How a/be/unamused would John Adams have been to discover on the 200th year after his death, he shares real estate on something called a "website" with a factoid about a gay Jesus porn movie? Maybe he'd be too interested in reading an encyclopedia article about himself 200 years after the fact to scroll down, I know I would... Americanfreedom (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Read the top of this page:

• We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.

~2026-54318-85 (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

The anonymous A Handbook for Travellers in South Wales and Its Borders (1860) pp. 102–103 tells me that near the park of Moccas Court, Herefordshire lies a substantial cromlech with a collapsed capstone measuring 18 foot by 9 foot. It is also mentioned in various other 19th-century books, the earliest I think dating from 1818, but in the 20th century the trail goes cold. Geoffrey Ashe wrote in 1983 that he had searched for it but failed to find it. Admittedly he says he was looking in the park of Moccas Court, Brecknockshire, which was the next-door county, but I don't believe there are two Moccas Courts. A substantial cromlech should, I would have thought, be a scheduled monument, but there are none such in Moccas, nor can I find any modern record of a King Arthur's Table there. What's happened to it? Has it been destroyed? Does it still exist under another name? Has it been decided that it's a natural group of rocks and therefore of no interest? Or that it's a fake antique run up perhaps by Capability Brown when he landscaped the park in the 18th century? I'd be glad of any references that would solve the mystery or that would give any other information about this supposed cromlech. --Antiquary (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Google search AI managed to hallucinate such a monument for me, though following up the sources just found a different menhir and Moccas Court mentioned in the same publication. It did, however, lead me to the Woolhope Naturalists' Field Club, whose website https://www.woolhopeclub.org.uk/ has extensive searchable archives covering that area. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 20:18, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

It must be Arthur's Stone, Herefordshire, near Mocca's Court, and a good match for the description in the old text despite not being a cromlech. Warofdreams talk 21:46, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

It looks like a cromlech "A structure of prehistoric age consisting of a large flat or flattish unhewn stone resting horizontally on three or more stones set upright; found in various parts of the British Isles, esp. in Wales, Devonshire, Cornwall, and Ireland. Also applied to similar structures in other parts of the world." (OED) to me. DuncanHill (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I knew about Arthur's Stone but hadn't thought of identifying it with Arthur's Table, what with there being Arthur's this and that all over Wales and the Marches. Arthur's Stone is only two or three miles from Moccas Court (how far the park extends I couldn't say) and does stand on a hill. This article seems to clinch it: "Arthur's Stone, or 'King Arthur's Table' as it is sometimes termed". Well, if Geoffrey Ashe was fooled as well I needn't feel too bad about it. Problem solved, I think. Thanks, everyone. --Antiquary (talk) 10:05, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Our dolmen article says: "...dolmen has replaced cromlech as the usual English term in archaeology".

I have added a brief note about the "King Arthur's Table" name at the Etymology section. Alansplodge (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tip. It is well to disguise one's extreme obsolescence. --Antiquary (talk) 14:23, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

If English has now followed other languages by distinguishing between dolmen tombs and cromlech cirecles, then our articles need a bit of work to make this clearer. Johnbod (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

According to the OED it hasn't. "Dolmen: The French name, used by some English authors, for a cromlech n. a prehistoric structure, consisting of a large flattish stone supported upon two or more smaller upright stones.". DuncanHill (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

The OED is about a century behind in tracking these sort of changes.^{[citation needed]} Johnbod (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

To User:Shantavira, this is true, & the OED staff are pretty frank about it, although the website doesn't shout about it. Unless their budget has been cut again, the teams working on revising and checking existing words started in the middle of the alphabet about a decade ago, and are spreading out in both directions, which will take at least 20 years. Do not confuse this with the new words & new meanings teams, who are much more up to date, and whose work is used to generate publicity. A high proportion of word entries have not been looked at properly since the first edition, mostly in the 19th century - this is very easy to check with a print copy. Johnbod (talk) 02:11, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

By way of a reference:-

cromlech This term has fallen out of use in Britain, but like the term 'dolmen' it was once used to indicate a simple megalithic structure consisting of uprights supporting a capstone - especially when there was no extant covering mound. In France and Iberia, the term cromlech is used to identify a quite different class of megalithic structure: rings of free standing stones such as those found in the Carnac Region of France or the Evora region of Portugal. RJA

A Dictionary of Archaeology (2008) Ian Shaw, ‎Robert Jameson eds. Blackwell, Oxford. Page 182.

