Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

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.

May 27

Economics as normative ethics

Please help solve a friendly disagreement between my friend and I. (I’m a philosophy student. He’s an economics student.) My friend claims that economics does not make normative claims, especially not normative ethical claims. I hold that economics is founded on normative axioms such as “more value is better” or “more efficient markets are better,” and that as soon as economics is shown to be based on such premises it is making a claim about what “The Good for people” is. This is a fundamental question of ethics, and therefore I argue that economics is a branch of utilitarianism more or less. (Note: other branches of economics would certainly have different imperatives, notably Marxism.) --143.44.68.157 (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Economists usually try to say they don't make moral judgements, and only tell us how to make markets more efficient or less efficient, leaving it up to us to decide. Of course, they know we want to make the economy more efficient, so we will do whatever they tell us to do to achieve that goal. In some cases, they even approach the problem in reverse, thinking "we want to get the politicians to do X, so let's come up with a way to say that will help the economy". For example, I believe the goal of tax breaks for them and their wealthy friends was the impetus behind trickle-down economics. StuRat (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Economics is the study of value, whatever that means, and many economists do take moral and ethical values into consideration, i.e. making judgements on how they expect people to behave based on what they judge those people's moral code to be. Selling bacon in many parts of the middle east is a bad economical idea, and the reasons are based on moral code. --Jayron32 01:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Making judgements based on the morals of others isn't the same as making moral judgements of your own. StuRat (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with vulgar economics is that the utilitarianism that lies at the heart of it involves a problem of incommensurability between use-values; and, an incommensurability between use-values and values. This was seen to be a fundamental failure of the utilitarian project—but if we conduct a history of social science, then we observe that Political Economy (as opposed to moral economy) was always a normative movement based on inflicting patterns of conduct on society (Consider the Manchester School). Vulgar economics as the bastard child of Political Economy continues this, without the good grace to explicitly state that maximisation of shareholder value requires the emiseration of the mass. Value maximisation then lies within a fundamentally normative basis as you note. As you also note, other political economies can have radically different bases. For example, Marxism is fundamentally non-normative in the sense that it rests and resides on a teleology; though many Marxists have normative interests, and Marxism as a political practice is highly normative, if again resting on a teleology. Your friend doesn't understand what normativity is, and also doesn't understand that it isn't a "bad thing." Probably also has a problem with the (necessary) empiricism underlying any economics that attempts to explain reality. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"More value is better" is really just part of the definition of "value". You can decide for yourself what you do and don't value, but whatever it is that you value, you want more of. That's what it means. I wouldn't say that efficient markets being good is an axiom of economics, it is a conclusion drawn from an analysis of what maximises value. Trade increases value (since something goes from a person that values it less to a person that values it more), so making sure as much trade happens as possible (which is what we mean by "efficient") is going to maximise value, which is a good thing, by definition. I think what your friend is getting at is that economics works for whatever value system you want, so it doesn't make any assertions about what you should and shouldn't value. --Tango (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are incorrect, Tango. Just because “wanting it” is part of the definition of value (a priori), it does not hold that more value is necessarily better. For instance, heroin addicts may want heroin very much (in some sense), but many people would maintain that it’s definitely not good for them or for society. It could very well be that maximizing some of the things people value does not create a better or more happy society. --143.44.68.157 (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, different people can have different value systems. The heroin addict values heroin, while the other people place a negative value on him having heroin (because of the crime it creates in their neighbourhood, for example, and possibly also because of the harm it does to him, although that is a little more complicated because it involve altruism, which is a little weird economically). What maximises value will depend on whether the negative value for all the other people outweighs the positive value for the addict. The same thing applies to driving a car. I place a positive value on being able to conveniently get myself from A to B. Other people place a negative value on that because of the pollution it causes (there is also a negative value to me from the pollution, but that is massively outweighed by the convenience, since the pollution from one car is very small). Whether or not it is a good thing for me to be able to drive my car depends on whether my positive value is higher or lower than their negative value. See externality for more information on this topic. The economic theory doesn't care what values different people place on different things, it just takes those as an input and tells you how to maximise them. --Tango (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To summarise the arguments above (most of which I agree with--although Fifelfoo must know s/he's being controversial when s/he writes that the "maximisation of shareholder value requires the emiseration of the mass"), economics can be split into normative economics and positive economics. In reality, economists are humans too, and however hard they try, they inevitably stray from the latter into the former. Among the neo-classical synthesis school of economist, a form of desire-based utilitarianism (that is to say, believing that it is [morally] right to give people what they want) pervades as a normative basis, though it is far from universal, as has already been noted. In any case, you would be wrong to suggest that economics requires normative statements; it does not. But neither is your friend, because economists routinely do make normative statements (for some interesting crossover papers, I recommend the work of Amartya Sen). The truth, as ever, is somewhere in the middle. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 02:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many terms in economics are supposed to be positive descriptions of the world, but are so heavily biased that they convey normative values. "Efficient" and "welfare" are two examples. Usually, efficiency is used in the context of welfare economics and means that the total welfare of society is maximized. Welfare, to simplify a bit, is defined as the difference between a person's willingness to pay for a good and that good's price. Questions of equity or fairness do not come into the picture. If Alice is starving to death but can only pay 10 cents for a bowl of rice, while Bob is rich and can pay $100, it would be efficient for me to sell Bob my rice at $80. That way, my welfare is $80 (assuming my production cost is 0), Bob's is 100-80 = $20, and Alice's is 0, for a total of $100. If I sell Alice the rice at 10 cents, my welfare is $0.1, Alice's is 0, and Bob's is 0, for a total of 10 cents. The fact that Alice wants the food much more badly, or that she's much poorer than Bob, or that she might die if she doesn't get food, is irrelevant--if she can only pay 10 cents for food, the maximum welfare she'll ever get is 10 cents, and selling to Bob is more efficient. On a closely related note, the distribution of wealth does not impact a market's efficiency. Any policy that makes Alice $10 poorer and Bob $20 richer is efficient, even if Alice is starving and Bob is a billionaire.

Economics is also based on the assumption that people are fully rational beings who seek to maximize their own gain. Economists do not judge (or at least, should not judge) whether this is right or wrong--it's simply a positive statement about the behavior of people, not a normative statement about whether people should behave this way. Whether the assumption is accurate is another matter, but that's an empirical issue that can be tested by observation, not a moral issue. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would state that Economics does not rest on Normative Claims (claims about how one should act in a moral fashion) but rather it arises from basic logical premises. "markets seek efficiency" is a logical premise, it is stated as an observable and empirical fact. The normative formation would be something along the lines of "Markets should seek efficiency" or "It is morally correct for a market to seek efficiency". The former is a statement of empircal fact, given free reign individual actors will seek profits (another premise) and as a result they will try to eliminate every possibly inefficiency that consumes profit, the net effect is that a market will always seek to be as efficient as possible given its constraints. The latter is a normative statement, it describes correct or moral action, not inevitable action. HominidMachinae (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

US Electoral College v. popular vote

Basically, I'm thinking of a situation much like the 2000 presidential election, where George W. Bush lost the popular vote but was able to acquire the 270 electoral votes necessary to win the presidency.

By how large a margin could a candidate theoretically lose the national popular vote, while still securing a plurality in enough states to actually win the presidency. Is a 40/60 loss possible with 270 electoral votes still being winnable? 30/70?

I imagine this would require quite a lot of number-crunching, so maybe it belongs at the Math reference desk? Feel free to move if so.

Thanks! Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically, very small, if there were a number of candidates running. If only two, then start with the three-electoral vote states as the small states have a disproportionate influence in the election. Keep counting until you are at 270. Give the candidate 50 percent plus one in those states and no votes anywhere else. Somewhere in there's your answer.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the USA does not have compulsory voting, you could theoretically be elected to the presidency, by my reckoning, with every eligible voter in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Oklahoma voting against you, and one single voter in each remaining state and DC voting for you. This gives you 270 electoral votes with a public vote of 43/several million. In any case, the states I named are the ones you want to lose, assuming I counted correctly (using this table sorted by Pop. per Pres. Elector). FiggyBee (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you'd probably get a better ratio by getting one vote in each state if you start counting from the big end... Eh. Anyway, I think the answer is that the indeterminate number of voters in US elections makes this a difficult question, but in theory, yes, you could lose the popular vote by a lot, even with only two candidates. FiggyBee (talk) 04:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the more interesting question is the worst imbalance that's likely to occur, say in a century. I suspect you aren't likely to see somebody win the electoral vote and lose the popular vote by more than 5%. StuRat (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Quincy Adams won the 1824 election with only 31% of the vote, 10.44% less than Andrew Jackson, although this election was complicated with multiple candidates and unique in that the eventual victor lost the electoral college vote too. There were two other occasions in the 19th century where the winner received fewer popular votes than the runner-up, and only one - the aforementioned 2000 election - in the 20th century. Of these, the 1876 election had the biggest popular vote margin at 3%. The 1888 election of Benjamin Harrison (which interrupted Grover Cleveland's two presidencies) is the only time a US President has been elected with a minority of the popular vote but without massive legal wrangling.FiggyBee (talk) 04:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but 2000 was slightly more complicated in that it was the first time a person who didn't "win" the popular vote became president. In both of the other cases the victors had at least a plurality of the popular vote (i.e., more votes than anyone else), though not a true 50% +1 majority. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 04:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No they didn't. In 1888 Harrison received 5,443,892 popular votes to Cleveland's 5,534,488, in 1876 Hayes received 4,034,311 popular votes to Tilden's 4,288,546, and in 1824 John Quincy Adams received 113,122 popular votes to Andrew Jackson's 151,271 (not all states had a public vote for President at this point). FiggyBee (talk) 05:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaand, I was wrong. First time since 1996, I believe. : ) Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 06:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I ran the numbers and have determined that if you can win the following, and no more, you could win the presidency with the lowest possible percentage of nationwide popular vote:

Nebraska and all of its congressional districts, Maine and all of its congressional districts, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Vermont, Alaska, Washington, D.C., Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, West Virginia, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Kansas, Mississippi, Iowa, Oregon, Oklahoma, Connecticut, Lousiana, Kentucky, Colorado, Alabama, Wisconsin, Missouri, Maryland, Minnesota, Tennessee, Massachussets, Indiana, Arizona, Washington, New Jersey, and Michigan.

I think I did the easy part. Now, does anyone want to break out a calculator, go through voter registration numbers, and determine what 50% +1 for all of those would be? :P Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 04:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Search the archives. We answered this exact question about 1 month ago. Lemme take a look... --Jayron32 04:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was almost exactly 1 month ago. See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 April 26. --Jayron32 04:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I should have checked before posting. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 04:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this strays a bit from the intent of the question, but according to the 12th Amendment, if no candidate gets a majority of the electoral votes, then the House of Representatives chooses the President from the 3 candidates with the most electoral votes. Suppose you have many candidates and each state is won by a different candidate. If only 1 person votes in NY, which has the third most electoral votes, then the candidate that person votes for is eligible to be chosen for President. If all eligible voters in all the other states actually vote, then the wining candidate could have 1/(#eligible voters in every state but NY)*100 % of the votes and still win.

Or, if there are enough Faithless electors, then the winning candidate could win a majority (or even a unanimity) of the electoral votes without winning a single popular vote (0%).--Wikimedes (talk) 09:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or if the electoral college split 269-268-1, with the 1 vote being a faithless elector (hopefully not for a side that thought it had won 270), then you go into the House and that means getting 26 congressional state delegations to vote for you. That could be difficult, and who knows, if that third place finisher is someone respectable, he could wind up the compromise candidate. Thus president without ever having run.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's definintely more plausible than 270 faithless electors. Or you could have 268-267-3 without faithless electors for 1/(#eligible voters in every state but AK (or VT or WY?))*100%.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prefabs, UK

maps.nls.uk link There are two estates shown, I've centred on one of them. Here's another. [1]

I think theses are prefabs because they disappear by the 1970s, (and are smaller, and less space efficient than the standard terraced house) I also have a source that states that the second one linked was used for '300 displaced poles'. Are these estates a standard countrywide design ? Is there a source to find out more about specific examples of these? Is there any more that can be said simply by looking at the map? Thnks.Oranjblud (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The former is presumably the "short lived housing estates constructed on the fringes of the village (Lowfield camp and an estate east of Tranby Croft)" you mention in Anlaby. Pre-fab houses intended as temporary accomodation were quite common after the war as large areas of inner cities were bomb damaged, or simply considered unsuitable for habitation by the newly-elected Labor government. People lived in these houses while new towns and council estates were being constructed. A google image search for "post-war prefab houses" will give you an idea of the typical design (and, in fact, the prefab article you linked to has more than a little information). FiggyBee (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This memoir of the later 1940s says "...we left Egypt, I went to a school at a place called Knutsford, moved from there to Anlaby (we lived in wooden huts in Anlaby, it was called a 'transit camp'...". Alansplodge (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which has led me to Hansard House of Commons Debate: 09 April 1946 Requisitioned Buildinģs, Hull: "at Low Field Road, Anlaby, near Hull, there are a large number of brick buildings built during the war to house bombed out people from Hull, which are now being partially occupied by the military; and whether he will enable these buildings to be utilised for relieving the housing shortage for civilians...". The answer was no; "The buildings in question form part of the accommodation for Hull Transit Camp which is used by troops moving to and from (the) British Army on the Rhine.". Alansplodge (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's incredibly helpful - now I know I'm not mistaking a piggery for human habitation! Oranjblud (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to the National Library of Scotland map archive. With a bit of jiggery-pokery, you can pull up maps for all of England too, even though they do their best not to let you see them. Alansplodge (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds interesting. Does that include 6" to 1 mile maps as well? I discovered it was simple to request any part (or all) of map sheet as one jpg using simple changes to the image requests eg maps.nls.uk/lizardtech/iserv/getimage?cat=os25k-1937-61&item=91802735.jp2&cp=0.5,0.5&lev=1&wid=100&hei=100& (is sheet 9180275, middle [.5,.5], a 100x100 jpg at level 1 zoom (goes to 0) ), but haven't worked out the numbering scheme for the maps as a whole. I fear to fiddle too much as I worry the admins may reduce the service if they get too many requests.Oranjblud (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Webber

I am trying to find all of the images made by John Webber on his voyages with Captain Cook but I am encountering a lot of problems. Mainly it the titles and the subject matters of some. There are so many reproductions have been made on his original work, but what were his original works titled and how many illustrations in total were there? Is there a complete list somewhere? And was their a published source containing his originals? Don't refer to the images on the commons, since I uploaded most of them.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was an exhibition of Webber's work http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/culture/Swiss_museum_rediscovers_James_Cook.html?cid=28488030 at the Bern historical museum. It was curated by Thomas Psota, head of the museum's ethnography dept, whose contact info is here: http://www.bhm.ch/en/information/about-us/museum/team/ Psota also seems to have co-authored a book on Webber: http://books.google.ca/books/about/John_Webber_1751_1793.html?id=IvfSAAAACAAJ&redir_esc=y In German.

