Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:32, 4 November 2014

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

October 30

Architectural terminology

What do you call the little structure at the front of the roofline? It's the wrong shape for a cupola, and I don't know if it has bells in it, so I'm hesitant to call it a belfry. It's seemingly not used for getting a good view of things (this church was built in the wilderness in the woods, so they couldn't have seen very far away), so not a belvedere, and it's rather too tiny for a turret. Nyttend (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It fits one of the pictures in the cupola article, and might be used for the same purpose, ventilation. However, you might be best off to write to that church and ask them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the congregation's seemingly defunct; it was Methodist, and it's not listed in the church finder for http://www.umc.org, which lists several churches in the surrounding countryside. Nyttend (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it a cupola in the newly expanded article that I was working on. Nyttend (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable. I just have to wonder, does someone own that property? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Ohio, as of ±10 years ago (when my church was trying to get rid of a piece of property), our lawyer told our minister that when a property owner no longer wanted to own a cemetery, the owner may transfer it to the township trustees, and the township trustees were obliged to take it; perhaps the local Annual Conference just gave it to Augusta Township. I tried and failed to find a GIS page, at which presumably I'd be able to find the owner. Nyttend (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Architecturally, this looks like a cupola, that is the outer shell is a cupola. Cupolas can be used for different purposes, such as a belfry, widow's walk, etc. Churches often used them for ventilation and the shutters on this one lend some evidence for that. --Mark viking (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They can also be called "roof turrets". A few people tend to refuse to calling them cupolas unless meaning the structure named so in the railroads, because cupola was originally meaning a round structure, such as that which can be seen on the top of many of the various Capitol buildings.--Askedonty (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there is no one true definition here. Some sources require cupolas to have domed roofs, others don't. --Mark viking (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I used to go to a school with a structure identical to that and was told it was a belfry, even though there was no bell in it.--TammyMoet (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This website (which sells the things) calls them "Cupolas (Roof Turrets)", so either term seems to be acceptable. Tevildo (talk) 03:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that it was originally intended to house a bell, hence the louvres to let the sound out. Following that link, we have an image of a 19th century school building in London, with the caption "Louvered cupola bell house". Alansplodge (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 31

Fiction story ID

There was a fiction book story (the author was possibly American), in which the duration of the sunrise gradually shortened with each day by a fraction of a second, the day duration decreases and then various nasty beings start to appear. No clues other than that. Any suggestions? Brandmeister^talk 23:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Deepness in the Sky has a kind of strobelight sun, but there the blink-rate gradually decreases... AnonMoos (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you remember about when you might have read/heard of it? I'm not seeing anything that looks familiar, but that would help at least rule out anything published after that point. SarahTheEntwife (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 1

Usage of the word "unpublished"

I am having a dispute with another editor regarding the usage of the word "unpublished" in reference to a book.

A book was due to be released by a publisher on 7/17/14. On 7/1/14, a website published an excerpt from the book. Is it correct to say that the website "published an excerpt from an unpublished book by Mike Tipping of the Maine People's Alliance (since published by Tilbury House Publishers)"?

I would argue that this is incorrect usage of the word "unpublished". "Unpublished" connotes the idea that the book could not find a publisher, in this case the book was under contract with a publisher and was scheduled to be released very soon. The terms "unreleased" or "forthcoming" seem more appropriate. (Setting aside the fact that the repetition in the phrase "published an excerpt from an unpublished book... since published" is just bad writing).

@Collect: feels that the word "unpublished" is more accurate. Who is correct? GabrielF (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of precisely when a book is published has become somewhat fuzzy. There is usually a formal publication date, but often books are made available to reviewers and others well before this. It may not yet be available for purchase in shops or online, but it could still be said to have been published, albeit to a select audience. Same with movies. Sometimes there are screenings, for the general public, before the formal premiere (they're oxymoronically called "pre-release screenings", but if it hasn't been "released" yet, what does the projectionist have to work with?) and that seems to make a mockery of the formal release date that appears in reference sources.

In this case, the entire book had not been published until July 17, so it would be technically correct to say "the book" was still unpublished. But if an excerpt was published before then, then it's not true to say the book was "entirely unpublished". People who read "unpublished" may well believe that that means "entirely unpublished", so some clarification is required if people are not to be unwittingly misled. Does that help? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of "unpublished" in that case, how about "a forthcoming publication" or "not yet published" or something like that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I myself would go with "then-unpublished" since it goes on to say it was eventually bestowed on the masses. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or "to be published". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the OP seems to miss my use of "since published" as being the accurate term, and the term I used before this section was started. I find the statement at the start is inaccurate and misleading. "Since published" is the generally used term, as far as I can tell, and this post here seems to be forumshopping. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "since published" is included in the quoted text above. I fail to see how asking a broader audience for usage advice is "forum shopping".GabrielF (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Unpublished" in copyright terms does not imply anything about quality or audience. Rmhermen (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're writing about something that was a future event then, but is now a past event, "since published" could be better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "yet unpublished". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, November 1, 2014 (UTC)

I would say "previously unpublished". Bus stop (talk) 23:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that implies the book is now (as of July 1) published. The excerpt became previously unpublished, but the book remained the same. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:45, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

Contact the company. Tell them you are a writer for wikipedia, and that' you are interested in the title. Ask for a review copy if one is available (you're liable to get this free in about 10 days if it's in the US), and if not, the current planned release date. Some publishers withold permission to quote from review copies, so keep that in mind, since sometimes last-minute draft changes are made. μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Burkina Faso crime rate

Burkina Faso seems a mystery. I've seen it listed as having the world's lowest crime rate; literally, its name means the "Land of Honest People". I don't know how much of this is reporting versus actual lack of crime, but it's positively amazing when you consider how many nearby countries suffer just utter collapse of all civil order - especially given the tremendous poverty of the country and low level of eduation. In defiance of preconceptions, the country is even Muslim like its neighbors. They just had a sort of Arab (or rather Black) Spring and it was all over in what, two days? [1] How have people analyzed what makes this country different? Does it really have something "positive" socially going for it that could be understood and learned by other nations? Wnt (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that? Lowest reported crime rate maybe. Just like some countries supposedly have no rapes. List of countries by intentional homicide rate gives a rate of 8 per 100,000 per year, higher than any developed country.

The country with the lowest crime rate is probably Japan. Like other developed countries, it's rich. Unlike other developed countries, it is quite xenophobic and not accepting of immigrants. Econometrics predicts crime rates quite accurately, and how it is higher in poorer communities. Immigrants to a developed country are mostly poorer than the native inhabitants. Immigration and crime documents a link between immigrants and crime. According to an article about gun crime in London I vaguely remember, immigrants are the victims of most of the increase in crime they create.

If you're looking for something "positive" socially, it may not be desirable to emulate Japan's hostility to immigration. Immigrants contribute to economic growth, and are net contributors to the government.

I don't know what you mean by "in defiance of preconceptions, the country is even Muslim like its neighbors". Islam certainly isn't linked with criminality.--178.167.151.93 (talk) 04:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I've been taken in by some dubious statistics. There is a list reproduced in many places around the Internet e.g. [2] that lists the country with 9.3 reported crimes per 100,000 ... but if the murder rate is 8 by itself, that seems pretty implausible. You're right that preconceptions aren't accurate, but to clarify, I mean it's near the current chaos in Mali and the longstanding chaos in Nigeria. Wnt (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and there are no homosexuals in Iran. μηδείς (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool College of Music

The articles on Frederic Austin, Louis Cohen (conductor), Simon Cousins and W. H. Jude say they all attended the Liverpool College of Music. And according to a google search for "Liverpool College of Music", so did Sir Thomas Beecham, Geoffrey Gilbert, Eugene Aynsley Goossens and Léon Goossens.