Alansplodge (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, but I'm not quite sure where this leaves us. Johnbod (talk) 02:11, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

From my archaeological readings – including The Megalithic European (2004) Julian Cope, Element (HarperCollins) London, which happens to be at hand and which corresponds to Shaw above – a 'dolmen' is a structure of several (often three but sometimes more) upright stones supporting (still or formerly) a horizontal capstone (or several of them) forming a chamber, all of which was originally covered in an earth mound now usually eroded away. They take various different forms depending on both their age and their location both in and beyond the British Isles. Cromlechs by contrast are groups of stones adjacent and associated, but not originally buried.

Both terms are used in various European countries with the expected spelling variations (cromeleque in Portugal, for example), and the distinction above may often not have been used in the past. Where sites include one or the other word in their recognised names, we cannot vary those names, although descriptive texts might need to make a clarification. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-56420-06 (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

The English term was borrowed from French, where its further origin is obscure. Here is a translation of the lead section of the article dolmen on the French Wikipedia:

A dolmen is a generally megalithic tomb, originally enclosed within a tumulus, containing a burial chamber intended to hold multiple interments.

This word, probably of Breton origin, has been adopted into several European languages. It has become a generic term used in prehistoric archaeology to refer to a wide variety of architectural types. The imprecise nature of its original definition and the diversity of terminologies adopted later by specialists, now lead to it being replaced it with the expressions "megalithic tomb" or "megalithic burial", but the word remains very common in everyday usage.

Dolmens and menhirs are the two most common and iconic megalithic types in the world. Dolmens, particularly those built throughout the Neolithic period, are found mostly in Europe, particularly Western Europe. Numerous similar structures exist in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, the Near East, and the Far East, but these were built in more recent times.

 ​‑‑Lambiam 08:32, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Further to this, Google AI summarising Britannica (so, pinch of salt) states that 'cromlech' comes from Welsh and combines crom (feminine of crwm – bent) and "llech" (flat slate), presumably referring to the horizontal capstone. (A borrowing by French via Breton might be suspected.)

It also implies that 'dolmen' referred to the mound that the stones appeared to surround. The meanings of the original (Brythonic?) words may have drifted over the centuries, just as the originally covering earth mounds eroded, and there evidently have been different applications of the two words by different people (archaeologists or otherwise) at different times in different countries. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-56420-06 (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks all. I did an edit at cromlech" which I'm sure can be improved on, and will copy the recent bits here to the talk there for permanence. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

People are saying Musk spent $500MM on the midterm elections and his party still lost and therefore the spending didn't work. Of course that's a non-sequitur: it might have prevented an even bigger loss, in which case it worked, just not as well as he hoped. As a general question, is there ever post-election analysis of this type of question that is any good? And more specifically, is there some for this recent election? The GOP actually did flip at least one seat away from the Dems if that matters to anyone, a House seat somewhere in Texas. Obviously most flips were the other way. ~2026-56703-29 (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is voluminous political commentary on question like this after every election. Whether it is any good you would have to judge for yourself. People who care the most (politicians and parties themselves) hire their own analysts as well as reading what it in the papers, newsletters and magazines. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

An attempt at a generic analysis will be somewhat futile, since there are too many factors in play (including confounding ones).

Most of Musk's spending this election went to high-profile candidates who lost their races anyway. In Texas this included Ken Paxton for Senator and Greg Abbott for Governor. In Ohio, Jon Husted for Senator and Vivek Ramaswamy for Governor. Further, in Michigan Mike Rogers for Senator and in Georgia Rick Jackson for Governor. Some news articles that may have more detail and analysis: BBC; PBS; Fortune.  ​‑‑Lambiam 09:33, 7 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I saw an interesting discussion about Winston Churchill's citizenship today, but I'm still not sure which side is correct.

(Churchill was made a Honorary citizen of the United States, but that's a completely separate thing from Citizenship of the United States for the purposes of this discussion. Let's just assume that everyone in the discussion was well aware of the honorary citizenship and its non-applicability.)