Alternately, but a lot more work, you could followup the links from his article to the museums that hold his works. Each might be willing to provide a list. 184.147.121.151 (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anna of Austria (1549–1580)

Can she be considered a Queen consort of Portugal? Her husband became King of Portugal in 25 March 1581 while she died 26 October 1580, but all different language wikipedia articles and the English one calls her Queen of Portugal. Which is right?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If she died before her husband ascended the Portuguese throne she cannot be called a Queen consort of that kingdom as she never held the position whilst alive. If the articles do so they are incorrect and should be changed ASAP.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have since removed the false information.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't a matter of changing stuff. It seems to be accepted on the Portuguese and Spanish article that she was Queen of Portugal. Should you trust articles of their countries' of origin? Any documents, proclamation calling her Queen of Portugal. I came across this problem while expanding the List of Portuguese consorts article, but I was never sure if historians called herself Queen when she not or was it an error of editors on wikipedia.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use other Wikipedia articles as references. If she died in 1580 and Philip's reign as Portuguese king began in March 1981 then she was not queen. The only thing I can think of which is causing this confusion is the fact that the New Year typically began in March.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or that Philip II claimed to be King months before the Portuguese nobles recognized him as such. Henry, the Cardinal-King, died in January of 1580. The Spanish defeated Anthony, Prior of Crato in August. The List of Portuguese monarchs articles said Philip II acclaimed himself King in 1580.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can call her Queen Consort of Portugal (de facto), Aug 25, 1580-Oct 26, 1580. And link to War of the Portuguese Succession or Portuguese succession crisis of 1580. It comes down the criteria you are using for the list, doesn't it? 184.147.121.151 (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's the precedent of Peter I of Portugal -- his wife died before he became king, but according to various stories, when he came into power, he had his wife's skeleton dug up and placed on a throne, and made all those who had insulted her when she was alive file past and kiss her bony hand...

-- AnonMoos (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The dates are irrelevant. We should refer to her as Queen if the reliable sources do. We should not refer to her as Queen if the reliable sources don't. It's as simple as that. --Tango (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, are there any reliable sources that refer to her as a Portuguese queen consort? I haven't found any.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At one point, even Mary I of England was called Queen of Portugal. Surtsicna (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've found another one - Elisabeth of Austria (1526–1545). The article claims that she was Queen of Poland, as do articles in other languages. However, she died 3 years before her husband's accession and there seems to be no evidence that her husband was crowned king before his father's death. Surtsicna (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it seems that her husband was crowned vivente rege. Surtsicna (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet tankers (ships)

Hi! I am trying to research what living and working aboard Soviet tanker ships was like, without much luck. I wondered whether anyone could point me at any books or websites that discussed the subject (in English or Russian). I tried asking on the Russian Wikipedia, but apparently their Reference Desk is only for Wikipedia-related questions, and there doesn't seem to be a Russian Yahoo! Answers. So, if anyone could suggest anything, I would deeply appreciate it!

Alternately, if you could recommend anywhere that I could ask such a question in Russian and hopefully get an answer, it would likewise be appreciated. Thanks so much in advance -- I've had a surprising amount of trouble finding information on the subject! Heather (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you could try otvety.google.ru and otvet.mail.ru which are a Russian Yahoo! Answers of sorts (must have an account on the respective sites). The second one is much better frequented which has both its advantages and drawbacks. As to books, one I can think of is Засекреченный полюс by one Виталий Волович which is about life on a drifting research station in the Arctic in the 50s (not a ship but still....) It shouldn't be hard to find another books as lots and lots of people write memoirs about life in the USSR (esp. military-men and -women, so there are going to be books about the merchant fleet, too, which is I think what tankers belong to) Уга-уга12 (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not what you're looking for, but I found Stalin's Slave Ships: Kolyma, the Gulag Fleet, and the Role of the West. There's nothing else obvious on Google, but I'll try again later, when I have more time. Alansplodge (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some information about the Soviet merchant service is on Google Books at The Naval Institute Guide to the Soviet Navy, although the preview that I can see only has a few of the pages visible. Still looking.... Alansplodge (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks greatly for all the help! It does seem to be a surprisingly poorly-documented subject, doesn't it? I was also familiar with the Russian and Slavic fondness for memoir, and really expected to find stuff, especially after I started asking in Russian. I didn't get any answers on otvety.google.ru or otvet.mail.ru, but I definitely did appreciate those links -- was exactly what I was looking for as far as asking general-interest questions in Russian. So, thanks again! Heather (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Country of passport, Passport nationality

When applying for an eVisitor visa for Australia, they asked both Country of passport and Passport nationality.When aren't those the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.76.237.178 (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you enter more than one nationality? If you have dual-citizenship then your passport will be issued by one country, but may recognise your dual-nationality (I'm not sure if they usually do or not). There are also things like 1954 Convention Travel Documents, which are issued by a particularly country to people that aren't nationals of that country. They aren't technically passports, though. --Tango (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The dual nationality situation to me, seems unlikely. The traveller would surely know which passport they were planning to use when entering Australia, and as such, there wouldn't be a need to list all nationalities. Similarly, if that was information that the Aussie government wanted, there would be better ways of asking it.

That latter explanation to me would seem to be what they are getting at (though, you are right, the distinction could have been made clearer!). A person who has been granted asylum in another country, could, in the period before naturalisation, end up having a travel document issued by a different country than his nationality. I.e. the refugee is still considered a citizen of country A, although he is persecuted there, and therefore has a travel document issued by country B. The travel document could then reflect this by stating that, although issued by country B, the nationality of the holder was A. Although this is specifically called a 'travel document' and not a 'passport', the Australian e-visa form only uses the word 'passport', though I guess it might more accurately have said 'passport or travel document'. (But, that might open up to unnecessary misunderstandings - most people will be travelling on a passport.)

I suppose also that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passport and Macao Special Administrative Region passport could be such a dual case, where the issuer of the passport is somewhat different from the nationality of the passport. Although HK and Macao residents are citizens of the PRC, it is easier to travel on HK and Macao passports, than on the PRC passport. (Though, judging by the Australian e-visa form, that is not what they mean, since Macao and HK are listed both as issuers and citizenships.) V85 (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British Overseas Territories should help clarify the distinction between Nationality and Country. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Australian immigration, BN(O) is both a country of passport and nationality. So, I don't see exactly how it would work, when applying for an Australian e-Visa. In fact, thist separation seems rather redundant, as the list for countries and nationalities seem to be exactly the same. My guess is that this is meant for people who have a passport issued by one country, but are citizens of another, such as refugees are. V85 (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the answers above talk about how if an item is listed in both fields "that can't be what they mean". Actually, they can. If you take a close look at your passport, you will see that it is issued by a country, and it also has a field called "nationality". Usually these are the same, but in some cases they are not. For example, a Canadian whose passport is stolen in a country that has neither Australian nor Canadian missions may apply to the local British mission for a replacement passport, but that does not mean the Canadian person gains British nationality, even temporarily. The passport will have been issued by the UK, but the nationality remains Canadian (I think it actually says "Commonwealth citizen" in the nationality field on the passport in such a case). The same applies to an emergency Australian passport issued to a Canadian, an emergency Canadian passport issued to a British person, and in each case vice versa. (And both Canada and UK would, presumably, be available in both the "passport country" and "passport nationality" fields in the form that the OP referred to.)

(As to HK, I believe the correct input for someone with PRC nationality holding a HKSAR passport would be to choose "HKSAR" in the "country" section and "PRC" in the "nationality" section, even if the web form allows you to choose otherwise.) --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know consulates would issues passports to non-citizens. I know there are arrangements between countries to offer consular assistance to the other's citizens if they don't have a consulate of their own to go to, but I always assumed that things like emergency travel documents were officially issued by your own consulate (although it may be in a different country) and the other country's consular staff just did the admin. Also, I thought you only got temporary travel documents in order to get you home, rather than an actual passport, so I'm not sure you would ever be applying for a visa with one (except possibly a transit visa, I suppose). --Tango (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It differs from country to country and depends on the situation, and probably depends on how well equipped the particular mission is. As I understand it, for example Canadian consulates issue Australians with an Australian emergency travel document with limited validity only to get to the nearest Australian mission. But the UK does issue actual passports to Commonwealth citizens in some cases. (After some digging...) our article Commonwealth citizen has the right information, also see this which talks about emergency passports. I don't know if anyone holding an emergency passport could or would actually apply for entry into Australia on that passport and I don't thik it really matters for the purpose of this answer, my point in the post above is that it is certainly possible for one country (that appears in the web form) to issue a passport to a national of another country (that also appears in the web form), and the passport may well show a nationality different to that of the issuing country. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maslow's hierarchy of needs - examining its history (who invented 'the pyramid'?)

Hello everybody :) I'm looking for the "first" usage of the "pyramid-interpretation" (graphic) of his hierarchy of needs. That is to say some early sources with that kind of picture. I'm quite sure that Maslow himself never used the term 'pyramid' respectively the pyramid-figure. I am grateful for any information. Thank you, --WissensDürster (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, as with the food-groups "pyramid", it's actually a triangle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hierarchies are often visualised as pyramids. True that in 2d these are drawn as triangles; this is true of the population pyramid inter alia. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But does no one remembers on of the earliest adaptions of especially Maslows hierarchy? --WissensDürster (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History and philosophy of social science often don't deal with the history of particular visual metaphors, being more interested and focused on the development of theoretical apparatus and socially authorised methods of conducting research. I'd suggest British Library or Library of Congress is your next step to conduct some original research, starting from Maslow's papers themselves. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not exactly true. There is copious work on influential, particular visualizations in the history of science. (That famous photo of Watson and Crick and the double helix? There's an entire paper on that. Huxley's skeleton lineup? Yup. The finches? Of course.) Concluding that no one has likely done it, a priori, seems kind of silly to me... --Mr.98 (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends if we separate the history of social science from the history of science—a troublesome definitional issue. I've seen a fair bit of "meta-" in social sciences, but visualisations in the social sciences haven't been a meta- issue so far that I've observed. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see Maslow himself drew it that way, in his 1954 paper called Hierarchy of Needs. I gather he drew it as a step pyramid, though -- can't tell for sure because I don't have immediate access to the paper. Looie496 (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a scan-by-library version from his book (revised 1954/1970) and there are no 'pictures' at all. I used google-books search and found at least one educational psychology dating back to the year 1970. The explanation there indicates that the pyramid-concept's not that old at this time. --WissensDürster (talk) 07:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wealemefnas

In the first paragraph of the sixth chapter of E. V. Lucas's 1911 story The Slowcoach, this sentence appears:

Here they were, with a caravan, and a horse, and a driver, and a dog, and maps, and a map-measurer (do you know what they're called?— they're called wealemefnas), and tents, and— most of all— permission to be entirely alone; and it was not yet decided where they were going.

I thought initially that wealemefnas was something that Lucas had made up as a joke. But Google Books has a single hit on the word, for a 1911 British patent on a map-measuring device.