Yet I can find no info about this college: when it was established and by whom; notable faculty; whether it still exists (unlikely, as there's no website for it); and if not, did it become defunct or was it subsumed into some other institute of higher learning, and if so, what and when?

Over to the experts. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this 1911 source; basically it was founded in 1891 and lasted two decades before running out of money and being liquidated? ~Helicopter Llama~ 02:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But can you tell me how you got inside the front cover to discover that? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No idea how that result was found but the content can be accessed through JSTOR. Hack (talk) 08:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question about American politics

As an Australian confused about some aspects of American politics, I’ve often seen reference to “registered independents”. I assumed that the analogous terms “registered republicans” and “registered democrats” refer to members of the respective parties (or am I wrong about this?), but what on earth is a “registered independent”?Colonial Overlord (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In some states, you declare your party affiliation when you register to vote, so that someone who chooses no party affiliation is registered to vote as an independent. In Texas, you only declare party affiliation when you vote in a primary, so there are no registered independents... AnonMoos (talk) 05:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So in Texas you could be both a registered Republican and a registered Democrat? Regarding independent candidates (not voters): how were John Anderson in 1980, Ross Perot in 1992 chosen? They just declared they were gonna run and that was that? So in principle there could be several independent candidates? Contact Basemetal here 06:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They created one-use political parties, and ran under those party banners, with all the requirements such as having to get a minimum number of signatures on a petition for candidacy (or whatever it might be called). They wouldn't have been in primaries, most likely. And, no, you can't vote for both Democrats and Republicans in the same primary. You vote once (at most) and declare your party. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But what if you try to? How could you be prevented from doing it? Is it illegal? Where does your party registration (is that what it's called? or affiliation?) appear? Contact Basemetal here 07:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of party, you vote at your normal designated polling place, where they have a checklist of all registered voters. As they hand you the ballot, they check you off the list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So in primaries you vote at the same physical place where you will be voting on election day? Contact Basemetal here 07:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Each state does things its own way. I'm only telling you how it works in the state where I live: You register to vote at some government office, but you don't declare an affiliation until you get to the primary - and you can change it at will, in different elections. In Texas, as noted below, it's done at registration time, but again you could change it at the next election. But either way, you can't vote twice. And, yes, where I live it's the same voting place run by the same officials. They ask you, Republican or Democrat, and give you the appropriate ballot and check off your name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that rather inimical to the concept of the secret ballot? (Oh, I see Matt Deres asked about this below, but for government officials to know your voting intentions at any stage of the process just doesn't seem to be right.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then you don't have to vote in the primary. The purpose of a primary (in the states that have them) is for the major parties to choose their candidates. You can't participate in that process without declaring your party. Makes sense to me. And the actual election (which is next week in the US) has a ballot with all the candidates, and is secret. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then my other concern is that (at least some of) your governments are involved in the internal processes of political parties, which are private organisations. Would any mining company, say, countenance having the government be involved in the processes whereby senior management is chosen? Not likely. Not wanting to start a debate here, just making a comment. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Senior management in a mining company is the concern only of the board of directors of that company, not of the government (provided there are no laws being broken). Public officials are the concern of everyone under their jurisdiction. Voting is America is constitutionally up to the states to administer. It's only the federal government's concern if federal law is being broken - such as denying voting rights based on race or sex. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron gave the rationale for the government to get involved in that process in his response down below, namely: "Because the state has an interest in maintaining a clean, fair, and open electoral process, the government does have some regulatory authority in primary elections as well as the general election. The same mechanisms that exist to prevent shenanigans in the general election are also in force for the primary elections as well, despite the fact that the primary elections only choose the party candidate who will stand in the general election.". This makes some sense even though it may not close the argument in a definitive way. Regarding the analogy with private business corporations: (1) the analogy may not be perfect (2) governments all over the world may get or attempt to get involved in how the stock market is run, how corporations report their earnings, what kind of salaries senior management is paid, etc. if they feel the public interest is at stake. Again, a lengthy debate on the merits of the various positions may not be appropriate for the RD but what may be appropriate for the RD would be factual information as to what positions are out there and how and where the state does with that rationale intrude on what may seem at first sight to be private matters. (For example a piece of information such as that in Norway (I believe) boardrooms have to contain a mandatory percentage of women, in Belgium (I know for a fact) lists of candidates to the general elections must contain a mandatory percentage of women, etc.) Contact Basemetal here 23:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those two parties are the government, basically. Aside from George Washington, no independent has been President, and very few make it big in the legislatures. Only seems right the government has an interest in who's going to (at least nominally) lead it. Private clubs (like the National Mining Association) meddle more in government than government meddles in them. More beneficial to have the right overlords than the right underlings. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:46, November 1, 2014 (UTC)

I think Jack's concern might relate to the fact that voting in Australia is compulsory, not optional (except maybe in some legally-defined circumstances). The coercive nature of their voting system, while ensuring a high level of participation, also risks giving more information to the government than some might want to. Voting in America is voluntary. And as I said, you need not vote in the primaries if you don't want to. I don't know if Australia has a primary system. Jack could speak to that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ever wonder how Mad Max is related to Ronald Reagan and Ron Paul? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:15, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. How are they related? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were supposed to click "wonder", not bite. I'm not typing all of that. The Ron Paul part might require Googling their names together. Not exactly worth the trouble. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:30, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

I question the appropriateness of the word "coercive" to characterize compulsory voting. Or else you should, for consistency's sake, call laws that mandate paying your taxes, taking part in national service (where it exists), go for jury duty, etc. and every law that requires from the citizen participation in a civilized democratic society as "coercive". Apparently Australian democracy has decided that it was better for democracy to ensure a larger participation by making voting compulsory. It is no more "coercive" than those other cases above. Contact Basemetal here 00:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you like "compulsory" better, so be it. But no matter what you call it, you still have to do it. Compulsory voting runs the risk of individuals purposely sabotaging the election, voting for a bad candidate just to "get even" with whoever's forcing them to vote. If a given American doesn't want to vote, then they shouldn't. A bad vote is worse than no vote at all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The US certainly has ways to coerce citizens into following laws. "Compulsory" doesn't work as well, since so many obviously didn't have to. Apparently, the IRS is sometimes into literally screwing people as a second choice. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

Regarding a primary system, we have nothing of the sort. Endorsed party candidates are chosen by preselection which is purely internal matter, and the process varies by party. In the Liberal Party the local branch members typically select candidates. In the Labor Party its the state or national executive, with the process heavily controlled by machine men and union hacks. The Greens are a confederation of state parties with different rules, ranging from a grassroots democratic model in New South Wales, to centralised hierarchical selection in Tasmania. Colonial Overlord (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's about time Machine Men did something notable! Seriously though, does that mean political machine or actual mechanic types? Googling "australia machine man" gets me a lot of this guy. Tried to play the game, but in over his head. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:57, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

They're also called "faceless men" or "the party machine". Basically the unseen party officials who control the internal workings of the party (the term is also used for members of parliament who are not official leaders but control the party through their factional allegiances). They only really exist to a significant extent in the ALP. Colonial Overlord (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm still going to envision their fixers as big contractors in coveralls with calloused hands, even if I can't see their faces. Just something about "Labor". InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