Level 1: Winston Churchill was a British citizen.

Level 2: Actually, Churchill was also a U.S. citizen thanks to his mother being a U.S. citizen.

Level 3: Churchill was not a U.S. citizen because at the time of his birth, the Naturalization Act of 1855 specified that a child born outside of the United States is a U.S. citizen only if the child's father is a U.S. citizen. Churchill's father was not a U.S. citizen.

Level 4: Actually, the Equal Nationality Act of 1934 made it so that U.S. fathers and mothers were treated equally under the law. U.S. citizens now pass down citizenship equally, regardless of gender.

Level 5: Churchill was not a U.S. citizen because the Equal Nationality Act of 1934 only applied to children born after May 24, 1934, so it did nothing for Churchill.

Level 6: Winston Churchill was born a U.S. citizen because the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 added section 301(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which retroactively made him a U.S. citizen from birth.

(Don't bother using AI for this. Every AI I tried gave a level 1 to 4 answer.) Epideurus (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't know about the US, but I think in most countries you are only a citizen if you are registered, at birth or by a subsequent application. Churchill presumably never did this, so was at best eligible for citizenship. Johnbod (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have a vague recollection that Churchill was giving a talk at some American university where he had received an honorary degree or some such. He said that if his father had been American and his mother British, instead of the other way around, "I might have gotten here on my own!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 7 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ha. It was actually part of Winston Churchill's address to the United States Congress (1941). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:28, 7 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think there are people who are born in Northern Ireland (which is part of the UK) who are unaware that they also have (or are entitled to) Irish/EU citizenship, as Northern Ireland is effectively subject to both the laws of the UK and Ireland for citizenship purposes. Ireland (the whole island) used to have birthright citizenship for people born before 2005. JuniperChill (talk) 11:01, 7 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I very much doubt there are many "unaware that they also have (or are entitled to) Irish/EU citizenship" in NI. People in mainland UK, sure. The NI people are entitled only, until they apply for an Irish passport. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

The 1994 statute does say that persons described by section 301(h) of the Act “shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” However, 8 CFR § 301.1 contemplates an application and an oath of allegiance before a certificate of citizenship can be granted. Of course, Churchill never applied and likely would have been unwilling to give the oath. John M Baker (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for actually reading all the regulations and sincerely engaging in the discussion.

8 CFR § 301.1 contains the following phrases: "who desires to be documented as a United States citizen pursuant to section 301(h)" and "who desires to be documented as a United States citizen under section 301(h) of the Act". I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds like the process is for the purposes of "to be documented as a United States citizen", as in, someone is already a U.S. citizen, and the whole process is just to obtain the documents to that effect.

Take a hypothetical example, John Doe is born a U.S. citizen outside the US. He never registers or becomes documented as a U.S. citizen. He is still a U.S. citizen despite never obtaining a certificate of citizenship or a U.S. passport. John later becomes a trillionaire and owes billions in income tax to the IRS (despite never setting foot in the U.S.). In such a case, it doesn't seem likely that defenses like "John never made use of their U.S. citizenship" or "John never swore the oath" would work.

The 8 CFR § 301.1 process is kinda like coronation for a British monarch. Edward VIII was briefly the monarch even though he never had a coronation.

Not really - EVII was ceremonially proclaimed within a few days of his father's death, as is usual. That is when a person legally becomes the monarch. The coronation is just religious/an excuse for parties. It seems we don't have an article on this one, though we have all the others between George V and Proclamation of accession of Charles III. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

The first two sentences of that article are: "Charles III became King of the United Kingdom and of 14 other Commonwealth realms upon the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, on 8 September 2022." and "Royal succession in the realms occurs immediately upon the death of the reigning monarch."

Both sentences seem to suggest that moment of death = moment new monarch activated.