My question is: is this word used anywhere else? Did it appear only in 1911, only to sink in 1912 not unlike some ship or other? And is it only of fanciful coinage? Marnanel (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It usually seems to be spelled without the final -s, if that helps. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 5,390 hits for the ugliest word I've come across all year. Its coiner deserves to be hit 5,390 times. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's an anagram of "a new female". DuncanHill (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It (also) seems to have been the Christian name of the inventor, one Wealemefna Morris. An example of his creation graces the collection of the Museum of the History of Science in Oxford.[2] The museum calls his device a "Chartometer"; it's a little pocket-watch-shaped gizmo with a wheel protruding from the bottom, you run the wheel across the map and read the distance on the face. I had a similar thing, (but made of tinplate and plastic rather than silver) in the 1970s. A piece of string does the job just as well. Alansplodge (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I can find mentions back to the 1870s (eg this.) Personally I prefer the word to Opisometer, but that's just me :) There's a picture of one (third picture down) here. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(another edit conflict) Hang on a moment: www.mathsinstruments.me.uk says that his name was E R Morris, and has pictures of the "Morris’s Patent Chartometer ", the "Morris’s Patent Measuring Instrument" as well as the "Morris’s Patent Wealemefna", which was "was priced at seven shillings and sixpence in 1900, the others being 17s 6d and £2 17s 6d respectively". The plot thickens. Alansplodge (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A book called Surveying and levelling instruments: theoretically and practically described, for construction, qualities, selection, preservation, adjustments, and uses; with other apparatus and appliances used by civil engineers and surveyors in the field agrees r=that it was invented by E R Morris. Alansplodge (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does this word have a known etymology, and how are you meant to pronounce it? V85 (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's one of those Victorian names, given to "a new female" in the family, and Mr Morris later called his invention after his daughter. DuncanHill (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to a post on a forum quoting from "English Mechanic and World of Science" Vol. 33, London, 1881", Mr Morris made it up and wouldn't explain it! (Sixth post down here. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe connected with Wēalas, the Old English for Wales? Just a guess, but if they couldn't find out in 1881, we're probably not going to find out now. Alansplodge (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get the original edition of the magazine, but the quote from the forum is "Wealemefna is not derived from " "(world-rule-measure) nor from the anagrammatic transposition "a new female." Meanwhile it would be a pity to dispel a mystery—which U capable of being uitraveiled—as interesting to the public, apparently, as the solution." FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, that's a quote from a letter from Morris (albeit with digitalisation errors) to the magazine in response to other letters wondering where the name came from. The errors make me think that it could be something that might be found on Gutenberg.org, and while I can find other editions of the magazine there, I haven't found the right one yet. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone was considering writing an article on the Wealemefna, here's more details of the inventor, from the THE LONDON GAZETTE, DECEMBER 12, 1873; To Edward Russell Morris, of Oakhill Park, Hampstead, in the county of Middlesex, and of Birmingham, in the county of Warwick, Engineer, for the invention of " improved pocket instruments for measuring and registering distances." After all, Wikipedia OUGHT to have an article about everything! Alansplodge (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can get to a snippet view on Google Books that verifies the first sentence of that letter, so I am inclined to think that if Morris wanted people to try and work out the answer, and he does seem to be suggesting there is an answer in the letter, then he is still succeeding 150 years later. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though, if he were hoping that such an obscure name would make his product a best seller, he failed. His product is so obscure that it doesn't even have its own Wikipedia article. V85 (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's getting closer to being a point, but there are still zillions of non-obscure subjects waiting for someone to write their articles. We ain't done yet, not by a very long shot. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, whoever put a redirect from Wealemefna, I have added a brief paragraph to the Opisometer article. Alansplodge (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 28

$ 250,000

What is $250,000 in 1990 worth today? Any magic simple formulas to figure old dollars to todays dollars?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are a number of possible measures of inflation. One such measure is the CPI, which tracks the cost of an average consumer "basket" of goods. That gives you an answer of ~$447,407 to buy the same thing as cost $250,000 in 1990 (although a better algorithm would focus in on the particular good in question). Alternatively, you could try to work out how much it would be worth if you'd left it in the bank for the same period, which might give you a more applicable answer depending on what you're calculating. As for rules of thumb, average inflation in the US is about 3%, so you could make such a rule out of that, but it would be very wrong indeed in certain periods. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 11:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do a lot of inflation consulting on wikipedia, including being lumped with maintaining our templates on a (?yearly) basis. Inflation is about measuring the uses of money over time. At any one point in time, all the different kinds of uses of money come together in one figure. One USD is worth one USD. But 1990$1 doesn't equal 2012$1. It all depends on how the money is used. If you want to ask about cigarettes and beer, then the answer is a Consumer price index figure. If you want to ask about building dams then the answer is more a GDP per capita figure. measuringworth.com provides a variety of methods for computing the time value of money. I'd suggest you read up on how to figure out what kind of pricing system to use. (I wouldn't use CPI for wages, given that CPI measures a normative bundle, rather than proportion of the economy dedicated to wage labour consumption). Measuringworth.com shows a range of values for 1990$250,000 in 2011 figures as a range from $392,000 to $651,000. (Why not 2012 figures? We're still living 2012, the figures for 2011 are still provisional even) Fifelfoo (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record Template:Inflation - but see the disclaimer - it's based on CPI like measures - it could be valid if say $250,000 was paid in wages to 1000 people, but as stated not for a personal wealth of the same amount..83.100.201.173 (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great! That now gives me a "rough" idea. I'll go from there.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfram Alpha is good for this sort of thing: Enter something like $440,000 in 1990 and it will tell you that it's about $250,000 in 1990 (it's basing it on the CPI). I'm not sure how to make it do the inverse calculation... but I'm sure there's a way. Shadowjams (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, did you mean US$? You'd need several million Liberian dollars today to have the value of $250,000 from 1990, and I expect that the same is true for many other currencies that use "$" to abbreviate "dollar". Nyttend (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third party political systems in United States state parliaments and territorial parliamentary houses

As an Australian I'm used to multiple party systems, maintained by a mixture of preferential and proportional voting systems. I have a fantasy of the US national party system, based on the apparent texture of national voting systems, and the solidity of relatively "unideological" centre-right/hard-right parties. I'm also vaguely aware of the variety of third party centre-left, centrist, centre-right and hard right parties at the national level, and some of the basis of "ideological" and material bases for these parties. I'm aware that my understanding is somewhat fantastical given my distance from the immediacy of US politics.

What I'm entirely unfamiliar with is within state or territory party systems. I was astounded to find that Vermont has a centrist/centre-left party with more than one seat in its state parliamentary houses; and, even more astounded to discover that other such parties exist in so called "fusion ticket" states. Could editors point me to articles on US state or territory party systems that are other than the standard two party system, and in particular to articles on "state successful" third parties (as state parties, or as the state based party machine that has succeeded, rather than their national parties' articles). Feel free to explain interesting party systems at this level you're personally aware of where our articles don't cover your understanding, as well as pointing to our articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try Third party (United States), Third party officeholders in the United States, and List of third party performances in United States elections. Notable state third parties are the Alaskan Independence Party and the Independence Party of Minnesota – both have had governors elected in the past couple decades. In Minnesota, the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party is the equivalent of the Democratic Party, stemming from earlier populist movements. (Also, some parties in U.S. territories could be called third parties). 203.206.101.76 (talk) 12:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, they're called "legislatures", not "parliaments"... The Wisconsin Progressive Party controlled the Wisconsin legislature from 1936-1938. AnonMoos (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Since you mentioned territories, the parties in Puerto Rico are completely distinct from those in the U.S. itself. AnonMoos (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec with AnonMoos) As you asked about territories, the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico is mostly a two-party system (New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico and the Popular Democratic Party of Puerto Rico). But the Puerto Rican Independence Party poll somewhere around 3%. In the 2000 and 2004 elections the PIP got one seat in each house, but the 2008 election wiped those out. As elections in Puerto Rico notes, some of the seats are allocated by proportional representation, which is unusual for US elections; I don't believe the PIP would have had any representatives under a single-winner system. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The state of New York has a Liberal Party and a Conservative Party, which tend to back the Democratic and Republican candidates, respectively, but there have been cases when the Liberals endorsed a Republican, especially in New York City mayoral elections. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Things are bad enough just with two. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about The Rent is Too Damn High Party? Makes me laugh every time... Metsfreak2121 (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is funny. Unless they were to win. Then it might not be so funny, at least not to New Yorkers. But it might well be interesting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

is it ironic?

is the fact that this
http://www.aynrand.org
is not commercial, but a non-profit registered charity ironic? 188.6.76.192 (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please see WP:NOTFORUM Shadowjams (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Shadowjams!! I meant, does it fit the definition of irony, based on Ayn Rand's beliefs and the definition of Irony. I don't have any problem with the organization whatsoever, either as it is now, or if it were instead a commercial organization (which I then would not consider ironic). It's more a question about the definition of ironic than anything else, and if the organization weren't a registered charity/nonprofit I wouldn't have asked! 78.92.86.229 (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be ironic, if you boil down objectivism as "opposition to charity" but that's not the whole of it. Being a registered NPO is not inconsistent with their beliefs: it is in their self-interest to be tax-free and give tax breaks to contributors. HominidMachinae (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lot like rain, on your wedding day for example. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is ironic is that "rain on your wedding day" is not actually an example of irony Blueboar (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Yeah...that's the joke...Adam Bishop (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

It is finished.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

According to the Bible, how is salvation acquired as Jesus Christ explained?

Answer: John 10:9, not John 3:16 where it says "God so love the world that He gave His only beggoten son that whoever believes in Him shall be saved" is wrong because if a person believes in Jesus Christ, then he would believe what Christ say in John 10:9 that whoever enter His body(church) shall be saved. Question now is How do you enter his body or church? Of course you would become a member of his body or his church is how you enter Christ. Not "by accepting him only" You must do as Christ command, because He said on Luke 6:46 Christ said, "Why call me Lord, Lord but do not do as I say?" He said to enter in Him, and to enter in Him is to become member of his body/church (II Corinthians 12:27) That is how salvation is acquired. The right church is the Church of Christ or Iglesia ni Cristo in tagalog, because this is where the church had originated from according to the prophesy, From the far east will I gather you"(Isaiah 43:5) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.130.11 (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've answered your own rhetorical question. There seems nothing for us to do, other than mark this Resolved. In future, please do not use this forum for your personal proselytising. Thank you. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proselytizing for Iglesia ni Cristo, no less! Adam Bishop (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Man is the only animal with the True Religion - hundreds of them!" -- Mark Twain ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to open a private discussion if you're willing, just post a note on my talkpage. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

history of investor protection / references

Recently, a small company posted its investor pitch online (publicly). Comments I read said this was literally illegal in the United States, where no company may solicit investments publicly in this way. Could you give me references to read (preferably online) about these protections and what it means exactly? How did this develop? Thank you. 188.6.76.192 (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

on this thread http://hackerne.ws/item?id=4019861, someone says:

“

"Let me rephrase> Is it legal to put a pitch deck [investor presentation] aimed at private investors online for all to see? I know this is a grey area in the past, and recent legislation has changed things, so I ask again, in hopes of actually getting an answer: Is this legal?"

Someone else answered: "As far as I understand, even with the recent legislation, this is still not legal. They could get into a lot of trouble for publicly advertising an investment opportunity like this."

”

So... could someone give me references for the legislation mentioned? THanks. 78.92.86.229 (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I bundled these into one as they seem to be about the same issue. Public companies are bound by a lot more regulations and oversight than privately held companies, to protect investors from scams. In most jurisdictions, privately held companies are not allowed to make broad stock offers to the public. FiggyBee (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)2[reply]

In the United States, companies' offerings of their stock or other securities are subject to regulation under the Securities Act of 1933, which is enforced by the Securities and Exchange Commission and by private litigation. Offerings must either comply with the SEC's rules for public offerings or come within one of several exemptions from those rules, most commonly the exemption for private placements. Posting an investor pitch online complies with neither. For a public offering, such a public posting does not comply with the requirement that any written offer be accompanied or preceded by a prospectus. For a private placement, a public posting does not comply with the requirement that there be no general advertising or general solicitation. There is an online introduction to private placements here.

The JOBS Act ordered the SEC to amend its rules by July 4, 2012, to remove the ban on general advertising and general solicitation for certain private placements made only to accredited investors. The SEC has not yet made this rule amendment. John M Baker (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Power of Attorney

The reference desk does not provide legal advice. Consult with a lawyer or other appropriate legal professional on such matters. — Lomn 22:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 29

Four temperaments

Where can I find more detailed descriptions of the four temperaments and determine which one I am? --108.222.4.112 (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on Four temperaments and Humorism, but something based on obsolete ancient medical theories may not be the last word in personality classification... AnonMoos (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People who have "recanted" after coming out

Have there been people who have come out as LGBT but later "recanted" and reverted to a straight orientation? 98.116.65.50 (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean famous people? David Bowie might be an example, though he hasn't been entirely clear about it. See David Bowie#Sexual orientation. Staecker (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Heche seems like a pretty good example. She tried the same-sex lifestyle, and apparently didn't like it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is possibly not quite what you're asking for, but there are some people listed in our article on ex-gay movement, and yet more under ex-ex-gay who recanted the recantation. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is Chaz Bono although he didn't exactly 'recant' or 'revert', at least not in a simple way Nil Einne (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Once you've spilled the beans, it's very difficult to get the cat bag into the closet". StuRat (talk) 06:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Not recanted, but Tom Robinson who had a hit with "Glad to be Gay" is now married with children. He describes himself as "a gay man who just happens to be in love with a woman". --TammyMoet (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth pointing out that a gay person who ends up with a member of the opposite sex hasn't necessarily discovered themselves to be straight after all. They may have discovered themselves to have been bisexual all along. Marnanel (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of gay men have married women, had kids, the whole disaster - usually because of their need to conform to societal expectations. Just because they're able to perform sexually with a woman does not make them straight, or even bisexual. If in their heart they always imagine being with another male, they're gay. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 10:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed so, but that doesn't invalidate my point. Marnanel (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to imagine how someone of "totally" one persuasion could get sufficiently aroused by the "wrong" sex to be able to do something about it. If there's an explanation for that, I'd like to read it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You see, being homosexual is not totally about the sexual activity side of life; or even much at all in some cases; or even nothing at all in other cases. But since we're talking sex, lots of things can arouse men sexually: sitting at the back of a bus does it for a lot of guys; or having someone of any age or sex give them a shoulder massage; or having someone of any age or sex play with their ear lobes or their hair or their kneecaps or their hands; all sorts of stuff. A lot of fathers carry guilt because they sometimes get a hard-on when their kids sit on their lap - girls, boys, it's all the same; it doesn't mean they're suddenly pedophiles, it's just the way the plumbing works. Touch plays rather an important part in sexual arousal, and it doesn't matter much who's doing the touching, particularly if it's in the dark. A woman can easily arouse a gay man - it's basic science, and he will usually find it very pleasurable and "carry through" if the circumstances are right. It doesn't say anything about the overriding orientation of the man, which is an internal psychological state. You can eat meat occasionally, and enjoy it tremendously, and still remain a vegetarian. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 13:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bus gives you a hard-on with books in your lap - Jim Morrison, from An American Prayer.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A very perceptive guy, was old Jim. But he didn't need to go on any wild drug trip to know what he was talking about in this matter. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the same thing happened to a very good friend of mine in Dublin. He was returning home from school (run by the Christian Brothers) and as he later recounted to me, he was sitting on the bus with books in his lap and the rocking movements of the bus gave him a fierce hard-on. Hmm, wonder if that why the Irish use the word ride as another slang word for screwing?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this kind of thing is particularly unusual. Sexuality is complicated and confusing, particularly with all the taboos and societal expectations surrounding it. If you look around some LGBT-related forums, you will find lots of people questioning their sexual orientation - for example, some people find themselves attracted to both men and women, but in different ways, and repeatedly change their minds about whether they are gay, bi, or straight. If you are also unsure about your gender identity, that makes things even more complicated (am I a gay woman, a straight man, or something else?). Some friendly advice - some words in your OP come across as a little insensitive. Using the word "revert" makes it sound as though everybody starts off straight and cisgender, which obviously isn't the case, while suggesting that a "straight orientation" is an alternative to being transgender tends to annoy trans people - gender identity isn't the same thing as sexual orientation, and trans people can be straight or gay, just like anyone else. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cisgender is a new word for me (seems confusing though, since a "cissy" is straight). Perhaps a better contrast with transgender would be orthogender, both because it sticks with chemistry prefixes and since it could also be taken to mean "orthodox". StuRat (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Ortho means "straight" or "correct", cis means "on the same side", and trans means "on the opposite side". So cisgender makes more sense as an antonym of transgender than orthogender does. In chemistry, there is cis-trans isomerism. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