Responding to Bugs' invitation: I don't think my concern has anything to do with whether voting is compulsory or not. It's about (a) not having governments meddling in the affairs of private organisations - not even benignly; and (b) not having governments knowing the political affiliations of individual people at any point in the process (except where individuals publicly acknowledge such affiliations). It's fair enough to have laws that ensure procedural fairness, lack of inappropriate discrimination, what have you. We don't have a "primary" system as such. Each party chooses its own candidates via processes that it alone decides, subject to the laws I mentioned above, where they apply to political parties (but no government can force a party to, say, have a balance of genders in its candidates that reflects the general populace; a party itself may choose to have such a rule, and that would be its right. But if a person is denied candidature solely or primarily on the basis of their sex or sexual orientation or ethnic origin or marital status or ...., then they can of course seek the protection of the law). The process whereby, say, the Australian Labor Party chooses its candidates for whatever election it's contesting, is called "pre-selection". Only formal paid-up members of the party are permitted to take part in the pre-selection process (there may be qualifying periods to ensure people can't sign up for membership one day, vote for a candidate the next day, and quit the party the following day). The general public would have no idea of the party's timetable or internal arrangements. All they know is that, at some point well before the election, the public is told that Candidate A is who you'll be voting for if you want to support that party in that seat. Of course they release bio info about that person to convince would-be voters he/she is a reasonable person who would properly represent their interests in the parliament and elsewhere. Sometimes there's public knowledge about particular pre-selection processes; for example, where an incumbent member wishes to continue but the party opens the pre-selection up to all comers and there are broad hints that a different person has a lot of internal support and is likely to unseat the incumbent as the party's candidate. That's where we tend to see a lot of dirty linen being washed in public, despite the wish of the party bigwigs to keep such matters in house as much as possible. That explains why incumbents sometimes re-contest as independents (who, if elected, nevertheless usually broadly support the party they previously represented; and sometimes formally rejoin that party). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you trade keeping secret which party you follow, for having no say in your party's candidates. That does not sound like a good tradeoff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find bizarre the idea of a system where people who are not paying, committed members of a party can vote for the party's candidate. In the U.S system, what's to stop a die hard democrat going to the republican primary and voting for the worst candidate to maximise their own party's chance of success? Colonial Overlord (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is, at the moment, the apparent best Republican candidate is the worst. This piece calls the process of trying to appeal to the Party and regular voters as "dentistry-without-anesthestic". Granted, that's an opinion, but he explains it well. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:02, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

If it's important to you to have a say in who the candidate is, you join the party. There's obviously a difference between party members (who pay dues, attend meetings, work on fund raisers, engage in advocacy etc etc), and party supporters (who do none of those things but vote for the party when they can, unless they've swung to a different party in the meantime). It's the same with any organisation. if you choose not to be a member of a certain union, you can't expect to have any say in how the union is run, what its policies are, etc. If you don't own any shares in a company, you can't expect to attend the AGM and speak and/or vote on whatever issues. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should also point out that in Australia there are usually a whole range of parties you can vote for in an election without "splitting" the vote of your preferred major party. So its not like you're restricted to just two choices you had no say in selecting. Moreover, there would be little point in ordinary voters selecting party candidates since the candidates, whoever they are, have no choice but to publicly follow party policy, unlike in the U.S which seems to have no concept of party discipline. Colonial Overlord (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question about American politics (arbitrary break)

Basemetal -- Every two years, Texas mails out a new voter registration card to all registered voters, with a blank space for "Party affiliation". If you vote in a party's primary, then your card is stamped with that party's name, to keep you from voting in the primary runoff of any other party. (Nowadays, the stamping of the card is actually kind of optional, since computer databases can prevent inconsistent/multiple primary voting.) After the main elections in November of every even numbered year, new cards are mailed out, and everybody starts out with a blank slate again, as far as party affiliation... AnonMoos (talk) 08:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it usually means that on their voter registration forms they chose not to declare a party affiliation and are therefore "independent of any organized political party". However, there are also a few organized political parties often (rather imprecisely or sloppily) referred to as "The Independent Party" such as American Independent Party, Independent American Party, Independent Party of Oregon, etc. Most of these parties are local affiliates of the Constitution Party (United States) (formerly "U.S. Taxpayers' Party"). People in the media, whose understanding of the American political system oftentimes does not extend beyond the Republican/Democrat paradigm, will ambiguously refer to members of these parties as "registered Independents" as well.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 08:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here in New York, those registered as "independent" do not vote at all on Primary Day... since they don't belong to a party that is holding a primary election. They (like everyone else) can vote for whoever they want in the General Election.

As for the various small parties that use the word "Independent" in their names... in NY these usually don't hold a primary election... no need, since they tend to have only one candidate running for any given office. Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have an article that explains the whole Registered X thing? I know WP:WHAAOE and all that, but searching for registered republican and registered democrat (and registered independent for that matter) come up with nothing useful looking. It sounds like you need to declare your party affiliation, but I thought the US used secret ballots. Matt Deres (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, secret votes on the ballot but the fact that you got a ballot is public record. Rmhermen (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Contrary to what some folks think, there are a great many parties in the US, not just two. And in some states an "Independent Party" can certainly exist, while the general journalist usage is "anyone not a Republican or Democrat" which is not a really accurate usage. People who do not register with a specific party name are generally called "unaffiliated" as far as the registrars are concerned, and in many cases they can vote in primaries depending on the state. In a few states, anyone can vote in any primary - but only one primary to a customer. For pollsters, they stick with at most two parties <g> as being close enough for government work. Collect (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses. The whole concept of primary elections puzzles me, as it seems that the selection of party candidates and the internal affairs of the party are regulated by the law. This is strange, because here in Australia political parties are private associations with virtually no official legal recognition (which is ironic, since the Australian political system can't work without political parties and was always designed that way, unlike the American system). If ordinary voters can vote for the selection of party candidates, is there any such thing as party members at all, who pay membership dues and participate in the internal party organisation? Also, I understand each state is different, but if in New York registered independents can't vote in primary elections, why would anyone register as an independent? Why not just pick a party, even if you don't agree with it, and affiliate with it so you can vote in its primary election? Why would anyone choose to give up their power to vote? What benefits are there in registering/declaring no party/independent? Colonial Overlord (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One advantage of not registering for a party is you get less "reminder" emails, phone calls, etc. from "your" party. No one can avoid the TV ads and junk mailings, though. Primaries (and caucuses) are only who deciding a party's candidates, not for deciding party leadership, which is separate on state and federal levels as well. (The Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party is the state Democratic Party for Minnesota.) There are dues paying party members who elect party leaders (for Wisconsin, you must pay county party dues to be a state party member.[3]) Rmhermen (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind if I ask our American editors a few more questions regarding this quaint system:

Are party primaries the whole and only reason of this system of party registration (specifically to prevent people from voting in two primaries at the same time)?
Does this system apply only to Republicans and Democrats, or do you have the option of registering as a supporter of any party you want?
How long has this system been in existence?

Contact Basemetal here 16:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a system. there are 53 or so. Some states don't have primaries at all. Some have open primaries, others closed or blanket ones. And sometimes nonpartisan. For the second question, as mentioned above many small parties don't have enough candidates to need primaries, but some do. Rmhermen (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And in case a third party does hold a primary you are given the option of registering as a supporter of that party? Correct? In other words primary elections are "public business" (instead of exclusively the internal business of the party that holds them as in most other countries) for any party that holds primaries (not just R and D)? Is that correct? Contact Basemetal here 17:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe - if they want and if state law allows. Rmhermen (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I didn't see it mentioned thus far, I'm just going to throw this in. In our recent primary elections here in Vermont, when I went to my polling place, I was given three ballots. One Republican, one Democrat, and a third for Progressive/Independent candidates. We are given three because we do not have to declare party affiliation. But we could only use one of those ballots. The other two simply got recycled.

