June 29[edit]

I looked at the article and it didn't seem to have this info. I'm wondering whether the prescription status of a drug is controlled entirely by the FDA, or whether states can control it too. E.g. can there be a drug that is OTC in one state, but prescription in another? That goes in two directions: 1) FDA says it's OTC, but state wants to restrict it. 2) FDA says it's prescription but state wants to widen access.

I'm aware of a situation something like this with medical pot, but pot is still theoretically illegal at the federal level, so there are some semi-shenanigans going on. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Controlled Substances Act is federal law, and violating it is a federal offense, which may be federally prosecuted, regardless of what any state laws say. I expect that a state could outlaw an FDA-approved drug, such as levonorgestrel, and I speculate (although forbidden) that the US Supreme Court in its current composition would uphold such state law as not being unconstutional.  --Lambiam 09:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to American federalist theory, general regulation for the purpose of the alleged public good is primarily under the jurisdiction of the several states and their police power, which the federal government does not have. The federal laws on controlled substances are something of an aberration. There are substances outlawed by various states but not by the federal government (see for example Salvia divinorum). --Trovatore (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah they are trying to do that with mifepristone. Most prescription drugs (e.g. antibiotics) aren't on the controlled substances list though. I don't know about the ones mentioned here. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note, questioner said OTC should mean over-the-counter drugs, to clarify. Obviously once a drug is federally-approved to be prescription, no state can challenge it and make it over the counter. I do wonder about the other-way-around. On a separate note, I did ask this before in the science desk months ago, but I'll give this time a shot: can a over-the-counter and prescription drug be the same drug, only differences are in concentration? 67.165.185.178 (talk) 10:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, the latter definitely happens, e.g. with ibuprofen (OTC=200mg, prescription=up to 800mg). I think it also happens with cortisone cream which is 1% cortisone OTC but stronger in prescription form. I can believe what you say about states not being allowed to declare FDA-approved prescription drugs to be OTC, but I don't consider it obvious, which is why I asked about it. As for states restricting federally legal stuff, I don't know about OTC drugs, but you can't buy Everclear above 120 proof in some states including California, at least as a beverage. It otherwise goes up to 190 proof. You can still buy it as a "culinary solvent" which is the exact same thing but it costs a lot more. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:FD2B (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol is arguably a special case because of Section 2 of the 21st Amendment, which gives the states a separate grant of authority as regards alcoholic beverages.

That said, it's odd to argue that the states have less authority than the federal government to regulate these sorts of things, given the police power doctrine I mentioned above. It's the federal authority to regulate drugs that's a severe stretch, based on an extremely generous (to the feds) interpretation of the Commerce Clause, which on its face just says that the federal government can regulate transactions that cross state lines. See Wickard v Filburn and Gonzales v Raich, both of which were in my opinion wrongly decided.

Merrick Garland said the other day that states cannot ban drugs based on their own view of the drugs' safety and efficacy, in contravention of the expert opinion of the FDA. I do not know whether he is right about that or not. I am not aware that expert opinion has any formal legal status. But he could be making a federal preemption argument; the law around that is extremely murky to my unpracticed eye. The thing he's not mentioning, of course, is that in the current context "safety and efficacy" is not the reason the states might want to ban those drugs. --Trovatore (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death of 51 migrants on US-Mexico border is in the news. Assuming, if, there are no human made border constrains and border patrols; 'terrain' point of view is Mexico-US border more difficult to cross (human migration/ escape) than Afghan-Pak border? if so what are the reasons similarities and differences?

• (Just for clarification, I do not have any personal interests in any of the cross border migration)

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bookku. According to List of Mexico–United States border crossings, there are currently 50 such border crossings, served by good or excellent roads, and in many cases, there are significant cities and towns right along both sides of the border. The Rio Grande River is an obstacle on the Texas part of the border, but there are about 30 international bridges over that river. Durand Line describes the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Much of the border is very mountainous which interferes with easy travel. According to Land border crossings of Pakistan, there are only six official border crossings, the best known of which is the Khyber Pass. Much of that area is dangerous tribal territory with ineffective control by central governments. If there was no border enforcement, it would be pretty easy to cross the U.S.-Mexico border, at 50 or more spots. Cullen328 (talk) 07:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Along several stretches there is no natural border and the only impediment to easy crossing is border control, like at San Diego–Tijuana, Calexico–Mexicali, and San Luis, Arizona–San Luis Río Colorado.  --Lambiam 09:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How long (in hours) illegal migrant's those journeys to U.S. might be? It would be difficult to imagine temperatures in a closed non AC trailer but if outside 90s to 100s for couple of hour journey would not have been much and not having even water with them seems surprising. I don't know how those Taliban used to manage in much difficult terrains of Afghan travel first and then participate in a war too that terrain might have needed much more physical energy then ordinary migrants.

Thanks to both of you for informative replies Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Considering the fact that the ease of doing business index by the World Bank Group has been discontinued and established as having data irregularities over the course of 2020-2022, is it still necessary for it to be on the Economics of *insert country* pages (it's at the bottom of most, if not all, statistics overview columns)?

I'd consider that this information has been established as unreliable and therefore not a valuable statistic to display and would therefore only be functional on the ease of business index page.

I'd love to hear some thoughts on this.

Kind regards Ensorin (talk) 08:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ensorin (talk • contribs) 08:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great find – you're absolutely correct. I posted a notice at WikiProject Countries. Also any editor who runs scripts should be able to take care of it pretty efficiently. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I translated the Iğdır Genocide Memorial and Museum into French and I am trying to improve the article.

I'm having trouble finding the source of an article on a site that isn't trustworthy enough to be used as a reference on Wikipedia, but the quoted article probably is (its author is the architect of the monument).