The "straight" meaning of "ortho" seems to fit here. StuRat (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

"Straight" in this context means "heterosexual", i.e., "attracted to people of the same gender". It says nothing about whether your gender identity matches your sex. Lots of transgender people identify as straight because they are attracted to people of the opposite gender, and of course lots of cisgender people are not straight. Also, going back to what you said before, sissy is just a pejorative term for a man who is perceived to be feminine. A man can have a strong male gender identity and still be seen by others as feminine. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mistakenly trans-defined heterosexuality. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Theoretically, will piracy be eliminated or lessened if...

Electronic media was freely available, for free? If songs could be legally downloaded anywhere for free without any restrictions, or if TV series and movies were made available for streaming legally online for free without any restrictions, then will piracy be eliminated, or at least not become as prevalent as it is now? If foreign shows such as anime or Korean drama were more readily available worldwide, especially on the internet legally for free, will fansubs no longer be needed? Sure the companies will most definitely lose a lot of money to the point of bankruptcy, but will it at least stop piracy? I hope this isn't considered as asking for legal advice though, as I'm only asking for ways how piracy can be stopped in such a way that it will benefit both the producers of the media and the consumers. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If songs could be downloaded for free, how would composers and musicians, as well as the technical people, get paid? → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 0Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)2:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising? Ads on websites? Donations? I already mentioned above that the main problem will be they won't be paid by the regular means. Perhaps they could try an alternative source of income? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that musicians have been paid enough to live on for their art in recent history does not function as a guarantee that they always will, still less that they always should. Consider other forms of art: poets rarely get paid, and where they do get paid it's almost never enough to live on. It doesn't seem to have killed poetry. Marnanel (talk) 10:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, you can't steal that which is given away for free. However, if you force people to watch ads, they may make an illegal copy with the ads stripped out. A revenue model which might work better is to give away the songs for free, then charge, as usual, to attend concerts. If the free music makes them popular, they should be able to make millions on tour. StuRat (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tours are basically advertising for the music: by themselves, not taking the value as advertising into question, most tours are money-losing propositions. The bigger the star, the more it costs for the star to go on tour, the more money is lost. Unless you think fans will pay $1,500 or more for a ticket. --NellieBly (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any links to support that ? If they can put 20,000 people in a stadium at $50 each, that's a million dollars per performance. Do 100 such appearances and that's $100 million. I have a hard time imagining that it costs them more than that to put on the show. StuRat (talk) 06:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just google "cost of putting on a rock concert", there's plenty of info. I can easily imagine $1 million per show being largely eaten up by venue costs, insurance, promotion, management, road crew, lights and sound (probably rented), skilled lights and sound technicians to set up and operate it all, hotels and food for all these people, transportation for people and equipment, and so on. And that's assuming 20,000 people buy tickets. A lot of these costs must be paid in advance no matter how many people buy tickets. Pfly (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Norwegian study ([3]) has showed that a Norwegian musician's income has increased by 66% between 1999 and 2009, despite the drop in record sales by 50%. The increase is mainly due to income from concerts. This shows of course that most muscicians are not dependent on record sales at all. - Lindert (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the kind of logic that says we could stop bank robberies by allowing anyone to come behind the counter and take whatever they want. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a silly argument. First of all, as the OP states: he is talking about digital consumption of music/video, even literature. One person listening or watching digital content doesn't impede on any one else's ability to enjoy that same content. On the other hand, if I have a bank note and somebody takes it from me, I cannot use that bank note any more. V85 (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you're taking money from a bank or taking an artist's source of income away, it's theft either way. If you think stealing an artist's source of income is OK, then don't be calling others silly. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong in principle with taking away someone's source of income. For example, if I open a store with lower prices, better service than my competitor, I may 'steal' his customers, and source of income. Nevertheless, that is not wrong, nor is it theft. All judicial systems that I know of distinguish between theft and copyright infringement. They are separate offenses and should not be equated. Widespread copyright laws are even a relatively recent phenomenon. People could get along fine without them for centuries. For example, Bach used many of Vivaldi's compositions and modified them for his own personal profit. Mozart did the same with Handel's stuff. Noone complained about that, it was just understood that if you publish something, others may copy it. - Lindert (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't "stolen" the customers, you've provided them a choice. You might be engaged in a fair business practice or you might not be. That's why we have anti-trust laws and the like. Meanwhile, I'm supposing that you work for a living. Further suppose that your boss comes to you one day and says, "We love your work, but we're not going to pay you for it anymore. But you can keep working here as long as you want." So you shop around at other companies and discover they all have the same policy towards your skill set. You're expected to give it away for nothing in return. I'm guessing you wouldn't much like that. Yet that's exactly what you're advocating in regard to recording artists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I would like it or not has nothing to do with whether it's right or wrong. If I went bankrupt because my competitor works more efficiently than I do, I wouldn't like that either. If employers decided not to hire people for jobs like I do anymore, then that is simply their right. If I specialized in designing CRT monitors, I would lose my job sooner or later as there is no longer any demand for that kind of work. Where I live, copying/downloading music or movies for personal use is perfectly legal, and I'd like it to stay that way. - Lindert (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about an obsolete skill. I'm talking about an in-demand skill where you're told that you can do it but you won't get paid. Do you think that's "right"? Did the artists give you permission to download their stuff? If so, fine. If not, the fact that you are somehow getting away with it doesn't make it "right". If you're getting something for free that you should be paying for, then it's theft. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If no people are willing to pay for a particular skill, then that skill is, by definiton, not an in-demand skill. That's how economy works. However, since artists make most of their money from performances, not record sales, it's not really an issue. As I posted above, a Norwegian study found that the average Norwegian musician's income has increased by 66% between 1999 and 2009 despite record sales dropping by 50%. It is your opinion that 'intellectual property' is something that must always be paid for, and you're free to believe that. It's not the opinon of the democratically elected lawmakers in my country. Also, the US supreme court and basically any judicial system in the world hold that copyright infringement is not theft. - Lindert (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand the connection between 'foreign shows' 'readily available worldwide' and 'fansubs no longer be needed'. AFAIK, fansubs are needed because a subtitled version of the show isn't available at the time (many shows never official become available in other languages including English and even when they do it can take months or years which is too long for some) or because people aren't pleased with the quality of the existing subtitles or occasionally if there is a subtitled version (e.g. on TV) but extracting the subtitles is too difficult. You don't need to bother with fansubbing if authorised commercial subtitles are available and of sufficiently quality for people, just use the official ones. I don't quite understand what you're proposing (are you suggesting that the copyright holders make the work readily available for free for anyone to view, or that they release the work under a free licence or similar and allow it to be modified and restributed?)

Presuming you mean the later, the difference would be people can fansub and release the work openly since they would not be violating copyright. If anything, fabsubbing would probably increase since commercial parties would have less incentive to bother with official subtitled versions as they would be more directly competing with fansubs although the definitions are also blurred. (Presuming the original work is under a copyleft licence, they could always release the fansub work commercially.)

If you mean the former, then the copyright holder could provide a method for people to add subtitles so people could view fansubs on the official site while the copyright holder is still the source for the content. If they don't I'm not sure how much difference it will make, except perhaps some people may visit the site (presuming it has ads or whatever) so that they can 'see' the ads even if they watch a fansubbed version. (Theoretically you could develop something to overlay subtitles while visiting the official site, but it's likely to be too complicated to be common.) Note that because plenty of people still don't have ubiqitious reliable internet access, the ability to download the work will also likely make a difference to how many people use the official site, as well as the reliability and quality of the site (and other things like ads StuRat mentioned)

Nil Einne (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne, what I'm thinking of is the former, where the copyright owner is the one distributing the work. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, abolishing the bourgeois property form in information would abolish piracy of bourgeois property. The more interesting questions revolve around whether intellectual property is enforceable in consumer goods, whether states should tolerate companies enclosing information produced by academics working for hire, whether systematic networks of proletarian property expropriation will prove resistant to state persecution, whether workers working for hire will tolerate others enclosing their own works, and what companies will do about "value adding" fan-subs or dojinshi. Some artists, such as Zun, actively encourage freeware copying of their work, and oppose commercialisation. Given that this is an active front in the class war, the situation will be resolved both by the technical and social limitations on action, and by the application of power. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how that Zun guy is able to afford food and rent if he gives his work away. But there's nothing stopping him or anyone from giving away their work for nothing if they choose to do so. However, the US Constitution authorizes Congress to protect the rights of authors and inventors. This is not about "class warfare", it's about lazy people wanting something for nothing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One can picture using the same model as exists for basic research (e.g. the National Institutes of Health), with grants being given to artists. Or, to avoid the ugly consequences of central state control, you could say everyone has to put in X% of their income tax, but can choose to direct it to any organization they wish to disburse funds to whatever genres of creative expression they prefer. I think you'd save a lot on copy-protection and piracy, but spend more on grant-writing; the advertising and middlemen wouldn't be eliminated but might be chastened a little. The main advantage of course is that everyone would have access to everything, while still paying -on average - roughly the same amount to producers as before. Wnt (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest historical event

Hi, does anyone have any ideas about what is the oldest historical event whose year is exactly known? By "exactly known", I mean known relative to the present year, independently of any convention for numbering the years, such that we could say it happened x years ago, for some precisely known value of x. 81.159.106.15 (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that would have to be a solar eclipse. To the best of my knowledge the earliest that has been precisely dated is an eclipse that took place in Syria on 5 March 1223 BC. Looie496 (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except eclipses by themselves lack historicity, they aren't "historical" events, they're astronomical events. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it was recorded in writing, then it's a historic event, like that one. StuRat (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be possible to find something older than that. Recorded history has been on the go since the invention of writing (see Cuneiform) around the 4th millennium BC, about 34th century BC. I would be surprised if there wasn't something in there. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not usually to an exact year, however... AnonMoos (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article the Battle of Kadesh "is generally dated to 1274 BC". The Battle of Megiddo (15th century BC) is sometimes claimed to be the oldest exactly dated event, on April 16, 1457 BC, although there is some argument about the year (it is dated by pharoah's reigns). The oldest event we can be really certain of the date is probably the Battle of Halys, on May 28, 585 BC, which coincided with a solar eclipse. Scientists have also dated the felling of the trees used to make Seahenge in England to precisely 2050BC[4]. (Ideas from[5][6][7].) --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the "dated by pharoah's reigns" style of dating is more the kind of thing I was looking for, being purely historical. Dating by eclipses or tree-rings is not quite in the spirit of the question that I had in mind, since they are modern retrospective dating methods. 109.153.233.152 (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should however realize that dates from Egyptian chronology are not always absolute. Scholars often disagree as to the exact dates, especially for the earlier dynasties. One problem is that the reigns of kings (including pharaohs) sometimes overlapped, making it difficult to construct an absolute timescale. - Lindert (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, if pharoahs' reigns are uncertain, to return to my original question, does anyone have any idea of the oldest event whose year we know with complete certainty purely through the hostorical record, i.e. that does not depend on modern restrospective scientific methods like calculating eclipse dates? Would it even be BC or AD? 109.153.233.152 (talk) 03:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ptolemy's Canon started with Nabonassar in 747 B.C., which is also near the start time of ab urbe condita dating and the First Olympiad. That was about as far back as people in Greco-Roman times could go with semi-reliable exact year dating... AnonMoos (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picture interpretation

What is the black color represents? Thanks!Pendragon5 (talk) 05:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the black countries, I suspect it means something like "no data available". ---Sluzzelin talk 06:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the author to comment. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that the only almost evenly-balanced country visible on the map seems to be South Korea (with Malaysia and Guyana also having significant populations of both)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mauritius is also almost evenly balanced between the two traditions. Marco polo (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judged for two things simultaneously ...