And to reiterate, and give an example of, what was said about us not having just two parties in the US, our governor's race this year has 7 candidates. They had a debate a couple weeks ago and it was hilarious and head-shakingly absurd at the same time. The parties represented included Democrat (incumbent), Republican, Libertarian, Liberty Union, and Independent. One of the Independent candidates, Cris Ericson (who we used to have an article on), often runs under the banner of the Marijuana party but doesn't seem to be doing that this year. Dismas|^(talk) 17:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that an article regarding a Vermont politican named Cris Ericson was deleted? Why was it deleted? Contact Basemetal here 00:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Basemetal: Yes. It's a bit of an odd one. As I recall, she didn't like that we had an article on her, insisted on changing it to what she wanted, requested deletion, it went up for AFD, a number of people found her to be non-notable. Even though she runs every year possible for governor and congress. You can check the AFD discussion if you like. Dismas|^(talk) 04:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I read the AFD discussion. Interesting for how WP works. Contact Basemetal here 04:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's one thing I like about Canada: The only party that isn't essentially a marijuana party is the Conservatives, yet we still have an actual Marijuana Party of Canada, just for good measure. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, November 1, 2014 (UTC)

I'm shocked to see that it isn't nicknamed the "Pot Party". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have a semi-official Prince of Pot. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:48, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

But even though you are entitled to use only one of those three ballots (maybe by law even), from your description in Vermont there's no mechanism to ensure that you do not cheat and try to vote in two or three primaires as there is in (say) Texas? From AnonMoos description of the system in Texas, in Texas this is impossible to do. Contact Basemetal here 17:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a sort of mechanism. The volunteers at my polling place stand by the boxes that the unused ballots go into and try to make sure you put all the extras that you haven't used to into the "unused" box. Dismas|^(talk) 04:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio has something midway between Texas and Vermont: there's no party registration on the rolls, so you get to pick which party you want, but you only get one ballot. Go into the polling place, and you're asked if you want a Republican ballot, a Democratic ballot, or an issues-only ballot. The last is for people who don't want to participate in either party's primary but who still wish to vote on issues such as constitutional amendments, property tax levies for schools, and similar things that are more plebiscite-type things than elections per se; of course the issues are on the Republican and Democratic ballots as well. If a third party registers to have a primary, its ballot would be an option as well, although it would be more likely in more heavily populated areas (where you might be more likely to have a third-party contest) than in the rural area where I grew up. Someone trying to determine party registration in Ohio might well request the number of people who picked each type of ballot in the most recent primary. Nyttend (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial Overlord, you ask about party decisions and dues. Political fundraising here is a big issue; I get the impression that (at least for the Republicans and Democrats) all party funds are donated, either directly (someone writes a $1000 check to the Republican Party) or overpriced sales (someone pays the Democratic Party $1000 to eat at what would otherwise be a normal restaurant dinner). The major parties have county (somewhat comparable to local government areas in Australia), state, and federal committees, and in some places (at least in Indiana) committees for individual voting precincts. At least in Ohio, one gets on a committee by running in the primary; the Ohio Republican ballot has a section of "FOR State Committee: Vote for one — Jane Doe [line break] Joe Bloggs [line break] Tommy Atkins". Nyttend (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to take a crack at this. Understanding the current American political situation requires some historical context.
In the past (say, prior to the 1920s or so) there was very little public participation in party politics. Parties nominated their candidates at Political conventions, where party officials gathered to nominate candidates for various offices. There was little input in the process, candidates were put forth for various reasons, and a lot of political dealing went on behind the scenes (see Smoke-filled room for the euphemism for this sort of thing). Political candidates were controlled strongly by Political machines like Tammany Hall. In many areas, one party was SO dominant that these machines not only controlled the candidate (see Solid South), who they chose was all-but guaranteed to win the election, meaning that most elections weren't contests anyways.

Starting in the Progressive era there was a large movement in U.S. politics to involve more people in the political process at all levels. People were given direct control of the legislative process through ballot initiatives that allowed people to vote on proposals that then had the force of law, they were given the power to petition for special elections to recall politicians who had lost political favor and, most importantly for our discussion, the ability to select party candidates who would stand in the general election. This was a very important expansion of democracy in the U.S., as in those places where winning a nomination was tantamount to election, it allows people who aren't party bosses the power to have a say in who their leaders will be.

Because the state has an interest in maintaining a clean, fair, and open electoral process, the government does have some regulatory authority in primary elections as well as the general election. The same mechanisms that exist to prevent shenanigans in the general election are also in force for the primary elections as well, despite the fact that the primary elections only choose the party candidate who will stand in the general election. Because of the peculiar sort of federalism in the U.S., every single state handles these primary elections in very different ways, and there are no universal rules or principles; but every state has some sort of open-access to the primary election process, though describing the way it works for the U.S. as a whole is impossible, given the vast differences in the peculiarities in each state.

Because the primaries are still officially mechanisms to select party candidates, one still needs to be an official member of the party in question. People usually must be at least nominally "members" of the party during the primary election, though people are allowed to change parties at any time, the peculiarities of party registration are different in every state, and can range from formal paperwork that has to be registered prior to an election, do a verbal declaration at the polling place, to just about everything in between, and some stuff off to the side as well. (see what I said above about there being no national system in the U.S.) The basic principle is that in a primary you should be a member of the party whose primary you are voting in, and you vote in only one of those primaries. People who are not a member of any of the parties who are participating in the primary are considered "independents". In states which hold other elections at the same time as primary elections (such as judgeships, or ballot initiatives, or non-partisan offices, etc.) being a registered "independent" allows you to vote in those elections without having to also vote in the primary election itself. --Jayron32 20:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that helps some. --Jayron32 20:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed your link by creating a redirect. Okay, so where would be the best place to direct folks searching for Registered Democrat, Registered Republican, or Registered Independent? Given the Americans' love of disunity, I assume there are dozens of permutations of the process; is there a single article or series of such that goes over all that stuff? Matt Deres (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there is a good place. You know, not every plausible search term has to come up blue. There's a fairly decent search tool that shows up automatically when you enter redlinked terms into the search box, and it's probably better than any single redirect would be for these terms. As for wikilinking them, just don't; problem solved. --Trovatore (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's brilliant. I've always wondered what the terms meant and searching brings up little that's helpful. The terms crop up in TV shows and books set in the US and, to most non-Americans, they are puzzling. I would have thought that a key part of the basic political process of the US would have been worthy of an article, but I guess not...? After today's questions are archived, I'll redirect to Jayron's answer, which is closest I've seen to an explanation on WP. Matt Deres (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could possibly add the terms, and thus create redirects to, Voter registration#United States or Elections in the United States#Voter registration. They currently both have a paragraph on the fact that "citizens registering to vote may declare an affiliation with a political party". Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant article is Open primaries in the United States. Until the progressive era, political parties were wholly private organizations. In order for a party to get its candidate on the ballot for the presidential election, normally a certain number of petitions had to be signed according to state law. This often meant back-room dealing "smoke filled rooms" and Tammany Hall-type political machines.

The notion of holding publicly funded open primaries was adopted by the progressives of both parties. Once public primaries were held at public expense it seemed unfair to require voters to register with one party, since these were no longer fully private organizations. Many states have laws that automatically reserve a place on the ballot for any party whose candidate won at least, say, 10% of the vote in the last election.