I am looking for the quoted source of this: [1], i.e. GIYASI Gayisi*, Prof. Dr. Cafer A., The Igdir Genocide Monument and Museum, Atatürk Research Centre Publication, Ankara 2000, pp.5-9..
[EDIT] in Turkish : Gayisi* Prof. Dr. Cafer A.-; Iğdır Soykırım Anıt ve Müzesi, Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi Yayını, Ankara 2000, s. 5-9.

Please notify me if someone is able to find a link to this paper. Regards,  Şÿℵדαχ₮ɘɼɾ๏ʁ 11:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The text is found in Turkish on many pages, e.g. here, and I bet the booklet by Prof. Dr. Cafer A. GİYASİ (these are dotted i's) is written in Turkish; the Turkish title is found in the line below "KAYNAK". Outside Turkey only specialized libraries would hold this.  --Lambiam 15:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lambiam. Actually, the name is "Gayisi", not "Giyasi" (see [2]).

I just noticed that the article in English I cite above is the translation of this one (or a similar one) : [3], and I am using this as a source on wp.fr -_-'

I would like to find it on a reliable site or get the source article to be able to work on sane bases...  Şÿℵדαχ₮ɘɼɾ๏ʁ 15:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's available from storage at Harvard Fine Arts library. Affiliates of Boston-area (or any?) universities can sometimes ask for temporary guest researcher access to Harvard's libraries without much hassle. Not sure if anyone will respond to an irl library dive, but The Resource Exchange might be able to help you further since it's one specific source, and seems to be only a few pages to scan. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SamuelRiv: thank you very much, at least now I have the exact name of the source.

But it adds to the confusion, because now I have reliable sources with different names for the guy... Harvard and WorldCat say "Giyasi" and I just found the a PDF from the Turkish government tht says "Gayisi" [4], and other books say the same [5][6]...

I think I found a photo of the book cover : [7] so it should be "Giyasi" (?)

This is very strange...  Şÿℵדαχ₮ɘɼɾ๏ʁ 19:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not that strange; Gayisi is the result op a simple transposition error, a very common type of spelling error. This is a link to a paper authored by Giyasi, and here is a newspaper article on the inauguration of the monument.  --Lambiam 20:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His Azerbaijani name is actually Giyasi, Jafar Ali oglu (Jafar Giyasi, son of Ali).^[8] It is common practice in Turkey to Turkify names; Cafer is a common Turkish name, cognate with Azeri Jafar. Compare the name of the late Jamal Kashoggi, known in Turkey as Cemal Kaşıkçı.  --Lambiam 21:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam Thanks for the input and the newspaper article (but the figures can't be true: this monument certainly didn't cost 400 billion liras)  Şÿℵדαχ₮ɘɼɾ๏ʁ 06:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the old Turkish lira, ranked at the time by the Guinness Book of Records as the world's least valuable currency. On 6 October 1999, 400,000,000,000 Turkish lira had a value of less than a million US dollars.^[9]  --Lambiam 07:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks Lambiam... I made some reaserch myself and found different figures...  Şÿℵדαχ₮ɘɼɾ๏ʁ 12:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using the letter "c" to write the sound [dʒ] can be just using the Turkish alphabet according to its usual sound values, and not necessarily a deeper "Turkification"... AnonMoos (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since 1922, Southern Ireland was known as the Irish Free State, which was a Irish independent state but also a dominion of the British Empire, with Northern Ireland being part of the United Kingdom. Then in 1937, the Free State became the Republic of Ireland. But the North still remained within the UK. Why is that? Because if the Anti-Treaty IRA won the Civil War, then maybe the entire country would be fully independent. And during The Troubles, Irish nationalists and republicans, who were mostly Irish Catholics, wanted Northern Ireland to leave the United Kingdom and join a united Ireland. 86.131.222.121 (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that in the inter-war period, the UK was in the top tier of international powers, while Ireland was most definitely not a major power? In the later 1920s and the 1930s, few people were eager to resume the violent fighting of earlier years... AnonMoos (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While the population of the Free State was 99.99% Roman Catholic, the population of Northern Ireland had a substantial Protestant community, mostly descendants of Scots imported during the Plantation of Ulster. They were militantly opposed to unification with the papists, which would have meant their becoming an insignificant minority on the whole island.  --Lambiam 20:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Point of information: the proportion of the Free State population that was Catholic in 1926 was in fact 92.57%, per our article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And note that when Lambiam describes them as "militantly" opposed, that's literally militantly, not metaphorically. As in, there were multiple paramilitary groups (i.e. terrorists) who would attack anyone who thought threatened their supremacy. Iapetus (talk) 08:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No simple answer but some reading for you:

• Unionism in Ireland
• Government of Ireland Act 1914
• Home Rule Crisis
• Irish War of Independence
• Partition of Ireland
• Anglo-Irish Treaty

If the Anti-Treaty party had won the Irish Civil War, it's difficult to imagine how they could have forced the British Government to abandon Northern Ireland, or even if it could, how they would have forced the Protestant majority in Ulster to accept rule from Dublin - the Unionists had previously been ready to go to war over the issue in 1914. A majority in Northern Ireland still wish to remain part of the Union, although the time may not be far off that this changes due to demographics; see The inevitability of a united Ireland.

Alansplodge (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So the simple answer is...? The North is a Protestant state and thus stayed remained within the UK. And it would impossible for the Catholics and IRA to force the British Government to abandon Northern Ireland and force the Protestant majority to accept Union rule if they had won the Civil War. 86.147.64.43 (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the anti-treaty faction had won the Irish civil war and refused to accept the partition of Ireland, that would have meant that any opportunity to build up and develop an independent Ireland would have been lost in additional rounds of severe violence, with rebels trying to actually defeat (not just fighting to mutual exhaustion) a major world military power... AnonMoos (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]