Miscellaneous desk
< June 12	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 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.

June 13[edit]

Lgbt news in Kenya[edit]

Isn't there something in the news to legalize same sex activity in Kenya? Like how it says so in this article: https://legabibo.wordpress.com/2016/05/23/kenya-could-become-the-next-country-in-africa-to-legalize-homosexuality/ 50.68.118.24 (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You ask us if there is something in the news about legalizing same sex activity in Kenya, and then you link to an article about legalizing same sex activity in Kenya. I'm not sure what you want from us. Rojomoke (talk) 04:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article you cite very carefully - there is a big difference between mounting a court case to challenge the current law, and actually getting the law changed by the country's legislature. This describes what might turn out to be the first step in a process - or it might come to nothing. Having worked in Africa, and knowing how homosexuality is viewed in most African cultures, I think it unlikely that we will see much liberalisation in this area for a long while yet. Wymspen (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question is a bit confusing; I interpreted it as "Is there something in the news about legalizing same sex activity in Kenya", not as "Is there something in the news that states that same sex activity in Kenya will be legalized". The blogpost the OP linked to says: "Kenya Could Become the Next Country in Africa to Legalize Homosexuality" (emphasis mine). The Quixotic Potato (talk) 09:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: LGBT rights in Kenya, which hasn't been updated in months. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chaco War[edit]

the german article says, that Brazil was not interested in having such a huge border with Argentina and that brazil didn't enjoyed that bolivia and paraguay have no border together, so the Brazilians have caused a pressure from themselves and from Bolivia against Argentina, to give up some land in the chaco (especially the land what has caused a border with brazil).
My question is, if anything of this is really true and if yes, how could Brazil make so much pressure that they give up friendly (!) some land space from themselves - and why brazil hasn't enjoyed to have a huge borderline with Argentina. I have never ever heard that a country give up a land absolute friendly for no exchange without any war. Thank you!--Ip80.123 (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak about these particular border changes, but countries have sometimes agreed land transfers without any direct warfare being involved. Two examples are the Alaska purchase and the Louisiana purchase – doubtless there have been others. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although large amounts of money changed hands in both those cases, but probably still cheaper than a war. Alansplodge (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the funny thing is that in the whole german and english article is nothing talked about any money, brazil just had made a pressure that the country of Chaco is non-argentine... But you are right, they should have got money but there is no information about money. --Ip80.123 (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There have also been cases where the transfer was far from friendly, but did not result in a war. See 1939 German ultimatum to Lithuania and Munich Agreement. No longer a penguin (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A key concept is that of the Buffer state - a way of avoiding conflict between powerful neighbours by leaving a weak, independent country between them. The classic example is Afghanistan in the 19th century - deliberately left un-colonised to ensure that British India and Russian Central Asia did not have a common border which could have been a point of conflict. Wymspen (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more reading makes me wonder which war you are asking about. The Chaco War (1932-35) was between Paraguay and Bolivia, with no significant involvement of either Brazil or Argentine. What you ask seems more likely to be about the Paraguayan War (1864-70) which did result in both Brazil and Argentina taking large chunks of territory formerly belonging to (or at least claimed by) Paraguay. In that case, neither country actually gave up their own land - they just disagreed about how much of the Paraguayan land they should take. Argentina wanted to simply divide the whole country and take half each, while Brazil wanted Paraguay to continue as a buffer state. Wymspen (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly it, and that's what the German article roughly says. In English, Paraguayan War#Territorial changes and treaties explains what happened. Warofdreams talk 15:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this with lithuana is not really a good example. --Ip80.123 (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

something like a spider veine[edit]

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.

Tevildo (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]