I have a question , about elections and the law .

Can a member of the election commission , answer to the law , for the offences of misusing his job for his own benefit and also counterfeiting the results of the elections ?

According to the laws in European Countries , can he be judged for those two things , in the same trial (simultaneously) ? Thank you in advance . 79.106.109.6 (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It will depend on the jurisdiction (the country), the nature of the crimes, and their circumstances. Most jurisdictions allow joinder (indictment on the same charge for multiple offenses) if you either (a) have a single course of action or a common scheme or plan that involves breaches of multiple laws (e.g. if robbers fleeing the scene shoot someone they can be tried together for robbery and murder and firearms offenses), or (b) the offender performs a number of similar criminal actions (e.g. multiple robberies).[8][9] In your hypothetical example the charges don't seem sufficiently closely connected, but if someone committed electoral fraud for the purpose of being able to misuse office, or if they e.g. committed electoral fraud to get a friendly judge elected so they wouldn't be convicted of misuse of office, that might be close enough. In practice, cases are sometimes only joined if it's convenient for the court, and if it's really complicated they may prefer to try different parts separately. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Impersonating a priest

In the books on which the TV programme Bless Me Father was based, there is a scene where the two priests attempt to report something to a policeman. When they fail to convince him not only of the crime they are reporting but also of their clerical status, they are arrested for "impersonating men of the cloth".

Now, I've heard it's illegal to impersonate a policeman and a Chelsea Pensioner, but was it illegal in England to impersonate a priest, as such rather than in order to gain money by fraud, in the 1970s or now? Is it so anywhere? And this is not a request for legal advice: I am not intending to do so myself. Marnanel (talk) 10:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the last question, a simple search for 'impersonating priest' finds [10] which appears to involve additional problems like performing a baptisim and [11] with limited details. From the NYT article, an obvious search term is 'criminal impersonation priest' which finds [12], which seems to answer the last question. Meanwhile considering the NNDB source, Lenny Bruce suggests additional considerations were at play (and the charge wasn't succesful) and Don Novello too, altho it sounds more minor (and the charge was dropped). Nil Einne (talk) 12:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

USS Peacock

Where did she sink? Thank you - 10:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Is the answer of Cartagena, Colombia given in the article not sufficient for your needs? Marnanel (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must be blind. Thank you. 12:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I wonder why it was decommissioned less than a year after it's launch, apparently never having been used. Did the US Navy decide they had too many minesweepers ? StuRat (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably. Buddy431 (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do fossils?

Why do fossils not exist in matemorphic or igneous rocks?
How do you make a poster on rocks?--Deathlaser : Chat 15:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as both metamorphic and igneous rocks use intense heat and pressure in the forming process, any organic matter gets destroyed so no fossils are possible. As for making a poster on rocks, we don't do people's homework here. Ask your teacher for some suggestions. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For igneous rocks, they were completely melted into magma, so nothing of the original structure would survive. However, fossils do exist in metamorphic rocks, although they are less common, flattened, and often stretched out: [13]. StuRat (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for making a poster, here are some ideas:

1) Just list which rocks fall into each of those 3 categories. This is a bare minimum effort.

2) Add arrows to show which metamorphic rocks form from which other types, along with the time, temperature, and pressure it takes.

3) Add pictures of each, or even a small sample taped to the poster.

4) Add info on where each rock is found.

5) Add info on the uses for each.

If you want to do all 5 steps, this will end up being a wall-sized poster. You could tape and/or staple together many smaller posters to make the big one. You might want to hold off on the taping/stapling until it's at the destination site, however, as it will be far more portable before joining it all into one huge poster. You could number the backs to show you how to assemble it. Be sure to leave sufficient margins on the edges for taping/stapling. StuRat (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"How do you make a poster on rocks?" Easy. Paint a rectangle on a rock, and fill it in with some interesting artwork or political slogans or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A simple poster on rocks would just have a giant diagram of the rock cycle, and then you'd annotate it with information. 109.155.32.126 (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's far too complicated for a "simple" poster on rocks. A simple poster on rocks should just have the word "Rocks" and then drawings of various grey-coloured blobs around it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is 'Death cross' some kind of commonplace jargon in finance/investing?

A Yahoo! article on gold prices treats this term as though at least the article's likely readers should already be familiar with this term. Is this a subject for a potential article, or did Yahoo! screw up by treating the term so casually when it may only be a term within a small domain or even a particular company?144.26.117.20 (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article from Reuters, written last year, suggests it has become more widely familiar: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/19/us-markets-volatility-technical-idUSTRE77I2SO20110819

109.155.32.126 (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For some background on this, this is a chart pattern used in technical analysis. Marco polo (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the info. [I am the OP here]Julzes (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign countries that advocate for change in the United States

The United States, whether it be its government or its non-governmental organizations, criticize(s) other coutries for human rights violations or campaign(s) for economic liberalization, more democratic elections, or freer trade. Are there any countries that have done the same with respect to the US on things that do not have to do with calls for America to leave said countries alone (so instead of Russia or China asking America to leave Iran alone think Britain advocating for more gun control in the US or Norway calling for universal health care)? Examples include the head of the OCSE expressing concern about FEC v. Citizens United (here), China's Human Rights Record of the United States, a comment by some UN official saying Mt. Rushmore should be given back to Native Americans, and some things having to do with network neutrality. All this is interesting. --Melab±1 ☎ 21:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The USA gets plenty of criticism, and our usual response is along the lines of, "Thank you for your valuable input." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for what other countries say America should do. While the Human Rights Record of the United States was a retaliatory publication it offered opinions on America's domestic policies. --Melab±1 ☎ 22:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the recent brouhaha over the blind Chinese dissident, China said we should stop meddling in their internal affairs. That kind of thing carries a lot more political weight than what some foreign yahoo thinks about how we should spend our own tax dollars. I would have thought the link you cite would have been a good starting point. Whether someone has actually compile such a list as you're wanting, might take some digging. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

During the Cold War, the Soviet bloc readily criticized the US for its poor human rights record, and used the extreme violence and disenfranchisement during the Civil Rights movement as a way of deflecting away criticism from the Soviet's own human rights violations. This was one of the reasons that US federal policy shifted on this issue — it presented a huge target and undermined the US's own arguments about the contrast between their way of life and that in the USSR. Between the 1940s and the 1960s, international criticism of US Civil Rights issues did lead to a number of tangible results. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, right-wing extremists here said that the civil rights leaders were commies. But I'd like to see some evidence for the claim that we gave a hoot in Hades about what that national prison called the USSR thought about our own imperfections. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John David Skrentny "The effect of the Cold War on African-American civil rights: America and the world audience, 1945–1968" Theory and Society Volume 27, Number 2 (1998), 237-285, DOI: 10.1023/A:1006875732319 Fifelfoo (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) The giving-a-hoot was a bit more indirect and more concerned about what third countries, the cold war's audience, if you like, might think. The effectiveness of the Soviet Union's critical propaganda has been analyzed and discussed, for example also in Cold War Civil Rights: Race and the Image of American Democracy by Mary L. Dudziak, Princeton University Press, 2011, ISBN 9780691152431, briefly brushed in our article on Critical race theory. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is what I meant. The US didn't care what the USSR thought, but it did care what the many of the other states of the world thought. The US was heavily reliant on the goodwill of states like Italy, West Germany, France, Turkey, Greece, Japan, and so on for its various international goals (e.g. supporting military bases overseas, passing UN resolutions, contributing to NATO). Any notion that the US could afford to be stubbornly isolationist and unapologetic during the Cold War is naive. I also think that referring to the segregation and horrific violence of the Civil Rights period and before as an "imperfection" is something of an understatement. It is like calling apartheid an "imperfection" of South Africa. Acknowledging that the US has done (and does do) awful things does not in any way imply moral equivalency with the USSR. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The alleged influence of the USSR on our civil rights laws sounds like somebody's wishful thinking. The folks who were the most critical of the USSR in those days were also the most adamantly opposed to civil rights legislation. The great civil rights acts of the 1960s were led by LBJ and his monolithic government, which also got us into a ground war against communism in southeast Asia. Because the fact is that both Republicans and Democrats considered the USSR to be a brutal enemy who held their entire population in metaphoric shackles and threatened the entire world with their aggressions. So their opinion of our civil rights record was considered a joke, at best. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any non-USSR examples? --Melab±1 ☎ 23:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Britain's anti-slavery actions in the 19th century. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting one. It may have influenced Lincoln to make the Emancipation Proclamation, which practically ensured that the south would get no help from Britain in the Civil War. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure the USA has been criticised by a lot of countries for Guantanamo Bay. HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not do this here. Maybe take it to your talk pages. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Very likely. Maybe those critics would like to take those folks off our hands and bring them into their own homelands? (Non-Islamic countries, of course.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, is there a reason you seem to be adamantly soapboxing in this particular thread? I'm not seeing any actual Reference-Desk worthy contributions here; you've supplied all gumption and no facts. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is the one who raised the soapbox. And you're on it too, so clean up your own act instead of worrying about me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about extraordinary rendition? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting bit of propaganda. I guess the problem is that America wants to be an example to the world, and when we fall short, we get raked over the coals for it. But when unspeakably worse brutality happens at the hands of another country (Syria, for example), it's like, "Oh, well, what do you expect - it's who they are." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, that is so NOT the attitude that's been taken. See Syrian diplomats expelled around the world. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 07:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I see the kind of international support for anti-Assad forces that matches what the anti-Kadaffi forces got, then I'll take the critics seriously. Even so, I'm sure Assad is devastated over countries getting a little huffy over his various massacres. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC

The point is that your assertion that the Syrian government's brutalities have just been dismissed by the international community with a wave of the hand, is completely, utterly, absolutely, totally and 100% false, wrong, incorrect and inaccurate. When you acknowledge this, we can move on. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when the critics of Syria stop tut-tutting and start invading. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again you make an uncited statement that is completely contrary to the facts, and when challenged you go off on some other tangent without ever accepting that your original statement was wrong. It is actually OK to say "Yes, I was wrong". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 07:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow, you mean they are invading and not just making symbolic but empty gestures? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 10:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What has your attaché got to do with anything? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trivialising important issues in an attempt (unsuccessful on this occasion) to deflect attention from one's errors is not the way to learn from one's mistakes. All children learn this, eventually, otherwise they never grow up. Some just take (a lot) longer than others. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't get where you're coming from. What we're seeing regarding Syria is lots of talk and very little action. There are a few UN observers there, and they're getting shot at. Maybe there are preparations behind the scenes to take out this Assad character, but out in the open there doesn't seem to be much going on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an editorial opinion from USAToday that kind of says what I've been saying here.[14] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're either uncontrollably (due to reasons I can only guess at) or deliberately ignoring my point. You have never acknowledged that "Oh, well, what do you expect - it's who they are" was completely off-track in describing the response of the world community, nor have you withdrawn it. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure why it's the responsibility of other countries to take people detained and moved around the world by the US off their hands so they get humane treatment. Even more so considering some of these people don't seem to have been any real threat but were simply in the wrong place in the wrong time or were detained based on misleading information provided for financial or other reasons (what they're likely after they've been so treated it anyones guess). But perhaps it is unrealistic for the rest of the world to expect the US to take responsibility for their actions, even if the US seems to expect other countries to do so. Perhaps it is fair 'you caused the mess, you fix it' applies to every other country other then the US. Nil Einne (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ones who "caused the mess" were the ones who destroyed the World Trade Center. The GTMO issue remains unresolved, and there seems little energy from either political party to do anything about it, which leads me to suspect that there is a lot we, the public, think we know but really don't, about the true nature of these characters at GTMO. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? What it makes me think is that neither of the large parties thinks that the political payoff is worth the political risk. There are probably politicians in both large parties who are troubled by the situation on the merits, as opposed to just calculating what will get them votes, but you know, those guys don't tend to be in charge. --Trovatore (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're claiming the US is some sort of automated computer and its people have no free will, the ones who caused the mess are indeed the US. No one forced the US to inhumanely detain and torture the wrong people, they made the choice by themselves. Otherwise, you might as well bring it back to the US and other countries and say they are the ones who caused the WTC attacks in the first place, it's unquestionable that the attackers were influenced by US and other country policy. But for most of the world, two wrongs don't make a right and you can't defend wrong doing by saying it's okay to do wrong because someone else did more wrong. I always thought the US understood this as well, but perhaps I'm mistaken. Nil Einne (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By what inside info do you know that the GTMO folks are the "wrong" ones? And as far as choice goes, they also chose to make war on the US. Here's a thought, though. Maybe they should open the gates and give those guys to the Cubans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question can be turned around, Bugs: By what inside info do you know that they're the right ones? They haven't had trials; nothing has been proven to the standards that we normally expect. And of course, if they're not the right ones, then they didn't make war on the US. --Trovatore (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What, they were just walking down the street in Kabul, unarmed, minding their own business, and were kidnapped randomly and taken to Cuba? That's funny. Tell me another one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not just walking down the street, but honestly, I don't know; maybe. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was rousted out of his house by ISI, in the middle of the night I think; he probably did make war on America, but he wasn't doing it at that moment. Who's to say the same didn't happen to some people who were entirely uninvolved? Do you have any actual information about the evidence against the inmates in Guantanamo, or are you just trusting the government? --Trovatore (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two consecutive Presidents, one I voted against and one I voted for, seem to think that GTMO is serving a useful purpose. So who should I pay heed to - an ordinary citizen? Or someone whose job it is to deal with our nation's security? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two consecutive presidents are both in government. Are you really just going to trust government on this? Would you, if the people imprisoned looked and talked more like your neighbors? --Trovatore (talk) 09:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm certainly not saying you should trust me (I suppose I'm the "ordinary citizen" you're referring to?). I'll happily say I don't know what these people have done. But our tradition is that whatever we punish them for has to be proved. So far I have not seen this proof, not only not in a legal sense, but not even in the sense of something they could point to that would be reasonably convincing. I've seen vague claims that the people still there are "the worst of the worst", but not much in the way of evidence. I've seen vague allusions to them being "taken on the battlefield", but KSM was certainly not, and it makes me wonder how many of the others weren't either. --Trovatore (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obama pledged to close GTMO. So far, he hasn't. Maybe he's been too busy. Or maybe he's come to the conclusion that it's needed after all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or just maybe, he's a politician, running for office? --Trovatore (talk) 08:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I googled [what other countries think of america] (which the OP obviously could have done) and many possibly interesting sites came up, such as this one.[15] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I meant, Bugs. Those are not from foreign governments. What other countries think of the United States is not the same as asking for change in America's domestic policies. --Melab±1 ☎ 19:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For searching, maybe you're taking it from the wrong direction, as I was when I tried to look for it. Instead of the broad perspective, maybe you should focus on something specific. A pretty obvious one could be, [norwegian government's position on capital punishment in usa]. Or something along those lines. Try that with various issues and various countries, and maybe a pattern for locating this kind of info will start to emerge. That's what I would do, if I were searching for that info. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russia Today, as broadcast in the UK, seems to make up around 50% of its programming with criticism of various policies in the USA (as much about economic policies as human rights), with an occasional swipe at the UK. It does this to the extent that I suspect what they're broadcasting in the UK is actually intended for USA audiences. Interestingly, it also hosted a Greenpeace spokesperson to support a documentary about environmental abuses in the USA and other parts of the world, which actually ended up very pro-Obama (in that it attacked lots of opponents of the current U.S. administration). I'm sure Greenpeace doesn't think much of Russian policy either, but in this case it seemed to meet their requirements. Having said all this, Russia Today isn't exactly a government agency, arguably slightly less so than the BBC World Service is. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As our article mentions, Helen Clark famously said she didn't think the Iraq War would have happened if Gore was the president. While from her politics, it was obvious she thought this was a good thing this was never said outright AFAIK. However despite the fact Bush liked to promote how much better he was at homeland security then his opponents, and the fact he always maintained the Iraq war was the right thing to do; so it would actually seem to be a positive thing even if not meant that way, this caused sufficient offense to merit an apology of sorts. I think it's clear from this (and the commentary surrounding it) and other cases that the US is generally not enthuasitic about other governments criticising them, even when they're quite happy to do it about other governments who are generally just supposed to accept it. For a larger country like China or Russia, there's little the US can do, similarly a country which isn't particularly friendly to the US or who the US need it doesn't really matter, but for a country which isn't imporant to the US but (considers) the US important to them, you criticise the US at your peril. Nil Einne (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Mexican President's critique of Arizona SB 1070 received some media attention at the time. (See subsection Arizona_SB_1070#Mexico). ---Sluzzelin talk 02:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe he's afraid he'll have to take all the illegals back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - C'mon, Bugs. We're trying to give examples for "Are there any countries that have done the same with respect to the US [i.e. criticize the US "for human rights violations or campaign(s) for economic liberalization, more democratic elections, or freer trade"] on things that do not have to do with calls for America to leave said countries alone". We're trying to do this without giving our personal comments or quips on the legitimacy of said criticisms. This could easily be an interesting question for someone studying American or international politics. The thread should neither be a debate nor a court room trial; just a list of examples that meet the OP's criteria. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is actually a good example of what I am looking for, Sluzzelin. Although, Felipe Calderón's statements have to do with protecting the citizens of Mexico from perceived persecution (probably the wrong word to use). I once had this conversation with a visitor from Australia about America's laws, constitution, and such. I was interested when they said that they were surprised to see a man walking around with a firearm in plain sight. This was not expected but it was not surprising to me because most countries have restrictions on guns that Republicans would be quick to criticize here in America. --Melab±1 ☎ 02:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't "persecute" Mexican citizens, although we do send them back if they're here illegally and we find out about it. A succession of Mexican presidents have groused about this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that you —random unimportant Internet person and most likely a member of the working class— play any part in the act of "sending illegal Mexican citizens back"? --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"We" refers to the USA. And, yes, I admit that I'm part of "the 99%". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hum, well many MNCs and states lobby the US gov as seen in this article. Though that is mostly in self-interest I suppose, and it seems you want cases where other nations are trying to push the US to develop for the American's own good. I'm sure throguh google you could find plently more cases of non US organizations publishing papers critical of various US policy. Topics include, capital punishment, economic inequality, lack of access to healthcare for many, massive prison populations, their drug war, their massive military and the associated warmongering, support for Israel, the toppling of democratically elected governments, the toppling of governments which objectively have severly hurt the nation/people, topfreedom, freedom of the press, internet censorship, landmine manufacturing, high murder and rape rates, pollution/climate change, lack of banking regulation, extraordinary rendition, police brutality, weak democracy, low access to higher education for many, high national debt with no plans to pay off or even lower deficit - risk to world economy, lack of equal rights, gay rights, condiderable levels of islamophobia, relatively low levels of social/economic mobility, use of veto at UN, veto power at world bank, IMF, attempted bullying of UN by withholding payments if the UN disagrees with the US, use of drones, alleged militarization of space, continuous massive funding for projects with the sole purpose of creating greater tools for killing humans...these are all issues which you should be able to find organizations criticizing the US on. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that many countries criticise the human rights abuses of other countries, but the question is, how vocal they are about it. Some countries can afford to be very vocal in their opposition to the US, such as China, or North Korea, North Korea took a jab at the US, when it arrested two American journalists, stating that, unlike the foreigners that the US had arrested (and brought to Guantanamo), NK had given the detainees a trial.

When it comes to Norway, as mentioned by the OP, whenever a Norwegian government minister (especially the PM or the Minister of Foreign Affairs) meets with the US President, there will usually be an article in the newspaper about what they discussed. (Keep in mind that the actual content of such meetings are confidential.) The government official will usually say something along the lines of 'I also mentioned to the President, Norway's concerns regarding the US's continued use of the death penalty'. The reason being that Norway is fundamentally opposed to the death penalty and would like to see it discontinued everywhere. However, the government does seem to be more vocal on the use of the death penalty in Iran than it is vis-à-vis the use of the death penalty in the US. And one can only speculate as to why that is...

As for the two specific issues mentioned by the OP, namely gun control and healthcare, those aren't topics that are discussed much. I think most Norwegians would hav ethe view that the way in which these are dealt with in the US probably isn't ideal, but these aren't something that the government addresses, at least not in a formal way. I recall the PM was asked about what he thought of health care reform in the US and he said that he was in favour of the public ofption, and later justified that by stating that he wasn't trying to push for anything - it was up to the Americans to decide - but that most Americans probably already knew what a socialist democrat from Norway would think on the matter. Unlike his comments on the death penalty, where he would like to influence domestic US policy, when it came to health care, his statement was the he didn't want to influence domestic policy in the US, but when people asked his opinion, he would state it. V85 (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you mentioned gun control, Australia's Prime Minister John Howard made a comment after the Virginia Tech massacre which at least implied criticism of US gun politics. "We had a terrible incident at Port Arthur, but it is the case that 11 years ago we took action to limit the availability of guns and we showed a national resolve that the gun culture that is such a negative in the United States would never become a negative in our country." [16]. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting/amusing/ironic/hypocritical/and ultimately not surprising that the two nations which regularly receive a lot of scathing international criticism - namely the US and the UK - just happen to be the very nations that the rest of the world immigrate to in large droves. Hmm must be the J.R Ewing-syndrome at work here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need for the paranoid defence Jeanne. Every country can be better, even the great ones. HiLo48 (talk) 08:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't being paranoid, HiLo just an ironic observer of human nature which never disappoints me for its sheer hypocrisy. Of course every country can and needs to be better.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the UK gets more criticism than other countries. China, Israel, Saudi Arabia seems to be in the spot line. And since Guantanamo, the US too. Take also into account that the US is unique, compared to other developed countries, regarding the death penalty and torture. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The UK and US don't have uniquely high numbers of immigrants. For example, look at List of countries by foreign-born population in 2005. Countries with higher numbers of immigrants relative to their population include Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, which are surely among the most-criticised countries in the world at the moment. I don't see how you would demonstrate that the US and UK are criticised more than other countries, either. Also bear in mind that criticism of human rights usually comes from governments and NGOs, while immigration is a decision made by individuals, so there isn't necessarily any hypocrisy. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a country as such, but Amnesty International has criticised the US (and other countries) in its campaigns to abolish the death penalty and the use of torture. It has also criticised the US over the treatment of individuals such as Troy Davis, Bradley Manning and Shaker Aamer. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After the recent terrorist attack here in Italy in which a teenaged schoolgirl horrifically lost her life there were calls by many Italians on various talk shows for the reinstatement of the death penalty.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's the kind of person you'll find on Talk shows everywhere. HiLo48 (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you've never been to Italy. The type of talk shows I was referring to was not of the Jerry Springer or Geraldo Rivera genre but rather those such as Porta a Porta hosted by Bruno Vespa of which the guests are notable personalities such as politicians, journalists, critics, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And this is relevant how? Does it change the fact that Amnesty International has criticized the US? Does it change the fact that Italy has criticized the US, if it indeed has? Does it offer any additional examples that the OP was seeking? If not, you're simply soapboxing. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that AI wants to keep alive characters like that guy in Norway is reason enough to ignore their opinions. Why shouldn't that guy slaughter the innocent, if he knows he won't be compelled to suffer their fate, but instead will get free room and board for the rest of his miserable life? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, please stop soapboxing. We already know what you think, but this is the Reference Desk not the Opinions Desk. The OP asked a reasonable and specific question and deserves objective and sourced answers (which most other editors on this thread have been trying to provide). Gandalf61 (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I gave him some ideas of where to search and of things I had found in google. If it can't be found, maybe there ain't anything. Furthermore, if you don't see the inherent baiting in his question, I don't know what to tell you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment: The question really isn't calling for personal discussions and qualifications of the examples it is seeking. Presumably, the OP isn't an idiot and will know how to interpret any instances we list here. The OP already offered their own example which could allow for all sorts of comments on hypocrisy. Yet the OP isn't looking for our perceptions and thoughts on who gets to criticize whom. While most leaders and governments will try to put a more positive spotlight on their own policies in comparison with those of other nations, it isn't that frequent either that a foreign government will officially or quasi-officially criticize the domestic affairs of other countries. I think the question is perfectly legitimate and in my opinion it was phrased in a manner that didn't constitute soapboxing at all. Nor invite it. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The OP should do his own research instead of lighting a fuse here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Search terms that I have used in the past have only given me links to the US criticizing other countries. I have tried phrasing my searches like sentences instead of a list of terms and that still doesn't work. --Melab±1 ☎ 02:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you missed where I googled [what other countries think of america] or something like that. Surely that would at least give you something to start with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right up at the top of this thread, Baseball Bugs said "The USA gets plenty of criticism, and our usual response is along the lines of, "Thank you for your valuable input." " Interestingly, the response has been considerably more than that. HiLo48 (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we get useful advice, we give it reasonable consideration. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved reader who was interested in this question and its potential answers, I have to say I'm really disappointed in Baseball Bugs's incredibly unhelpful contributions here which successfully derailed the entire discussion and overshadowed other users' attempts to provide useful and relevant input. This is a reference desk, not a discussion forum. If your input consists not only of not providing references yourself, but of making sniping, dismissive, soapboxy comments towards those provided by others that are clearly utterly unhelpful to the questioner, it's probably not welcome. Nor is saying things like "the OP should do his own research instead of lighting a fuse here" on a page whose very purpose is to help people with their research, and when the only person whose "fuse" seems to have been lit is you yourself. As a frequent RD reader but only occasional contributor, I would normally not comment on something like this, but unfortunately this fits a pattern I've noticed from this user that is so widespread that I honestly feel it has diminished the usefulness of the reference desks to both questioners and people like me, who read them in order to see interesting questions answered with, well, references and facts rather than political rants and witty one-liners. With absolutely no personal offense intended: Baseball Bugs, I really think you need to take a long look at your contributions here and reevaluate your approach to responding to questions. In particular, if you find a question to be distasteful or to be "lighting a fuse," consider just ignoring it, especially if others appear to be having no trouble responding to it in a helpful manner.