This has the effect of establishing a two party (D/R) system by law, and placing a further costly burden on would-be third party candidates, who are often required to, for example, get the signatures of 1,000 registered voters in each county of the state. (Not only is this often intentionally sabotaged by main party proxies, the third parties have to hire lawyers to meet challenges made o every signature in every county. This is the means by which party bosses kept Pat Buchanana off the Republican primary ballot in 1996, and how Independence (i.e., Ross Perot) party candidate Tom Golisano was attacked and eventually moved himself and his multimillion dollar business to Florida.) The state and federal election commissions are usually chaired by an equal number of Democrats and Republicans with no third party or independent chairs. In the 1992 presidential election, the federal election board (3R/3D), a quasi-official government agency decided that any candidate polling over 10% would take part in the presidential debates. GHW Bush's campaign assumed he had the campaign locked up, but Perot took enough votes from him in the general election to allow Clinton to win with 43% of the popular vote. Polls showed in a two-man race, Bush would have won.

In 1996, Perot was polling at about 12% on average, but neither Dole (R) nor Clinton (D, incumbent) wanted him in the debates, so the 6 chair election commission said that although Perot was polling above 10%, he was "not a serious candidate" and they kept him out of the debates.

In the 2008 election (see Open primaries in the United States) John McCain never won a majority of registered republican votes, but he won enough open primaries with the support of people who voted for Obama in the presidential election to become the Republican nominee, and lost.

The Libertarians don't participate in the primaries. They have a convention with an instant run-off election, where at each ballot the candidate with the least number of votes is removed from eligibility, and a new round of votes is held every hour or so until the final vote comes down to the two remaining candidates. In 2008, the conservative businessman and his coalition supporters won the nomination against the anarchist physician in voting broadcast on CSPAN. μηδείς (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what is the party flag of "Party of the Swedes"?

is that the party flag or not? am confused because in 2013 the introduced another flag without abolishing the original see http://www.arminius.se/partifana-svenskarnas-parti-svp.html http://www.arminius.se/stodfana-svenskarnas-parti-svp.html in their party store they call the new version "partifana" while the original gets the name of "stödfana" if you look at their recent demonstrations the original flag seems to be visible than the new one they also use the original and othe events but the new one keeps showing up for example: https://www.realisten.se/2014/09/16/atersamling-under-fanorna/ 81.235.159.105 (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who says a party can only have one flag? If you adopt a new flag, without abolishing the old one... then you have two flags. Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Golden dawn in greece has more than 1 flag but what i meant what one shall use in the party of the swedes infobox? golden dawn uses that red flag found on wikipedia 81.235.159.105 (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please answer my responce?! 81.235.159.105 (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I created the image File:Svenskarnas parti Folkfronten flag.svg based on photos and images available at the time. Haven't seen the other flag design before, but at a guess it seems oriented towards those outside the party, since it includes explanatory text, and is based on the national flag colors... AnonMoos (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

old review of a book

Hello, can anyone help me find a contemporary (to when it was published in 1977) review of Drowned Ammet? Thanks184.147.131.89 (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found only one such review, a short one in the School Library Journal (Apr. 1, 1978). Email me and I'll reply with a PDF; you can email me via Wikipedia if you go to my page at John M Baker (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That's very kind. I have gone to your page but cannot see an email address. 184.147.131.89 (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC);[reply]

Go there again and look in the left-hand column. Under Tools you should see a link for Email this user. Maybe you have to register with Wikipedia for this to work, I'm not sure. Alternatively, if you click on the link in my bio to my employer you will see an email address there. John M Baker (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the first human to be settled in Japan?

I want to know about what is the first human to be settled in Japan. --Kiel457 (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can read all about it at History of Japan and especially Japanese Paleolithic. Jōmon period may also be of interest. Matt Deres (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did this happen?

Did the Germans, French, and British fraternize during the trench war in the WW I and then re-started fighting again after Christmas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senteni (talk • contribs) 19:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read of Christmas truce. MilborneOne (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So it never officially happened. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:52, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

See also "Snoopy's Christmas". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is the subject of a 2005 French film; Joyeux Noël which weaves a fictional narrative around the events (however, you have to believe that all Highlanders are Roman Catholics to make the story work). Alansplodge (talk) 10:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost certain it also figured in Oh! What a Lovely War (1969), although our article doesn't touch on it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly appears in the film - see here - and I think in the stage show too, though it's a while since I've seen that. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It also gets a brief, humorous mention in "Goodbyeee" the last episode of Blackadder Goes Forth MarnetteD|Talk 22:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And by Mark Thomas, My Life in Serious Organised Crime: "I wouldn't exactly say we're mates, but we might play football Christmas Day." —Tamfang (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-POTUS presidents of the United States

Beside the President of the United States, what major US offices have been entitled "President"? I don't care whether the position is a chief executive on some level or if it's something else. I know about the President of the Continental Congress, which was basically a chairman of Congress, but I don't know about other offices. Some states once had presidencies; if you produce a link to "President of X" for all fifty states, you get five bluelinks: Delaware, Georgia (although this is Giorgi Margvelashvili), Hawaii (Sanford B. Dole, when it was independent), New Hampshire, and Texas (again, when it was independent). However, these links aren't conclusive, since the redlinked office of President of Pennsylvania existed according to the Benjamin Franklin article. I'm therefore left wondering what other states had presidents, as well as what other jurisdictions (if any).

We don't answer requests for opinions, but I'd appreciate it if you'd ignore that for a moment. I'm asking the above question because I'd like to put together a list of non-POTUS presidencies, and I'd appreciate opinions on what such a list should be called — or if it's even worthwhile having one in the first place. See President of the United States (disambiguation) for other articles with related titles. Nyttend (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

President of the Senate. --Jayron32 00:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs is officially not a government department, but they shared a Vice President. And they send their presidents to a Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which has a familiar looking number of members. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:37, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

There's President of the Massachusetts Senate, and likely others like this. Also the The Presidents of the United States of America. Staecker (talk) 12:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But that's totally feather-pluckin' insane! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:00, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

Each of New York's boroughs has a president, I believe. —Tamfang (talk) 00:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they do. See Borough President. --Jayron32 12:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sling blade does not use a sling blade

I'm currently trying to put together an article Sling blade (tool) (or Weed cutter (tool), as Sears listed it in their catalog under that name), because the Brush hook (aka Kaiser blade, which is not a redirect for some reason) is quite different from these things. I cannot find any RSs indicating that the brush hook has ever been called a sling blade before a fictional mentally handicapped guy played by Billy Bob Thornton called it that. I can find plenty of blogs and relatives saying that the movie got the wrong tool. I can find plenty of stores selling something that is definitely one of these things and not a brush hook as a weed cutter or sling blade. However, I'm stuck in trying to find enough RSs to write a proper article. All I have are sources that note that the sling-blade was retitled a "weed cutter" in the Sears & Roebuck catalog, but nothing describing it or showing a picture. If I could find one of the S&R catalogs that features a picture of one, I'd cite that and be done with it. Alas, the 1896 (or whatever) catalog I can find on Google Books only features plenty of other words between usages of "weed" and "cutter," and no pictures of the tool.