Likewise, for live-births in the US, moment of birth = moment U.S. citizenship activated. But for births outside the U.S., the situation is less clear since there's an additional registration step. Epideurus (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Oh, that's true. But legally the proclamation, following a decision of the Privy Council etc, is the moment of legal confirmation, comparable to a US swearing-in etc. After that the monarch can start "assenting" to legislation and so on. The coronation, several months later, actually has very little if any legal effect. Johnbod (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

That's why we don't know what time Queen Elizabeth became queen, because we don't know what time her father died. Hayttom (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

(This is just my personal understanding. I'm more than happy to learn about other points of view and to be corrected.)Epideurus (talk) 09:49, 7 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also just speculating wildly, but I suspect those wordings have more to do with national security and treason than tax. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'd have thought that 'desires to be documented as a United States citizen' would be taken at face value. It would be rather strange to be making people citizens against their will (apart from anything else, some countries don't allow dual citizenship), and what it means is an individual has the right to citizenship if they ask for it. Is there evidence that Churchill ever expressed such desire? Because if he didn't, somebody can't retroactively ask for it on his behalf. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

see Rogers v. Bellei and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services policy manual, Volume 12, Part H, Chapter 3:

Until the Act of October 10, 1978, persons who had acquired U.S. citizenship through birth outside of the United States to one U.S. citizen parent had to meet certain physical presence requirements to retain their citizenship. This legislation eliminated retention requirements for persons who were born after October 10, 1952. There may be cases where a person who was born before that date, and therefore subject to the retention requirements, may have failed to retain citizenship.
An officer should determine whether a person acquired citizenship at birth by referring to the applicable statutory provisions and conditions that existed at the time of the person’s birth. These provisions have been modified extensively over the years.

the footnote says refer to the Nationality Charts, which may be Nationality Chart 1 - Children Born Outside the United States in Wedlock which seems to say the residence requirement is "Not Applicable". Which i read the footnote to that as your "level 6" being correct, but to really know for sure i think we'd need to find a court case on point. My reading of the policy tho is that the 1934 act is irrelevant because citizenship is acquired according to the law at time of birth, except for the gender equality provisions of Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 which are applied retroactively. But see also, Miller v. Albright where gender differences were upheld by the Supreme Court for births out of wedlock. misread that, Congress applied the 301(h) amendment retroactively, not gender quality provisions.

a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

and according to the policy there are no requirements to retain citizenship. fiveby(zero) 14:37, 7 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Oh jeez, you are discussing CFR § 301, not the Immigration and Nationality Act § 301. Sorry about that, but a Certificate of Citizenship is evidence of citizenship, not the status of citizenship. fiveby(zero) 16:06, 7 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is an alleged quotation which pops up from time to time on the internet. It is ascribed to Lord Kitchener, the famous poster, and is on the lines of "It is no good telling Cabinet Ministers military secrets as they would go home and tell their wives—except for Lloyd George, who would go home and tell someone else's wife". I have been unable to find a good source for it. To be honest it doesn't sound like him. Too loquacious. Anyway, can anyone come up with a good source? An earliest use? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

The complete lack of sources revealing on what occasion Kitchener is supposed to have said this, or when, or to whom, strongly suggests that this relatable quip is yet another apocryphal quotation.  ​‑‑Lambiam 12:28, 8 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, but it would be nice to run it down to earth. DuncanHill (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm relying on GB snippet views here so I may be misunderstanding something, but Beaverbrook's Politicians and the War (1928) has "'My colleagues', said Kitchener, "tell military secrets to their wives, all except —, who tells them to other people's wives.'" A. J. P. Taylor, friend and biographer of the Beaver's, said that the dash concealed "the Q.M.", i.e. the Quartermaster-General, Sir John Cowans. --Antiquary (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Antiquary: Thank you. Page 63 in my copy (London: Oldbourne Book Co Ltd, 1960), there it is. It's in the chapter "A Kitchener Crisis". Yes, Cowans would make sense. DuncanHill (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

And now I find Philip Magnus says K said of of Asquith, which would also make sense. DuncanHill (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

In this featured image of Mount Everest, the South Base Camp is labelled as "Base Camp".

Can someone please point out (upload an annotated image, add a marker, give coordinates in the original JPEG etc) where the North Base Camp should be drawn?