In order that my response isn't equally distractive and non-contributive: This article on "International Influence on the Death Penalty in the U.S." may be of interest. It posits that international pressure historically had very little effect on this issue, but that that has been changing in the last decade or so. -Elmer Clark (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I and many others on this board are appalled at Bugs' behaviour here. I also agree that his actions in this particular thread is not a lone occurrence of poor behaviour, but just a spike in his consistent soap-boxing/unhelpful comments. I ask that Bugs stop posting to these boards until he has changed his ways. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UU, as I recall, was involved in edit-warring over some issue about "gay-friendly" private colleges. That probably accounts for his out-of-left-field comments here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please apologize and strike your ridiculous claim that I ever edit warred, my list of contributions is short as I hate meeting with people like you, the admin who intervened had an equally low opinion of you. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Others have high opinions of me, and fortunately they're right. :) Anyway, refresh my memory... were you in favor of, or opposed to, labeling those private schools as "gay-unfriendly"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your ad hominem attack against UU does not discredit his argument that you've been soapboaxing all thread long while offering absolutely no helpful information. The only valid defense against "you violated WP:SOAP" is "I have not violated WP:SOAP". It doesn't matter if others have done the same thing. It doesn't matter if your accusers are the child-eating monsters. It doesn't matter if the OP is a troll. If you're violating Wikipedia policy, you need to stop, regardless of what other people are doing. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, you do tend to have insightful views on many topics... but every time I see you in a thread about the USA, you get extremely defensive and lash out at any criticism of our country. It might be best to step back from these threads for a while. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 30

requiring alcoholics to get treatment

In the United States, are there any legal obligations for an alcoholic to undergo treatment, or is it completely voluntary? I'm trying to write a paper right now where I critique another author's paper. This author has written that he thinks if drugs such as cocaine were legalized, there would be no way for courts to force individuals to obtain treatment. I want to counter this argument by writing that we do this already with alcohol, but I am not sure if this is indeed true. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks!--75.185.115.35 (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, you can be as alcoholic as you like and no court in the US can stop you, as long as you don't break the law. If on the other hand you are convicted of an alcohol-related offense, such as drunk driving or a violent act where it appears that hooch was part of the reason you did it, then alcohol treatment may well be imposed as a condition of probation or reduced sentence. --Trovatore (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, an alcoholic may have their children taken away, if they don't seek treatment. StuRat (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some states have tried to prevent drug addicts claiming welfare by requiring drug tests, most recently in Florida.[17]. This isn't happening with alcohol yet in the USA as far as I can tell, but the British government is planning to require alcoholics to undergo treatment if they want welfare payments.[18] (This isn't a legal obligation, but it would make treatment a practical necessity for many.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many US jurisdictions require treatment as part of a probation sentence. The defendant does not have to agree to the treatment, but will usually face a prison sentence or harsher punishment if they don't. In this sense, treatment is part of a plea bargain. Because prostitution and drug addiction go hand in hand, defendants in criminal solicitation cases will often be offered a drug treatment program as part of a plea bargain. The Supreme Court case of Wisconsin v. Constantineau[19] found that before a state may publish a list of individuals who are to be banned from purchasing alcohol for "excessive drinking" must first be given a hearing and an opportunity to be heard. Most notable in that case is that the Supreme Court did not declare that the states could not prohibit someone from drinking entirely. Indeed, the 21st Amendment grants states the authority to ban alcohol if they so choose. The federal or state requirement is that there be some sort of trial or hearing where the defendant can put forth a defense to keep his or her right to obtain alcohol. It is possible for a court to restrict or prohibit the consumption of alcohol as a probation requirement and this routinely happens. Celebrities are often sent back to jail for drinking alcohol although it is technically legal. The author you are criticising does not understand how the law works in this country. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be seen as giving legal advice, but I will say that as a practicing lawyer, I've fairly often seen provisions in court orders regarding children taken into the custody of social services that the parents shall get a substance abuse screening and follow recommended treatment. Violation can be punished as contempt, but it's more usual that it's ammo for social services to ask the court to terminate parental rights.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eurobank's Logo

What's the story (vexillology) behind it?[20]Curb Chain (talk) 04:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

different sign, same question Curb Chain (talk) 05:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phew! After an awful lot of Googling, I found: Perspectives on Marketing Management in Ireland edited by Mary Lambkin & Tony Meenaghan (p.252). The Allied Irish Banks logo features "one of the earliest known Celtic images of the Ark", which apparently is "a symbol of our heritage, our security and of the many communities we serve" (the bird on top is the dove returning with the olive branch, if you were paying attention in Suday School). The new corporate colours "represent the warmth and friendliness of the Irish". Click the link if you can take any more of that corporate bullshine. Alansplodge (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The new corporate colours "represent the warmth and friendliness of the Irish". We're wonderful people, to be sure, but.... huh? If it's any consolation, Alan, I seem to remember a fair bit of head-scratching about the meaning when the logo came out. (One point of confusion I remember was that the two circles gave the impression of shields, making the boat a bit Viking-y.) There is another explanation of the logo on the AIB website. The ark is taken from a High Cross (or strictly speaking, the stump of a High Cross) in the churchyard of Killary Church in County Meath. I'm sure there are other photos out there, but the ark is clearly visible in the first photo on this webpage. (No luck with Eurobank, either, sorry) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I worked briefly for the giant US insurance brokers Aon plc who told us that the company's name was a Gaelic word meaning "oneness" (I'm not even sure if oneness is a word in English, I would have gone with "unity"). Anyway, it seems that aon is just Scottish Gaelic for "one"[21] and is pronounced "een" rather than "ayon" as the corporate lackies say. Alansplodge (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "ayon" or "ehhon" isn't too bad as a rendition of the Irish pronunciation of the word for "one", if you pronounce it as one syllable, rather than "Ay-on"; however a closer match for "unity" or "oneness" would be "aontacht". (I don't do IPA, so you'll have to do with "Ayn-takht" as a pronunciation, rhyming the Ay with a short Fonz-style "Ehh", and "Ayn-takht" doesn't quite get it right). You could see that there might be problems with going with that as a brand name. "The United States" is translated into Irish as "Na Stáit Aontaithe". (Nah Stawt Eh-n-ti-Heh is a very rough attempt at pronunciation) - if you want to work that into a conversation - or not, as the case may be. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a brief sentence about the logo, to the Allied Irish Banks article under the "Name" section. Alansplodge (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no joy with Eurobank. Alansplodge (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the logo dates back to 1995. It's the same logo [22] as EFG Bank Group [23]. Our article (EFG International) says the organization was founded in 1995. Sometime around then there is sure to be some, as Alanspodge says, " corporate bullshine" on the topic. That's where I ran dry, but perhaps someone else can pick up the trail. 184.147.121.151 (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

in pale

What does "in" mean in "in pale?Curb Chain (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page actually explains that. It means "In (the direction of the) Pale" that is, if you have, say, three objects lined up down the middle of the arms, they are said to be "in pale". In this way, the word "in" means what it means in phrases like "in line" or "in a circle" or "in order". --Jayron32 05:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I mean the grammatical/syntactic construction. I have never heard of "in" used in this way.Curb Chain (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heraldry is a sort of shorthand or jargon that has its own grammar and rules, it doesn't necessarily follow common English grammar. But, in this case, as I said, the word "in" means almost exactly what it means in a phrase like "in a circle". That is, just as I would describe the stars on the Betsy Ross flag as "in a circle", I could describe a horizontal line of stars as "in pale". Still, the heraldric/vexalogical "code" doesn't always match up so well to common modern English (indeed, a lot of it is French in origin), but it still has its own rules, which are fairly consistant and easy to get once you learn it. See Blazon which describes how an arms or a flag is described properly, and it goes into the grammatical rules. --Jayron32 05:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"In preposition 1 a — used as a function word to indicate inclusion, location, or position within limits"[24] --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Che Guevara's gun/s and capture

Various accounts of Che Guevara's capture in Bolivia suggest different things about the guns captured with him. Jon Lee Anderson's account and Fidel Castro's introduction to Che's Bolivian Diary suggest his rifle had jammed or been damaged, and his pistol was out of ammunition, but other accounts suggest a full clip of ammunition was in the pistol. Is there a consensus on this, or will we just never know? Nototter (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Logically, he probably knew he would be executed when captured, so would continue to fight until his weapons failed him. StuRat (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historians make informed judgements based on the sources that they have read. Therefore we can expect that Che specific histories written by historians would have been written with access to the currently available sources, and reflect the diversity of judgements of people who do history for a living. Future sources may become available, covering exactly this point, but to be honest, the status of a single clip of ammunition is not particularly of historical interest. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 31

Date references

I noticed on some articles the dates were being given as 1200 A.D.( anno domini) as opposed to 1200 C.E. ( common era) which is the accepted academic standard. Reference of date listed as like 1200 B.C. should be given as 1200 B.C.E. ( before the common era).This way no religious group appears to be favoured.

Let me know what you think. I'm sure this could be auto corrected with some effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maimonides 03 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a hotly debated topic and there is no consensus on changing AD to CE sitewide. Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Year numbering systems and, for more debate on this subject than anyone could possibly wish for, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate. --Viennese Waltz 12:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could change wikipedia to the ab urbe condita system if that is the date system you prefer most, although there is stronger evidence that Milan rather than Roma would be a better choice of oppidum. We might as well add extra controversy if we can. Gx872op (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply confused by the Milanese reference. Or is that a joke? Nyttend (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Milan was declared capital of the Roman Empire in AD 293, although modern historians continue to use the founding of Rome when talking about dates in the Roman Empire. This is despite the fall of Rome as capital and the prowess of their respective modern football teams. While academically, dates concerning Roman events are given using A.U.C., such is not the case on wikipedia. Using the academic system of dates on wikipedia would only lead to confusion. This is why adopting the academic system of dating would not be prudent for Roman articles. Just because something is used academically does not automatically support a conclusion that it should be used. We must take into account other considerations to avoid an argumentum ad populum. Being an academic, especially a Latin academic, does not necessarily make one correct. Gx872op (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought was Milan's capital status during the later portion of the Western Empire, but all that was dashed to the ground when I found that you'd linked a football club instead of the city itself :-) Nyttend (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do historians use AUC? Wow. I've often wondered why they don't. —Tamfang (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The CE / BCE notation is not widely used (or I suspect understood) in the UK. The BBC, which is often considered to be one of the guardians of our fair English tongue, is still unabashed at using AD / BC - see BBC History: Boudicca (died c.AD 60). One of our most popular historians, Professor Simon Schama, has recently published a book called A History of Britain: 3000 BC - AD 1603. Alansplodge (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to demur, Alansplodge. I'd agree that the LCD-pandering media may think it would confuse the audience (forgetting that unless you're somewhat interested in history and have therefore probably encountered the concept, you likely wouldn't be watching/listening/reading their offering in the first place), but back in the 60s/70s the secondary-level textbooks (for ages 11-16) used in my school (and necessarily quite widely elsewhere in the UK), which was founded and administered by a Christian group (the Methodist Foundation for what it's worth) used CE/BCE without the least confusion or controversy.

To address Arwell Parry's point below, It seems to me perfectly sensible (and to this non-Christian preferable) to comply with the most widely used system (as entrenched in its way as the QWERTY keyboard layout) without using a religiously specific label of disputable historicity (there being an intellectually respectable – though in my opinion probably incorrect — argument for the "Christ" in question having not actually existed, and a rather strong one for his not being born in the year "1 AD". {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.109 (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, it's certainly disputable that using CE / BCE instead of AD / BC is "not favouring a particular religious group" - since the base point is the same year is the difference not meaningless? Call it "religiously correct", perhaps. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that no one came up with a non-specific alternative abbreviation for BC. AD and BC have kind of a symmetry. CE and BCE don't. But if you're worried about shunning Christianity, just read them as "Christian Era" and "Before Christian Era", and that works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legal vacation/vacating

I vaguely remember reading the term "vacate" in legal or semi-legal contexts: for example, a person has sold a piece of property, and the sales agreement requires him to vacate the property by a certain date. Do we have an article on this concept? Vacate redirects to Vacated judgment, which is unrelated to property questions, and none of the other pages listed at Vacation (disambiguation) are relevant either. Nyttend (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The closest thing I could find is abandonment. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To "surrender" or "vacate" possession of real property is covered briefly in Leasehold estate. When someone refuses to surrender possession when an operation of law terminates the right of possession, this is called a "holdover." Holdover tenancy redirects to leasehold estate. Leasehold estate is the proper place for this topic as leaseholds are temporary in nature (at least theoretically because the US military presence in Cuba is technically a leasehold estate although Cuba lacks the ability to evict). Eviction could be developed a little bit more. The eviction process requires notice, which is often served upon the tenant in possession in the form of a "Notice to Vacate" or "Notice to Quit." Gx872op (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, sorry, but this isn't what I mean. It's not a matter of being kicked out — I'm meaning a situation in which someone says "I'll vacate the property by ____", simply in the sense of "I'll be moved out of the property by that date". Perhaps I was using the wrong language, because I wasn't talking about a date on which legal ownership of the property officially changes. Nyttend (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First definition in the Wiktionary entry for vacate says "To move out of a dwelling, either by choice or by eviction". I don't think there is much more to be said about the term. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To vacate real property means to terminate a leasehold estate. You may vacate either unwillingly in the case of an eviction or willingly as in your example. Both are terminations of leasehold estates. Gx872op (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the tune?

Hello all. I was wasting time on Youtube and I found this p'ti trésor along with others by the same user. I was wondering what the tune behind it is (ignoring the paroles grossières) - it seems to classical and almost operatic to have been written solely for the ... purpose to which it is put in the song, if you follow. At first I thought it was Bizet, perhaps Au fond du temple saint from Pecheurs but apparently not. It seems something French Romantic period, if that helps - it must be a very famous song, which I've undoubtedly heard, but I can't quite put my finger on it... Thanks, merci d'avance. 24.92.85.35 (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it's not Bizet? That was my immediate thought upon hearing it. I have heard this sung on Italian television so it's obviously well-known. Have you gone through the Bizet compositions on YouTube?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, it didn't sound remotely like Bizet to me. Most certainly not "Au fond du temple saint". If I was told this was based on something from the French Romantic period, I'd maybe suggest Offenbach. But exactly what - search me. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Signing of federal laws in the U.S.