What I've found so far:

The New Encyclopedia of Southern Culture: Volume 11: Agriculture and Industry, by Melissa Walker and James C. Cobb, UNC Press Books, 1 Nov 2008, p.258 - "When a southern farmer needed a new ''sling-blade'' or ''slam-bang,'' for example, he was forced to order it from Sears as a ''weed cutter.''"
Artifacts and the American Past, by Thomas J. Schlereth, AltaMira Press, 1 Jan 1980, p. 51 - "...what is still known in the rural South as a ''sling-blade'' or ''slam-bang'' must be ordered from Sears by recognizing a catalog picture in which it is labeled a ''weed-cutter''."
Flapper: A Madcap Story of Sex, Style, Celebrity, and the Women Who Made America Modern, by Joshua Zeitz, Crown Publishing Group, 4 Feb 2009, p.168 - "the ''sling-bam'' or ''sling-blade,'' as it was popularly known by southern farmers, was soon known far and wide as a ''weed cutter''".
The 1962 Montgomery Ward catalog might have one around p. 1405, but the snippet preview cuts out.
My mother seems to have found some old newspaper articles about people being killed by a sling blade, but no pictures or a description of the tool.

Can anyone find anything else (or do they have a relevant catalog)?

Ian.thomson (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are doing any redirecting, you could include Slasher (tool) which is the British English term for a Kaiser blade. A brush hook is (in my opinion) a slightly different tool, having a more sickle-shaped hook, whereas a Kaiser blade/slasher is basically a billhook with a long handle. Here is a "slasher" aka "Kaiser blade", and here is a "brushing hook" aka brush hook. We don't seem to have anything resembling a "sling blade" on this side of the Atlantic, but I've seen them in films (Cool Hand Luke springs to mind). Alansplodge (talk) 10:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2

Clerks

If a clerk has only one year under "terms served" on oyez.org does that mean that they only served one term? Are the oyez records complete? 32.214.93.47 (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)thankshttp://www.oyez.org/justices/stephen_g_breyer/#more[reply]

It is an area where they might be giving only approximate coverage. They could name only one term, e.g the first, for privacy concerns regarding the other clerks and every clerks. --Askedonty (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for short story about sports journalist

I'm looking for a humorous short story about a sports journalist that's sent to the opera or the theatre. He writes a review as if it was a sports event. It might be by Mark Twain, but I haven't been able to find it. Sjö (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might try Ring Lardner - that's his sort of turf. -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "New Horizons in Music Appreciation" piece on The Wurst of P. D. Q. Bach is a Beethoven symphony with sports commentary... AnonMoos (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Life skills

Is it true that the base to every skill and competency in life is confidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.41.238 (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Well, maybe yes. I'm not sure; my opinion is pretty worthless here. As is anybody's. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "the base"? Obviously one also needs physical ability, training, practice, understanding, and possibly other relevant skills. Many people get by without confidence, but in most cases it helps.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could check out the hierarchy of needs pyramid, which is reflected in Admiral Kirk's comment that "Survival is the first order of business." Once survival is ensured, you can start moving up the pyramid. Doing so can help build confidence. Experience improves confidence. With the old caveat, "Good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confidence can be misplaced, as in the case of the "unsinkable" RMS Titanic.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

is this Maslows hierarchy of needs linked to Erikssons stages of psychosocial development? 194.66.246.26 (talk)

19:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Only as they were adjacent chapters in my psychology textbook when I did my first degree. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the inquiry I would have to say that it depends. Can you give an example or two of what "life skills" you are referring to? Bus stop (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recall once seeing a documentary about prisons. The warden said that self-esteem (i.e. confidence) is not a problem for hard-core criminals. What they lack is a conscience, or empathy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There can be a disconnect between confidence and skills if they are in different areas of a person's development. I don't think one can really generalize without greater specificity of knowledge of the sorts skills under examination. Furthermore we need to know more about the "confidence" under examination. A confident person may feel free to question their assumptions. Is that confidence or doubt? The Wallendas' skills are specific. If they have confidence it may and may not spill over into other areas of their lives. But it is surely not confidence alone that keeps them on their highwire. And every adjustment in their balance can be seen as a very good response to a lack of confidence. Bus stop (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nik Wallenda, who is set to attempt a couple more death-defying feats this very night in Chicago, has attributed his success to absolute, total concentration on what he's doing. Focus and persistence have long been regarded as the key to success in any field. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been watching videos of Nik Wallenda. I wouldn't encourage him to do what he is doing. On the other hand, I'm impressed. Bus stop (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaand... He just finished both walks - the second one blindfolded. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, watched it live on Discovery Channel. Amazing. Bus stop (talk) 02:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The hour and a half buildup made the actual first walk almost anticlimactic. Maybe 10 minutes. And the blindfold walk took maybe 2. Now there's a confidence-builder. But you're right, it's not to be recommended as a popular trend. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crimes in the US military

When a crime is committed in the US military, they (the military) follow a completely different criminal law system than that of the average everyday crime in the USA (i.e., a crime not committed in the military). My question is: are these criminal hearings and trials open to the public and the media, just as any regular crime in the USA would be? Or are they completely closed off, private, and not open to the public (and/or the media)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Manual for Courts-Martial, rule 806, is pretty clear: "In general. Except as otherwise provided in this rule, courts-martial shall be open to the public. For purposes of this rule, “public” includes members of both the military and civilian communities." Further rules provide some exceptions, but the emphasis is on public trials as in non-military trials. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A-ha. OK, thanks. That's helpful. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as we know, the only major secret court in the US is the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. And, as far as we know, they don't do trials, just warrants. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:10, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

"How to write fiction" books

In English there are countless "How to write fiction" books, some of them even focusing on particular genres. I was wondering if there were any of such books in other languages, especially in French or German. Could anyone give examples? --BorgQueen (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

French example: Comment écrire un roman (Devenir Écrivain Simplement t. 1)

German example: Wie schreibe ich einen Bestseller: Geheimnisse, Techniken und Erfolgsformeln von Bestseller-Autoren 184.147.131.89 (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! So they do exist. Hmm. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Presuming such books are written by successful authors, keep in mind this axiom from Dogbert: "Beware the advice of successful people - they do not seek company." And if it's not written by a successful author, how could you trust it anyway? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 3

Did George Wallace support the Equal Rights Amendment?

Did George Wallace support the Equal Rights Amendment? When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 to the Present states that Wallace supported the ERA. http://books.google.com/books?id=sQ1HhzuaYkEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=walace#v=onepage&q=wallace&f=false While Stand Up for Alabama: Governor George Wallace states that he did not. http://books.google.com/books?id=-i1HBMC6qsEC&pg=PA368&dq=george+wallace+%22equal+rights%22+abortion&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wfVWVJb-Eq-IsQSwlYLoDg&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=george%20wallace%20%22equal%20rights%22%20abortion&f=false