Thanks, cmɢʟee τaʟκ (please add {{ping|cmglee}} to your reply) 16:19, 8 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Cmglee:. Well no...it is way off the image. Here's https://maps.app.goo.gl/z86ZKxGKpYNqJsdh7 a zoomed out google maps view (should show Everest Base Camp in Nepal but not sure if you'll see the same labels). The base camp would be at the end of the Rongbuk Glacier (RONGBU BINCHUAN). There are two advanced base camps, for the North Face route ABC would be on the east side of glacier at the base of Changtse, just above the 'i' in the label on your view. For the North Col route it would be on the west side of East Rongbuk Glacier where it turns toward North Col. I cant find any maps showing all the Tibet and Nepal camps. Here's a 3D viewer showing the camps on the north and south routes. fiveby(zero) 22:33, 8 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much, @Fiveby: guess I'll just leave the current map as is. cmɢʟee τaʟκ (please add {{ping|cmglee}} to your reply) 23:32, 8 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Resolved

1. Why have French overseas regions (French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Reunion and Mayotte) not become sovereign states unlike most British overseas territories in that region, and could they become such in the future?
2. Why have Faroe Islands and Greenland not become sovereign states yet, and could they become such in the future?
3. Has Russia ever been a full democracy in its history?
4. Has any Christian country ever held elections on Christmas Day?
5. Is Egypt a Christian country, since it has a large Christian minority that existed prior to spread of Islam in that region?
6. Why do Chinese autonomous regions (Xinjiang, Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Ningxia and Guangxi) not have status equivalent to SARs (Hong Kong and Macau), with directly elected legislatures? --40bus (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

   2: Greenland has been in de news quite a bit in the last two years. They want independence, but not now. The reason is mostly economic. Greenland has to import almost everything and has very little to export, so if independent, the cost of living could get very high (or the standards very low). What's more, once independent they could easily be colonised by someone else (the US government has expressed interest) and their relation with the Danes isn't that bad. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

   2. The Faroe Islands and Greenland possess the political potential to become sovereign states, and theoretically, they could become sovereign at any time if needed. Currently, they are autonomous territories within the Kingdom of Denmark, and their failure to achieve sovereign status is primarily due to economic interdependence and a shared defense and foreign policy framework. Furthermore, internal political divisions regarding full independence have also played a role. Stanleykswong (talk) 11:12, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

   1. In theory, these territories could have become sovereign states; in practice, however, they did not. This is because they have been fully integrated, both legally and administratively, into the French Republic as Overseas departments and regions of France.  Furthermore, the vast majority of their local populations have historically chosen to maintain this status. Stanleykswong (talk) 11:18, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

In addition, Mayotte chose to stay in France via a referendum, instead of joining other nearby islands that form the Comoros. And the OP did not mention New Caledonia, which has a strong native independence movement and has become increasingly autonomous in recent years. Xuxl (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

1. 3. No, from the perspective of modern political science, Russia has never become a fully democracy.^[1] Stanleykswong (talk) 11:22, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

   The closest Russia has been to being a democracy may have been the brief period, February 20 – June 3, 1907, of the second State Duma. It was dissolved by a coup d'état.  ​‑‑Lambiam 13:17, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

   6. These regions do not share the same historical and legal origins as Hong Kong and Macau. Stanleykswong (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

1. Sure, they could.

2. Sure, they could.

3. The closest thing to it might have been between the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of Vladimir Putin.

5. Check Religion in Egypt for a clue.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 10 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

4. Yes, Pope Pius IV was elected head of the Papal States on 25 December 1559. There may have been others but that's the only one listed in December 25.

Although that was the result of a papal conclave. Most democratic countries try to avoid holding elections on big public holidays, as it makes things more complicated (just finding enough electoral workers willing to give up their holiday would be a huge problem, for example). Xuxl (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

5 The State religion of Egypt is Islam.

AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Constitution of the People’s Republic of China (which, for the most part, is not properly enforced) says--

Chapter III, Section 6, Article 115: “The autonomous organs of autonomous regions [ARs], autonomous prefectures and autonomous counties shall exercise the functions and powers of local state organs as specified in Chapter III Section 5 of the Constitution; at the same time, they shall exercise the power to self-govern according to the authority invested in them as prescribed by the Constitution and the Law on Regional Ethnic Autonomy and other laws, and, based on local circumstances, shall implement the laws and policies of the state.” (Chapter III, Section 6, Article 115)

It goes on to say ARs shall regulate their own areas; manage their own finances; plan their own economic development; manage education, sports, culture, etc; maintain public security; and use their own language(s). (Chapter III, Section 6, Articles 116-121)

