough FlightRadar24 also suggests a 737-800 may be used. If you look at CEIBA Intercontinental, it lists both of these as operated by White Airways. Nil Einne (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Using this info I found, these Spanish and Portugese sources [3] [4]. Machine translation suggests they confirm White Airways is operating the Malabo to Madrid route for CEIBA Intercontinental. Nil Einne (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The route is operated by CEIBA. Our article White Airways suggests the aircraft are leased to provide the service on behalf of CEIBA. They are likely painted in CEIBA colours (White's slogan is "WHITE, coloured by you"). The relevant sentence of the source says

Já no mercado fora da Europa, a faturação foi obtida no mercado 'charter', na aviação executiva e na prestação de serviços à companhia de aviação da Guiné Equatorial CEIBA Intercontinental, para a qual a White assegura uma ligação regular a Madrid, além de voos 'charter' e assessoria técnica.

[Now in the market outside Europe, a business was obtained in the charter market, in executive aviation and in the offering of services to the company of aviation of Equatorial Guinea CEIBA Intercontinental, for which White assures a regular link to Madrid, as well as charter flights and technical assistance.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.216.51 (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure they are painted in CEIBA colours, but your translation suggests the opposite of your first sentence. It suggests White Airways is operating the route on behalf of CEIBA. Actually your second sentence also seems to say this too. I presume CEIBA is doing all the selling, etc and branding it as their route, but White Airways is actually operating it, hence how this flight exists despite the EU ban. From the EU's POV it's fine since White Airways is operating the route so responsible for the important safety related stuff like maintaining the aeroplanes, and ensuring the personnel are competent etc. Nil Einne (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The large number of banned airlines from some nations, like 55 from Indonesia, makes me suspect that once listed, an airline just changes it's name. To avoid this, the EU should instead ban all airlines from such nations, except for those they white-list. Such airlines could, of course, then attempt to register in another nation, but either that nation would apply proper safety standards to any airline trying to register there, or they would also find themselves on the list. StuRat (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I think they're on top of that one. The article cited by the OP says, for Indonesia:

All except Airfast Indonesia, Premiair, Garuda Indonesia, Citilink, Batik Air, Lion Air and Indonesia AirAsia

Yeah, I don't really understand why this question even came up since it originated from a question relating to the fact all airlines from Equatorial Guinea are banned. The list StuRat seems to be referring to is quite clear on the point too. For example

All air carriers certified by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Indonesia, with the exception of Garuda Indonesia, Airfast Indonesia, Ekspres Transportasi Antarbenua,Indonesia Air Asia, Citilink, Lion Air and Batik Air, including

and

All air carriers certified by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Equatorial Guinea, including

. The reasons for listing each individual known air carriers isn't clearly stated, but there are obvious ones why it may be considered better to list known air carriers as far as resonably possible. Nil Einne (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The flight number is CEIBA. As far as the general public knows, it's just a regular flight by the state airline. 82.14.24.95 (talk) 12:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure but this question was explicitly not about what the general public knows but about how CEIBA manages to have a flight to Madrid despite being banned by the EU. The answer to that is that it's not a regular flight by the airline, but instead is a flight operated by White Airways on behalf of CEIBA and therefore is not, we assume given that it's allowed, in violation of EU rules. BTW, I should mention that this type of arrangement is called a wet lease, someone in the comment section seems to confirm it's how the Madrid flight operates here [5]. (One thing I admit I'm not sure if whether it's a wet lease or damp/moist lease. I would assume that the cabin crew are important enough to safety that CEIBA can't directly provide them either hence my earlier comment about personnel, but I don't know for sure.) Our article explicitly notes one reason such an arrangement may be used is to allow an airline to have a flight into a place they're forbidden from operating. Incidentally, it's unclear to me that CEIBA is a state airline [6]. Also this source [7] suggests that the reason the 777 isn't generally used on the route is due to fears it will be seized. It does seem that there was a break in the flights for some reason [8], unfortunately that source is subscription only and I couldn't find any others saying what exactly happened, whether it was a problem with their wetlease arrangement, or they tried to operate without the wetlease arrangement given what was noted in the first few comments, or it had something to do with their plane seizure risk. Nil Einne (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Both aircraft are currently used on the Madrid route. The rest of this reply was prepared after reading your 06:56 post but before reading your 07:00 post:

The plot thickens. The Boeing 700-200LR aircraft, according to our White Airways article, is part of the White fleet and used to service one of CEIBA's routes. So how was it "seized from Equatoguinean carrier CEIBA Intercontinental"? CEIBA is the national airline, it is a company and the State of Equatorial Guinea owns 100 per cent of it. What is the exact meaning of the phrase in the article "as well as on lease on behalf of other airlines"? The CEIBA article says "As of August 2016, CEIBA Intercontinental operates the following passenger aircraft". It then lists the two Boeings which ply the Madrid route noting "operated by White Airways." The two claims are contradictory.

I don't see any clear evidence CEIBA Intercontinential is state owned. Sure some sources say it is, but if it was so clear, the we can presume CBGE wouldn't have failed to prove ownership to a French court. This source from 2013 likewise claims Equatorial Guinea does not have a national airline [9]. (It calls CEIBA Intercontinential a Flag carrier, but as our article notes, that doesn't necessarily mean it's state owned.) This source says "Initially formed by the government of Equatorial Guinea" [10] which leaves open the question of what happened afterwards.

In most cases, if a company is state owned both the government and company are happy to say that but I'm not seeing clear evidence for that here. (There are of course cases besides ones like this where this isn't the case. E.g. companies connected to intelligence agencies, or companies buying submarines or stuff that the government isn't allowed to buy.) It may be that the government is intentionally being murky about the ownership structure of CEIBA Intercontinential because of the disputes and seizure attempts. Or it may be something else has happened. There may be better sources in Spanish and perhaps French, but I speak neither.

Equatorial Guinea isn't exactly known for having a free press where reporters are able to ask questions like 'who owns this airline and where did their money come from and if the money came from the government but we don't actually own it anymore, how did that happen and what did we get in return?' And while there's some limited international interest, it's the sort of thing probably not easy to find. Plus since it's the sort of thing of limited general interest but possible business interest, a lot of sources are like the ones earlier and need payment or subscription e.g. [11] [12] [13]. (I mean despite it being an obvious question, it's not like there were tons of sources noting how they managed to operate a flight to Madrid.)

It doesn't help that the official website is under construction. They do have an official Facebook [14] and Twitter [15], but these don't seem to mention ownership anywhere that I noticed, although as in Spanish. (But the Facebook about seems to just be a standard T&C/you give permission.) Also it seems like there is possibly another 777 which operates as the presidential jet to further confuse matters. (I'm not certain about this as some sources mention a 777 as the Presidential jet [16] [17] (comments section, also some of the earlier souces) while others suggest it's CEIBA owned but regularly used by the president [18] but yet others seems to imply this is a sham possibly because there are already 10 or so presidential jets [19], but it's also possible that this was was initially intended and then for whatever reason the president decided they didn't actually need a 777 and let CEIBA actually use it for service at least some of the time [20].

One obvious point as those and other sources e.g. [21] hint at is the configuration of a jet for regular passenger service probably doesn't fit well what a VVIP expects. Especially a president with the history of Obiang. So I'm not quite sure how well sharing would work. It also doesn't seem good for an airline if you regularly have to randomly use a different plane whenever the president wants it, but I'm far less sure anyone involved cares about that angle other then those in White and elsewhere who have to deal with the crap that results, and any passengers affected. Definitely the sources and others like ([22] suggest there's a lot of weird history with at least one 777 owned by CEIBA. And that's not even counting it being seized or under threat of seizure once or twice a year [23] (+ earlier links or others e.g. [24])

I eventually found [25] which is French and seems to be a letter from someone in CEIBA to a journalist or paper disputing a story. if I can trust the translation, the person says that the article noted CEIBA Intercontiential is "national company" (I presume whatever term was used it means state owner) and it doesn't look like whoever wrote the reply is disputing this, still even if the original French does strongly imply whoever wrote the reply is agreeing that CEIBA is state owned, it does seem definitive evidence.