--Gary123 (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, interesting to research. I've not yet found any contemporary evidence of Wallace's support for the ERA. The one scholarly work I've found asserting the support cites a personal letter from Wallace to Alice Paul in 1968. Anyone got anything definitive? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Anniston (Ala.) Star, which presumably would know, wrote on Mar. 25, 1973, "Gov. George Wallace has supported the ERA publicly since 1968. The governor recently was quoted as saying he will not say any more publicly until after the state legislature acts." Of course, Alabama did not ratify the ERA. By 1976 news articles refer to him as having taking a position against the ERA, although I'm not sure exactly when he reversed his position. John M Baker (talk) 06:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the ERA was a complicated thing. The bulk of the support for quite a while was from conservative Republican women, as our article says; New Dealers "...felt that ERA was designed for middle class women but that working class women needed government protection." This flipped by the early 70s. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the joke was on the "No" voters, because the 14th amendment already covered it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. Antonin Scalia said in 2011 he disagrees. He's kinda influential. [4] --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're getting a bit off-topic here, but a key argument of some opponents of the ERA was that the rights it guaranteed were already provided by constitutional and statutory provisions. So if the 14th Amendment already covered the substance of the ERA, that would not be a joke on the No voters. John M Baker (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never once heard an opponent make that argument. The opponents feared that it would erode male power dominance in America, and frequently said so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which opponents when? The opponents of the ERA in the '40s-'60s were not the opponents of the ERA of the '70s, which is the point of this whole discussion. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Be more specific. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of those with difficulty following links, Equal Rights Amendment#Background provides plenty of detail of the shift of ERA support, and the changing arguments over the years for and against the ERA. This link, provided above, discusses the ERA vis-a-vis the 14th Amendment. I'd be curious to find some opponents actually saying outright that it would "erode male power dominance in the US". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The opposition argument (in the 1975 - 1982 period) was that the popular rights protected by the ERA, such as equal pay for equal work, were already protected by existing law. The opposition concern was that the ERA would create unpopular rights/requirements, such as unisex restrooms, mandatory female service in military ground forces, and homosexuals' right to adopt. Thus, either the ERA would have no effect, or its effect would be in ways opposed by the majority. Supporters of the ERA were left with an unappealing menu of options: They could argue that existing law did not protect the popular rights that would be guaranteed by the ERA (but this was mostly untrue, and became increasingly untrue as time went on), that the existing laws were so important that they needed to be guaranteed by the constitution (although there was no move afoot to repeal them), that the unpopular rights should be guaranteed (an inherently self-limiting position in trying to attract votes), or that the symbolic value of the ERA itself should carry the day. They mostly went with the last one, which turned out to be not enough to secure passage. John M Baker (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The opponents spoke in euphemisms about "degrading family values", which is the argument they make every time there's a push for sexual equality in much of anything. And note that most everything the opponents warned the ERA would do has since happened, one way or another: unisex restrooms (in some places), voluntary female participation in combat zones, and same-sex marriage and adoption. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American committing crimes abroad

EDIT: moved from Language desk

Suppose that an American goes to another country (say China) and murders a Chinese citizen. If China refuses to prosecute him for whatever reason, and he returns to the US, do US courts have a legal basis for prosecuting him? Would they likely prosecute him, considering that the crime wasn't committed within US jurisdiction?

What if the American kills another American citizen in China? Is this situation any different? --50.46.159.94 (talk) 07:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~This is the Language Desk, but~~ the Blackwater Baghdad shootings were settled in an American federal court, rather than Iraq. That may have been a special case, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:26, November 3, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they were subject to the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:30, November 3, 2014 (UTC)

See Extraterritorial Application of American Criminal Law for the USA. Also, here's a list of the UK's laws that apply overseas.[5] Nanonic (talk) 07:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A somewhat related situation occurs when prosecuting sex tourism and child sex tourism cases, where the country the offense took place in (Cambodia, The Philippines, etc.) either don't bother to charge the offender or don't have a law to prosecute them for, so the home country of the offender charges them instead. I know Canada has such a law; I don't know about the US, though. Matt Deres (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: It's unbelievably complicated and can depend on the perspective of your question. My understanding is that the default principle is that US law does not apply extraterritorially, but for many serious situations (sex tourism and financial crimes being the most prominent examples), there can be an extraterritorial application. From an international law perspective, there is (as far as I know) no obligation for a state to prosecute its own citizens for crimes they commit abroad, but I also do not know of any prohibition that forbids it. A sovereign's jurisdiction over its citizens, regardless of where they are, is a pretty standard principle of international law. As an example of how far it can go, there have been attempts by states to prosecute foreign citizens for crimes that occurred in a foreign country (see, e.g., Indictment and arrest of Augusto Pinochet).

Now, here's an interesting wrinkle. Murder is generally not a federal crime. Thus it would probably be up to a state to prosecute. What jurisdiction controls? That's an interesting conflict of laws question (that the course I'm taking right now has not quite reached). Anyway, I strongly suggest reading the CRS publication Nanonic links to above; it covers the question in excruciating detail, at least from a federal perspective. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blog

How can I publicise my new blog, http://thebookblogger2014.wordpress.com/ without making an account or paying? And how long does Google normally take for new sites to be found and added to its index? Thanks, 86.184.172.105 (talk) 11:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia isn't a forum for advertising. So, if that's what you were asking, put it out of your mind. As far as getting Google to put your site to the top of its results, a lot of it depends on other sites linking to yours. So you'll have to get your name out there and get people linking to your blog. Dismas|^(talk) 11:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dismas: I won't. 86.184.172.105 (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious Matty: Did you first come in as an IPer then as Matty and then back as an IPer? I've sometimes forgotten to log in and posted as an IPer by mistake but as far as I can recall never the reverse. So what went wrong? Of course it's your own business, but maybe I can learn something. Contact Basemetal here 12:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I logged in to reply to someone, but logged out here as I ask questions as an IP-especially as I have dropped the main account. I didn't want to associate the two things, hence removing my reply, and along the same lines, please can you remove the ping Basemetal? Thanks, 81.129.189.91 (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I removed the ping. Contact Basemetal here 15:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 81.129.189.91 (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: it should be "Who is your favourite Doctor?" Quick way to remember: if the answer to the who/m question can be "he", use who; if the answer to the who/m question can be "him", use whom. Even better: simply don't use "whom" at all. It makes no difference to the clarity of the writing, and thus is grammatically correct. (From my lunatic anti-prescriptivist point of view about grammar, that is.) --Shirt58 (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Contact Basemetal here 08:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answering the original question 1: It seems one way is to write a blog post titled “Ten free ways to promote your blog” :) But joking aside, there is lots of this kind of free advice out there. Here are a few you can read: [6], [7], [8], [9].

For question 2, Google essentially says there is no set time, though apparently you can speed up the process by manually submitting your site. Taknaran (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pings

What is the "ping" template supposed to do? Send a message to the user? Because I think I've been "pinged" a few times but nothing special has happened. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It makes the "notification" thingy (the little red numbers) say that someone mentioned you in a post. --Jayron32 17:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does that only work in the relatively newer version of the interface? Tell ya what - please post a test ping here and I'll see if it notifies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs:. --Jayron32 17:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing happened. Thank you for testing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs Did that work? There are different formats, and some need "user:" I think. Also, I have been pinged, seen the ping on the talk page where it was made, received no notification, then gotten a notification after more than an hour's delay. μηδείς (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, nothing. It's possible there are bugs in the software, but they've probably got all available developers dedicated to the ~~much dreaded~~ eagerly anticipated "Flow" project. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs, certain things can prevent a notification in edits with a link to your user page but the above edit [10] by Medeis and this one by me should both cause a notification if you have a checkmark at "Mention" in the Web column at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. Do you? PrimeHunter (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was not checked. That must have been the default originally. It is now checked. Please try again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: There. Did that one work? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just watch, Baseball Bugs' computer will boot itself after he's gone to bed, tap him on the shoulder, and tell him he's five pending pings flowing from wikipedia. μηδείς (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Two, anyway. Thanks, all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Johnson

Hey, I am creating a draft about Joey Johnson here. While searching for a reference about where his residence is, I came upon two reliable sources that show two different residence. One of them is probably outdated but I'm having trouble finding out which one. If someone could look at when the two sources were written, it would be greatly appreciated. The two sources are [11][12]. Thanks, ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 18:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Standard thing in these cases is to search for ("joey johnson" wheelchair) at google, google news, and google books. Giving a current residence is not all so as important as whom he plays for, in any case. Google news gave 0 hits but plainold google gave 3800. Use the quotes around his name when you search, or you will get things like "Joey Smith and Bob Johnson invented a rocket powered wheelchair...." μηδείς (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question about dating an online source. You can find out for certain when each page was written by contacting the associations directly [13], [14]. If you just want an estimate, you could guess based on the most recent dates mentioned on each page – 2013 for the wheelchairbasketball.ca source and 2012 for the paralympic.ca source, though that is not a guaranteed way to tell. A third method is to check for earlier versions of each page in the Wayback Machine.