Like the sections on free speech and assembly, it's all about the implementation. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Not seeking legal advice or thinking of anyone in particular (cough) but let's say you commit a bunch of US federal crimes that are also against international law. You get a presidential pardon so you're off the hook for the US charges. International charges are handled by the ICC, right? The US doesn't recognize ICC's jurisdiction but can you somehow get sent there anyway? The ICC article mentions the possibility of being referred by the UN security council, so in a theoretical scenario where the US doesn't veto such a referral, can you end up on trial despite the US's non-signatory status? Where do they lock you up? There might have been an analogous situation with Slobodan Milošević but I'm not legally clueful enough to make a close comparison. Thanks. ~2026-56703-29 (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Any "State Party" can issue a referral. In the case of Netanyahu, the original referral was by the State of Palestine in 2018, The complaint was followed in 2023 by referrals by South Africa, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Comoros, and Djibouti. If you are arrested and extradited, you will be locked up in the ICC Detention Centre, located in Scheveningen, a district of The Hague.  ​‑‑Lambiam 13:42, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

The short answer to the question is yes… you can be pardoned (or deemed innocent) in one legal jurisdiction and yet still face charges in another. Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, thanks. I saw at the beginning of the ICC article, "The ICC can generally exercise jurisdiction in cases where the accused is a national of a state party, the alleged crime took place on the territory of a state party, or a situation is referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council." Palestine is in the list of state parties so it might have referred Netanyahu under allegations of crimes in that state's territory. So if someone's crime isn't in any state party's territory (e.g. they bombed some civilians in international waters) it's still unclear to me that they can get referred by someone other than the UNSC. And since the US has a UN veto, the US would really have to be willing to throw the person under the bus for such a referral to be issued.

I guess the US ambassador to the UN would be the person on point, and he or she is part of the US govt's executive branch, answering to the POTUS. So this means a future POTUS willing to go after members of a previous one's administration. Does that seem about right? Idk if it's a likely scenario but it's at least scientifically possible from what I can tell. I think it historically hasn't happened much, e.g. Ford pardoned Nixon.

Added: hmm, another not-so-likely possibility is that the US later accedes to the Rome statute and becomes a state party. Can it then refer someone for crimes committed while it was a non-party? ~2026-56703-29 (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

The members of the Security Council casting votes are the states. Instead of exercising their veto power, permanent members can abstain, which may be politically more expedient than giving the impression of "going after" opponents.

While I'm not a lawyer and also not specialized in international criminal law, I'm fairly convinced that the US as a belated State Party would be legally able to issue such referrals for acts that were criminal at the time they were committed, and that it will be hard for the accused to argue that their acts only became criminal by the later accession.  ​‑‑Lambiam 10:09, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

...the United States Constitution is unambiguous on this crucial separation: A president’s power to pardon does not extend to violations of international law. This power is limited to “Offenses against the United States.” These offenses, moreover, are not subject to any idiosyncratic, whimsical or loosely ad hoc definition. Rather, they are limited to “…only those offenses declared to be such by the solemn action of the legislative body.”
In all the above cases that involve crimes of war, a competent legal scholar could argue more or less persuasively that pertinent Trump pardons were not solely violations of international law. Such an argument would be based on a well-established understanding that the laws of war – aka humanitarian international law – have already been “incorporated” into the laws of the United States. Nonetheless, such a selective argument would overlook that the Trump pardons, prima facie, (1) represent an abuse of a president’s Constitutional obligation to “faithfully execute the law;” and (2) patently ignore the always-complementary US position that every pardon is “an act of grace, proceeding directly from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws….”