Incidentally, I also finally found [26] which seems to confirm the suspension of the service earlier this year was related to the legal dispue, although I'm still not sure how they were able to continue. Your point about both does seem right. I was initially unsures since last time I looked, I'm pretty sure while FlightRadar showed both 737 and 777s on the route, only the 737 seemed to have actually flight data (the others were just unknown), but this time it's the opposite, only the 777 have flight data.

I don't quite understand your White Airways point. I've seen some sources suggesting CEIBA did own a 777 at one point in time. Some sources like [27] [28] (well not visible there but in a Google search result) [29] [30] (and I think some of the earlier ones) seem to imply it was "transferred" (or similar wording) to White Airways. There's a fair chance that CEIBA still owns the 777 despite this transfer which was just done to enable White Airways to wet lease it back to CEIBA i.e. operate it on their behalf, one of the earlier sources [31] has simila rcomments. In that case, a court may very well consider that it can be seized as CEIBA is the ultimate owner regardless of it being registered as a White Airways plane. (Of course this also requires that the Spanish court was either sufficiently convinced that CEIBA or at least the plane is state owned, or for some reason is willing to allow non state owned assets of Equatorial Guinea to be seized. Although I'd note that this seems to have been some sort of preliminary ruling allowing a case to go ahead. It may very well have been the case would have ended up like the French one, or maybe it did, but CEIBA thought it too risky to try.) And I'd note that as Portugese company, it's unlikely White Airways could simply hide or lie to a Spanish court about what's actually going on with the airplane. (Whereas by comparison, it probably be harder to get people in the government and people in CEIBA to accurately testify as to who actually own's CEIBA hence possibly the problems in France.)

Again, I'm not sure how this was resolved. The Facebook suggests they begun the flights again on June 29 which I note seems to be 9 days+1 week after the Minister of Foreign Affairs was sent to Spain to deal with the problem as per the earlier source [32]. The timing makes me think there was probably some degree of political involvement. But it's possible that was unrelated and CEIBA convinced the Spanish court, like they did with the French court, that their state ownership is unclear. Maybe CEIBA convinced the court that the plane onwership is unclear. Maybe there's something else going on, e.g. White Airways is now using another 777 and the CEIBA 777 is either in storage or being used somewhere else where CEIBA isn't afraid of seizure. Maybe the 777 was seized somewhere again so it became a moot point.

There are probably some public sources, but frankly I'm not really that interested in the murky dealings of Equatorial Guinea to find out why it seems unclear who owns CEIBA, and what the latest is on their apparently many court trivials of CEIBA and their planes or even how many 777s they actually have. I am fairly confident that the answer to the original question is as initially stated, CEIBA has a flight from Malabo to Madrid because it's actually operated by White Airways on their behalf. In the form of a wet-lease arrangement. Actually I just noticed the EU source linked early on specificially notes wet lease aircrafy can be used [33].

Nil Einne (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

What's this triple-tower building in Singapore?

What's this building? (Marked with red arrows)

It's in the background of BBC News. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.193.222 (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Marina Bay Sands, Singapore - This is during the Asia Business Reportsection of the broadcast, usually around 2am UTC, when the stock markets in that region are opening Jaseywasey (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Aha, that explains my confusion! I saw what I thought was the "London Eye" (giant ferris-wheel), but there's apparently one in Singapore too (Singapore Flyer).

Sorry I thought it was London, and something I'd never seen/heard about. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.193.222 (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Now in case anyone is confused about what the evidence of confusion was: the section title originally read "...in London", not "...in Singapore". --69.159.60.147 (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

There is a height restriction law in Singapore. Buildings in Raffles Place, Marina Centre, Marina Bay Sands, Bugis and Kallang have height restrictions of up to 280 meters because they're too close to an Air Force base. Maybe if the base was further away this complex wouldn't have been dispersed into 3 towers and Singapore wouldn't have so many 919 foot towers tied for tallest building in the country. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Though, as of last year, they're tied in 2nd place. The Tanjong Pagar Centre's developers obtained special permission to construct a building measuring 290 m (951 ft). See also list of tallest buildings in Singapore. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)