Like μηδείς, I did not find a source for Johnson’s current residence. I did, however, find that he is from Winnipeg: [15] Taknaran (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I really don't think we need the names of his wife and children, or his exact birthdate for that matter. --NellieBly (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colchester Castle tree

When I was a lad, an aunt told me that the tree which grows on the battlements at Colchester Castle was planted in 1815 to commemorate the Battle of Waterloo. You can see the tree in the 2008 photograph I have attached, and it (or an earlier one in the same place) appears in this 1826 print and this 1906 photograph.. I thought it might be notable enough to add to our article, but isn't anywhere on the internet as far as I can see. Can anybody find me a reference? Alansplodge (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This site and this site both say something along the lines of "legend has it that it was planted by the gaoler's daughter to commemorate the battle", but with no further references. This book from 1854 refers to its existence, describing it as "ancient" (is 40 years ancient for a tree? If not, it might be negative evidence), but doesn't refer to the legend (which presumably would be well within living memory at the time). Tevildo (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that it is not the same tree in the 1906 photo and 2008 photo. A tree tends to grow noticeably in ~100 years, though of course it could be essentially a large bonzai, with human effort used to keep it small. Have you seen the tree up close? If so, did you see signs of heavy pruning, or could you estimate the size of the container? There's also the question of what type of tree it is. What gets called Sycamore in the UK? On the off chance it's the Platanus_occidentalis (native to NA), then it's certainly not the same tree in both photos. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, a sycamore in England is Acer pseudoplatanus which will certainly grow into a very large tree given the chance, but I don't imagine there's a lot of room for a developed root system up there. They don't let the public up to the top, so I've only seen it from the ground. The ~~first~~ second link that User:Tevildo gives above (for which much thanks) says "This one has been trimmed like a big Bonsai and has quite a lot of rot. Nonetheless, it is healthy enough to give a good show of foliage each year." Sycamores will coppice vigorously, so if a branch falls off, several new stems will grow in its place. This is the best photograph that I can find of it - now that I know the species, I'm getting a lot more search results. Alansplodge (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Smith, gaoler's daughter - About Miss Smith who was born and died in the keep of Colchester Castle suggests that she might have planted the tree in memory of her father the gaoler, who died in 1815. A more prosaic suggestion is in Gardening: Volumes 15-16 (Page 217) from 1907, which says; "There is a fine sycamore tree — or there was a few years ago — growing high up on the old semi-ruined walls of Colchester castle in England, the winged seed having doubtless been carried there by the wind." It's certainly true that sycamore seedlings sprout from the cracks between paving stones and anywhere else that they can find a toe hold. Thanks for your help. Alansplodge (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Representing different states in Congress

Scott Brown used to be the Senator for Massachusetts, and he is now vying to be the Senator of New Hampshire. This made me think of the following question. Who holds the "record" in Congress for representing the most states? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was at first thinking Robert F. Kennedy, except he was never a Senator from Massachusetts. Although Tom Lehrer said in 1965 that he was proud to be from Massachusetts, "the only state with three' senators." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Shields is supposedly the only one to serve as Senator from three different states. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This says it has happened a few times in each house, but only mentions Daniel Webster by name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather surprised there isn't a counterpart to Members of the Australian Parliament who have represented more than one state or territory . -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, Jack: that's a great idea for a new article. I hope someone starts that. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! A point of clarification: In my original question, I am not referring to Senators only, but rather to any office in Congress (i.e., the House of Representatives, also). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

21 Congressmen have represented two states.[16] --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I read correctly, that article says that 21 Representatives (not Congressmen) have represented two states. Right? In other words, they are not including Senators and/or individuals who served in both houses (as a Senator and as a Rep). Also, "two" cannot be the record. From the discussion above, there have been cases of three states being represented by the same Congressmen. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although the term "The Congress" in the U.S. Constitution means the Senate plus the House of Representatives, in conventional usage a representative is a "Congressman" and a senator is a Senator. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's correct. I have always believed that Congressmen refers a combination of all those who work in Congress (i.e., the Senators plus the Reps). A Senator refers to those in the Senate. And a Representative refers to those in the House. That is how I have always heard these terms being used. That is the convention I have always known. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, here Boehner is called "Congressman Boehner", while here McConnell is called "Senator McConnell". No "Congressman" to be found. However, if you google "Congressman McConnell", there are results. But I have to say I've never actually heard anyone call him or any other senator "Congressman". So now you've given me something to watch for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I said "congressmen", which is quite more ambiguous. Which led me to this interesting discussion of the words. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 4

Can I use my wife's debit card for Priceline purposes?

It says they need to see a credit card when you arrive (to have something to charge for incidental fees). If I bid for a 2-star how likely is it that they won't honor my Priceline reservation just because they'll notice my name's not on the card and/or that it's a debit? If they object, could I give them the billing address and last 4 digits of her SSN and a phone call from her saying it's alright and they'll accept that? They could match the number with her name on whitepages.com if they wanted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.34.169 (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you call them and ask? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be a great idea except that when you bid on Priceline you wouldn't be able to know the name of the hotel until after you've paid and there's no refunds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.35.18 (talk) 05:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "they", then - Priceline, or the hotel itself? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All anyone here is (responsibly) going to suggest is that you call Priceline and ask what their policy is for things like your situation or where someone books a hotel room for someone else using their service. I don't mean to be dismissive, but there are so many unknowns with your question, as well as intersections with areas where a response could constitute legal advice, that I don't think you can expect much more of a response. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should also check with your wife's bank... they may have issues with you using her debit card. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite imprisonments -vs- allegations of having been raped

I was just thinking of Anders Breivik, who committed a massacre in Norway based on xenophobic ideology and was given an indeterminate sentence under life imprisonment in Norway. Suppose that a year before he goes for a hearing about his possible release, he is raped by a group of Arabic-speaking men. Can this fact be used against him at the hearing, to suggest it will have made him more likely to be a danger to society because he'll consider a violent act of "revenge" on the racial group, their supporters, etc.? But I don't necessarily want to limit this to Norwegian law, which few here would know; there are similar instances of parole hearings in many other countries, and additionally "civil commitment" has been used to incarcerate many people without charge. Is there any general legal principle that would exclude victim status from being used against people in any of these cases?

Also, if someone needs to defend themselves from the allegation that he was raped in prison, what burden of evidence does he need to meet? If a guy gets out of Breivik's prison (though again, I use this only as an example) and posts to Twitter that he raped Breivik repeatedly, can that be taken as evidence against him? Or would he need to have a corroborating witness, photos, etc.? (Would Breivik get representation and funds to see if the photos were faked?) Would the government need to show beyond reasonable doubt that he committed the rape, or would Breivik need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he didn't, or something else? If Breivik swore out a statement that the sex was consensual and refuting all charges, would that be evidence enough to prevent it from being used to argue for his continued incarceration? Wnt (talk) 13:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 :[[A Deepness in the Sky]] has a kind of strobelight sun, but there the blink-rate gradually decreases... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 00:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
+::Do you remember about when you might have read/heard of it?  I'm not seeing anything that looks familiar, but that would help at least rule out anything published after that point. [[User:SarahTheEntwife|SarahTheEntwife]] ([[User talk:SarahTheEntwife|talk]]) 14:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 = November 1 =