— Donald Trump’s Pardoning Power and the Law of Nations

This is most likely an outlier opinion. You must also consider the Hague Invasion Act which would require an specific authorization from the sitting president for a court to consider extradition. There is considerable discussion concerning the 2019 pardons of service members accused of war crimes such as:

• Ford, Stuart (2020). "Has President Trump Committed a War Crime by Pardoning War Criminals?". American University International Law Review.

and the sources cited. Haven't really found anything that suggest a court might later allow extradition of a pardoned individual. I don't think a future POTUS willing to go after members of a previous one's administration can just send citizens to the Hague on his own hook, Congress might have to explicitly authorize an extradition to the ICC as they did for international tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and certain a court would have to decide. fiveby(zero) 13:34, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Our article Tomb of the Unknown Soldier (France) says "It [the coffin] was placed on the gun carriage of a cannon 155, but was not buried until 28 January 1921, in the presence of civil and military authorities, including the marshals who distinguished themselves during the First World War (Ferdinand Foch, Joseph Joffre and Philippe Pétain). Also present were: Belgian Foreign Minister Henri Jaspar, British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, and a representative of Portugal." Who was that Portuguese representative? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Search me. Many, many sources in various languages agree that there was a Portuguese representative and leave it at that. It's perhaps worth quoting The Times (29/1/21, p. 9), which lists "great soldiers—Foch, Joffre, Pétain, Wilson, Gouraud, Dubail, and Berdoulat—M. Barthou, Minister for War, with Mr. Lloyd George, Count Sforza, and M. Jaspar, and the Ambassadors of Great Britain, Italy, Belgium, and the United States to represent the Allies". Later General Maglinse is mentioned as one of those placing wreaths, but no-one from Portugal. I suppose he was below ambassadorial level and therefore not worth naming. --Antiquary (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

The January 1921 issue of the Larousse mensuel illustré gives a detailed account of the ceremony in the entry Cinquantenaire de la République on pages 343–4, but does not mention representatives.

In another account, we find, instead of Portugal, Italy:

Il y a trois des peuples qui combattirent côte à côte avec nous pour la cause du droit : l’Angleterre, représentée par M. Lloyd George ; l’Italie, par le comte Sforza ; la petite et si grande Belgique, par M. Jaspar et M. Theunis. [...] On le recouvre de la draperie tricolore, on y met le coussin avec les croix et on y dépose aussi les gerbes de fleurs et les couronnes qu’ont apportées les trois délégations de Belgique, d’Italie et d’Angleterre.

This matches the reporting in The Times mentioned above.

Yet another account has an opening bid for Portugal, but then pulls off a switcheroo to Italy:

À la différence des cérémonies parisiennes du 11 novembre, des hommes d’État et des diplomates étrangers ont été conviés à assister à cette dernière cérémonie : le Royaume-Uni, le Portugal et la Belgique — pays qui ont déjà ou qui vont bientôt désigner leur soldat inconnu — ont envoyé des politiques et des diplomates qui participent à la préparation de la future conférence de Londres visant à fixer le montant et les modalités du paiement des Réparations et qui s’ouvrira dans un peu plus d’un mois, le 27 février 1921. Lloyd George, Premier ministre, et lord Cuzon, ministre des Affaires étrangères, représentent l’Angleterre. Le comte Sforza, ministre des Affaires étrangères et l’ambassadeur Bonin-Longare représentent l’Italie. La Belgique a envoyé pour la représenter son Premier ministre, Jaspar.

My working hypothesis is that this last account (possibly an earlier incarnation than the web page) mistakenly substituted le Portugal for l’Italie, and that this mistake was copied in later accounts.  ​‑‑Lambiam 13:02, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Which makes sense as Portugal was only peripherally involved in the war, and therefore would be unlikely to receive an invitation to send a high-level representative to the ceremony. Xuxl (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

But she was un of the "pays qui ont déjà ou qui vont bientôt désigner leur soldat inconnu". DuncanHill (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

The knowledge of which fact, perhaps, contributed to a confusion that led to the making of the hypothesized error. Tombs of the Unknown Soldier were inaugurated in Italy, Portugal and the US in 1921 and in Belgium in 1922. I did not find the dates on which these countries committed to this, which should have been prior to 11 November 1920 28 January 1921 to make an invitation possible.  ​‑‑Lambiam 09:50, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Why would an invitation have to have been before 11 Nov 1920 for an invitation to an event on 28 January 1921? DuncanHill (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Obviously someone in the spirit of the occasion: the appropriately unknown representative. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Portugal certainly exists, but it's outside the universe. The two entities are mutually exclusive. That's why a "Hotel de l'Univers et du Portugal" once sat at 10 Rue Croix-des-Petits-Champs in Paris. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:01, 12 November 2026 (UTC) Reply