Dear everyone; I wanted to ask the following question: Is the Vice President of the U.S. in title to sign a bill into law when the President is out of the country? He's only Acting President when to president is decleared to be unable to fulfill is office at the time, but what happens when the president only out of the country? For example, the Lieutenant Governor of ha state does often have the power sign state bills when the governor is outside his state. Thanks in advance --Jerchel (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, he cannot. Only the President may sign a bill into law. Being busy or out of town is not "unable to fulfill his office". The Vice President's only actual roles, according to the Constitution, are to a) break tie votes in the U.S. Senate and b) wait for the President to become incapacitated, dead, or resign. There are no other enumerated powers for the VP. That's why John Nance Garner said that the job wasn't "worth a pitcher of warm piss." --Jayron32 18:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. But there is a deadline of ten days or so to sign it into law (if the Congress ends the session, if not, the bill becomes automaticly a law). If he isn't signing the bill, it would be pocket veto. What are they doing in such a case? --92.226.210.32 (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very surprised if the president has to be in the country in order to sign bills. I don't see any such requirement in the relevant constitutional clause. It just says bills are to be presented to the president for his signature; doesn't say where. But I would be interested to learn of any statute or case law that addresses the question. --Trovatore (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obama signed an extension to the Patriot Act in May, 2011 from Europe using a Robo-Pen [25]. I thought that he was the first President to do this - I don't remember if it was the Patriot Act or an earlier thing that he signed, but I remember several news articles about it when he used the technology for the first time. Buddy431 (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This then begs the question: What did presidents do before the invention of the Robo-Pen? I can imagine the president receiving the bill by telegraph, and physically signing the telegraph slip, but what did he do before such technological advances? What happened if he travelled further than 10 days away from Washington, D.C.? V85 (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to the 20th century, they simply didn't travel that far. I believe that Theodore Roosevelt was the first U.S. President to leave the country while in office, indeed the job of President has changed greatly in the past century. I would not be surprised if most Presidents just stayed in Washington while Congress was in session. If his job is to sign or veto bills, most Presidents wouldn't have thought of skipping town just to avoid doing so. Even their other duties, such as presiding over cabinet meetings and conferring with advisors and the like, would have required them to actually be in the capital for most of their term of office. --Jayron32 19:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back when the Constitution was written, 10 days was enough to get from any corner of the US to Washington, D.C. Anonymous.translator (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Causes of homosexuality

What are the causes of homosexuality according to current research? --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try Homosexuality, and then try googling "causes of homosexuality". There'll be plenty there to be getting on with.

You really must at least do some basic research before coming here to ask questions. This is not the place for a pub chat. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, asking for a "cause" of homosexuality implies that it is different from the normal course of events. Why does homosexuality need causes while heterosexuality just happens? --Jayron32 19:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is your knee jerking a little, Jayron? You don't have to think there's anything wrong with homosexuality for the question to make sense. The obvious cause of heterosexuality is that it perpetuates the species. Explanations for homosexuality are less obvious. "Less obviously explained" doesn't equal "wrong", and there's no need to assume it does. --Trovatore (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, regardless of ones moral stance, homosexuality is a deviation from the norm, so it is reasonable to ask what causes it (it is also reasonable to ask what causes the norm - see evolution of sexual reproduction for that). Unfortunately, genuine scientific attempts to answer that question tend to get drowned out by the moral debate over it, as evidenced by Jayron's reaction. The evidence is that sexual orientation is already determined by a very young age (possibly even by birth), although what actually determines it is still unknown. --Tango (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What causes someone to like mushrooms on their pizza, and another person to like peppers? What is wrong with someone's biology to cause them to wear a stocking cap in summer? What biological cause could there be for someone to root for a particular sports team? There are any of a near infinite number of inconsequential preferences and behaviors that people have which don't have any need for a "cause". If most people like pepperoni on their pizza, does that make people who like anchovies need to have some cause which needs specific explanation by science? The fact that a smaller number of people have some inconsequential trait doesn't mean that it has a cause or is not normal. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are part of the normal human sexual continuum, and neither one requires special consideration as abnormal. If the question had been phrased, "WHat are the connections between human sexuality and social and biological factors" then that's an answerable question, as it lacks the subtext which implies that homosexuality is deviant or outside of the normal range of behaviors. --Jayron32 20:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You inferred that subtext. Doesn't mean it was really there.

The comparison with pizza trivializes the issue. There may be some adaptive pressures that influence choice of pizza topping, but they're not a big issue. For sexual orientation they're obvious and overwhelming; it's silly to ignore them. Homosexuality greatly reduces the chance of reproducing, and thereby of passing on any genes that contribute to it. So it's reasonable to ask how that happens. --Trovatore (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course sexual orientation is as trivial as pizza prefference. The only reason it isn't is that people aren't being killed and marginalized and tortured and treated like shit over their pizza preference, but that is about societies response to a trivial issue, not about the normalness of it. If homosexuality were not part of the normal gamut of sexual response, then it would not appear in other species, which it clearly does. Indeed, same-sex sexual relations are more prevalent, if anything, in other close relatives to humans, which would imply that something about human society's treatment of this trivial difference is the major problem. A much more interesting question is why homosexuals are treated like shit, when the difference is purely trivial. --Jayron32 21:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here you're letting political considerations cloud your scientific objectivity. You can oppose treating people badly because of their sexual orientation, and still acknowledge that there is in fact something to be explained. --Trovatore (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Human sexual behavior is something to be explained. The difference is in how we approach the question, and to do so in a way that does not reinforce hatred and bigotry. There are lots of really important things to ask about sexual behavior in humans, but if we assume that same-sex behaviors are outside of the norm, it doesn't lead to productive scientific inquiry. Instead, it leads to the sort of inquiry that reinforces our preconceived notions about normalality and abnormality. Instead, we need to approach the question from the view that same-sex sexual behavior is not distinct or outside of the biological norm. It may be out of the societal norm, but that is a symptom of the systemic bigotry in the system, and not because of any biological defect in people. --Jayron32 21:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heterosexuality has a clear and obvious explanation at a very executive-summary level. Homosexuality does not. This disparity can be acknowledged and addressed without having to call anything a "defect". --Trovatore (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Let's see that explanation then, and evidence that it is correct. Have a go at it... --Jayron32 22:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I never implied that I have the explanation. I said only that there is in fact something to be explained. --Trovatore (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, you mean of heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is explained by the fact that heterosexuals pass on their genes, and therefore genes that predispose to heterosexuality are adaptive. Evidence should not be hard to find. --Trovatore (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So far, every existing human has been a result of heterosexual reproduction. So there's obvious more to it than just genetics. There's upbringing and there's circumstances and random events that also figure into it. And, oddly enough, choice figures into it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that heterosexuality makes reproduction more likely is nowhere near enough to 'explain' it. It is easy to think of advantageous adaptations to our bodies that have not occurred (see argument from poor design for examples of this - perhaps the silliest is the recurrent laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, which is about 15 feet longer than it needs to be). It is also not clear that heterosexuality is evolutionarily advantageous. We have very little understanding of how our brain (and other organs) picks suitable sexual partners, but there is presumably a cost associated with this. If this were higher than the cost of sometimes mating with people (or other animals or objects...) we can't reproduce with, then there would be no reason for us to be reliably attracted to members of the opposite sex of our own species. In gregarious species, sex also facilitates bonding, and kin selection means that an individual can help to pass on their genes without reproducing themselves. So I don't really see why homosexuality needs explaining any more than heterosexuality does - presumably, once we understand one, we will understand the other. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there were no heterosexual behavior, there would be no human species. This is not enough to explain it in detail, but it's plenty for an executive summary. There is no such quick explanation for homosexual behavior. Yes, there are lots and lots of other things that come into the picture, but it's ludicrous to ignore this one big point, the first and most obvious one. People who weasel around it are letting their politics influence their scientific descriptions. --Trovatore (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, what the fuck are you talking about, really? --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I am talking about is that homosexuality is not, of itself, a distinct state of being that necessarily has a cause. Human sexual behavior is a continuum of behaviors, and there is not anything distinct or special about same-sex sexual behavior per se that has a unique and distinct "cause". How we treat the issue, and the language we use when asking questions like this, matters, because the way we think about the issue colors how we treat people. When homosexuality is treated as the sort of thing that needs special explanation, as something which is not a trivial matter, that leads to the path of treating homosexuals poorly. That doesn't mean that human sexual behaviors and preferences don't have antecedants, but it is still important not to make normative judgements on which behaviors are treated as different. --Jayron32 21:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for not looking at homosexuality is that the article is massively long, and the table of content doesn't seem to have any headers leading to the sought explanation. It seems to focus on society's view of and reaction to homosexuality in a historic perspective instead. I would recommend starting by looking at Sexual orientation#Biology and the following sections and linked main articles. V85 (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The table of contents does have such a header - "Etiology". Unfortunately, I hadn't heard of that word before 5 minutes ago (it means the study of causes, apparently), and I expect the OP had the same problem. I'm going to change that header to "Cause". Any assistance defending myself against the inevitable accusations that I'm making some sort of moral judgement by using a word that people have actually heard of would be greatly appreciated! --Tango (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't ever heard of Etiological myths?

-- AnonMoos (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be surprised if that obscure term "etiology" was chosen precisely because it's obscure. "Cause" looks to be a "loaded" term. "Etiology", even if it's a fancy-schmancy way of saying "cause", doesn't carry the same political impact, or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone had any doubts regarding what I said earlier about attempts to answer the question getting drowned out, I hope they are now resolved! --Tango (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 April 14#what makes someone gay? Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest recorded drunk

Who was the earliest recorded alcoholic? LANTZY ^TALK 20:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone being drunk does not mean the same thing as someone being alcoholic. Which are you asking about? --Dweller (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between "drunk" as an adjective (as you used it) and "drunk" as a noun (as Lantzy used it). As a noun, it is roughly synonymous with "alcoholic". I doubt you'll find a useful answer to the question, though. There will inevitably have been alcoholics ever since humans started making alcohol, which goes back to before recorded history. The first specific individual that someone happened to write something down about that happens to have survived to the present day is just a matter of coincidences. --Tango (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are parts of the Bible discussing drunkenness, which indicates a phenomenon well-established by Biblical times. And W.C. Fields once said, "In the Middle Ages, drunkenness was so common it went unnoticed." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There might conceivably have been alcoholics even before humans started making alcohol, if the Drunken monkey hypothesis is correct. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noah, of course. --ColinFine (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my version of English, as a noun, "drunk" is NOT roughly synonymous with "alcoholic". I still think the question needs clarification. HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If one newspaper takes a photo on behalf of another newspaper, with different owners, does the publishing newspaper own the copyright, or the creating newspaper? This image is from ~~1946-1952~~ 1951 range, Canada. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What image? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the exact contractual agreements between the newspapers. Why would one newspaper take a photo on behalf of another, anyway? I can imagine them taking a photo for themselves and then licensing it to another newspaper to use as well (in which case, the first newspaper would normally keep the copyright). Can you give us some more details? --Tango (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typically the originating newspaper retains the copyright, and the receiving newspaper gives credit in print to the source. (That is the way it was done with every newspaper I worked at.) → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 23:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Tango: Small newspapers often contract with others to cover distant stories when they cannot afford to travel to them. For example, a few years ago, my newspaper in Pennsylvania contracted with a publication in Newfoundland when a local person was on trial up there. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 23:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ECs) Well, photographs strictly are taken by photographers, not newspapers. Speaking very generally (and copyright is a complex subject, where applicable laws differ from place to place and over time) the person who takes a photograph is usually the copyright holder – but they can assign (usually for money) their copyright to another individual or an organisation, who can in turn do the same. However, if an individual is specifically employed by another or by an organisation such as a newspaper, ad agency, photo agency or picture library to take photographs, their contract of employment may specify that the copyright will belong to the employer from the outset. It depends entirely, therefore, on what specific legal contracts or sales were made with regard to the photograph in question. Usually, though not always, a photograph published in a print medium (book, magazine, newspaper) will have its copyright holder indicated, sometimes in tiny print alongside one edge, sometimes in an index elsewhere in the publication. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.109 (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"the normal human sexual continuum"

Why do so many people nowadays assume that there's a "normal" human sexual continuum that includes heterosexuality, the supposed different degrees of bisexuality and homosexuality, thereby arbitrarily labeling as abnormal the endless other paraphilias such as zoophilia, necrophilia, coprophilia, efebophilia...? --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by saying the 'supposed' different degrees of bisexuality and homosexuality (don't you think they exist?) and 'other paraphilias' (I don't think heterosexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality are usually described as paraphilias)? As paraphilia points out, some kinds of sexuality are considered to be harmful or to cause distress, but I guess what you are alluding to is social norms - all societies have behaviours that are considered 'normal' and others that are viewed with suspicion. I'm not sure there is really a good explanation as to why this is. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since Broadside raised the issue of what "causes" sexual orientation, it would be interesting to know what the "cause" might be of these various "paraphilia" as well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it lends itself to nifty diagrams? AnonMoos (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 1

How to institute a mandatory fiduciary duty to support macroeconomic growth?

Most U.S. economists know that returning to the high effective corporate tax rates of more prosperous times would cause companies to invest in labor and production, creating consumer demand and growth, instead of paying the less risky small tax of recent decades to bank their record profits, which leads to stagnation and widespread unemployment.

The problem is that raising corporate taxes is politically unpalatable to those with the most money (corporate officers) so with their powerful lobby virtually nobody knows about the macroeconomic effect of all corporations facing the same decision to either spend to hire and produce, or bank their profits. But that is the whole reason companies are charged "income" taxes on profits instead of receipts, so they can dodge taxes by growing. And it's how the U.S. paid off the World War II debt, which was three times today's relative to GDP -- by growing instead of running a surplus.

The way to solve this is to institute a mandatory corporate fiduciary duty to seek prosperous economic conditions, including advocacy of effective corporate income tax rates which make hoarding profits idle cost more than labor, production, and growth. How do we achieve that? 71.212.251.217 (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]