Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

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.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

June 18

Alternative voting system

Which country currently uses alternative voting system and is there a sample from the last election that took place in that country that used that system? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.19.124 (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I was tempted to ask "alternative to what?", but on a jackofozian caprice I plugged in alternative voting system and it redirected me to Instant-runoff voting. If that's what you're interested in, the details you're after should be there, or links to where they can be found. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the term "alternative vote" is the Britishism for the Australian "preferential ballot." Australia uses the preferential ballot for its lower house, the House of Representatives. Voting data is available down to the booth level from the Australian Electoral Commission's website. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Down to booth level is really good data. I thought France was good, having found the results to commune level on newspapers' websites by 10pm BST yesterday. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Full preference distributed booth data is available sometime after the election but before that parliament convenes. Booth data for "First Preferences" is available on the night, most psephologists can use booth level predictive simulations of preference flows to predict the electoral outcome of the lower house on the night. My favourite psephologist for this is Antony Green who predicted a hung parliament in 2010 on the night…he started looking cagey around 7.15 (75 minutes after polls closed in NSW), and refused to give expected national results all night—normally Green can tell you the result by 8pm. The upper house takes weeks to resolve due to sheer number of votes to count and the complexity of the count (image of actual ballot paper). Usually before parliament sits the "wonks" have done analysis on which demographics have changed their voting pattern based on booth and seat demographic alignment. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

NZ also publishes polling place level data [1]e.g. [2] except IIRC when the polling place has less then 6 voters (to preserve anonymity). However we use mixed member proportionality. I'm not sure when it becomes available. Some of our local council elections use single transferable vote (i.e. multiple winners) but I don't believe instant run-off (single winner) is used anywhere although I'm not sure. (Unlike in Australia, a STV vote it still valid even if you don't rank all possible candidates.) But local elections are by postal ballot. Edit: Guess I should have checked out the article which confirms instant-runoff is used in some councils. I believe the councils were given the option of choosing IRV/STV or FPP a while back but I'm not sure of the details. Nil Einne (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The Libertarian Party (US) uses it. It seems most equitable. μηδείς (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

There are some failures—in terms of seat design, geographically dispersed but politically coherent voting blocs tend to be underrepresented, where as geographically coherent voting blocs tend to be overrepresented. In Australia this was viewed as a "good thing" in order to assist the rurally based anti-Labor "Country Party" (now called the Nationals). Currently this distorts the Green vote significantly, which is geographically dispersed but politically coherent. Australia seeks to redress this by suppling a second house, based on states as single multimember electorates, with single transferrable vote multimember proportional representation. Admittedly, with 6 seats per state per half-senate election, and with the Greens achieving 10% votes at the moment, the final two senate seats per state are quite interesting to observe as examples of vote transfer flows. A significant body of Australian voters follow Party advice on preference order, but a significant body rejects Party advice. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The single transferable vote, a similar system, is used in Cambridge,_MA#City_government. Paul (Stansifer) 20:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to add to that, STV is equivalent to AV/IRV/whatever when only one candidate is to be elected. Several countries use STV and this situation can occur, for example, in by-elections, or in particularly small electoral districts. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Query on term for intentional celibacy philosophy adopted by scientists during The Enlightment/Scientific Revolution

Hello,

Hopefully you can help me. I'm a writer doing research for a script. During a story discussion with another writer, he'd recollected something he'd read about a type of philosophy/belief set down during the Enlightenment, specifically in the Scientific Revolution. It was a belief that adopting a life of celibacy contributed to scientific abilities/progress in the field. He couldn't place the term, nor the original author of the time. I started research, using Google, which led me here to Wikipedia, and specifically your article on the scientist/inventor Nikola Tesla. In it I found some reference to his being celibate. It didn't state his motivation, though. The only other lead in the article I could find was a reference to a time of his life when he was influenced by the Vidi philosophy (Hindu). Thinking this might lead somewhere, I followed the link to this article. I did find some useful information (brahmacharya--taking vows of celibacy for spiritual reasons; believing sex and focus on these type of relationships only can lead to materialism). This isn't quite what I'm looking for. When I went back with this information, my writer friend said this wasn't the term. What we're looking for is intentional celibacy motivated by scientific reason, not spiritual.

This search has produced little fruit and is becoming increasingly frustrating. The closest/best answer I can come up with on my own is 'sexual sublimation', hypothesised by Freud. The definition: "To divert the energy (sexual or other biological impulse) from it's immediate goal to one of a higher social, moral, or aesthetic nature or use; to make nobler or purer." I'm not sure if this is it, either. According to my colleague, this belief was set down in the Enlightenment, which was in the 18th century. Freud came up with this a century later. And now that I think of it, Tesla lived in Freud's time, as well. Did the Enlightenment extend into the 1800's?

So my question is, would anyone happen to know anything about this philosophy? Again, not spiritually motivated. And the Freud sublimation reasoning, I'm not sure about either. From what I can understand of that, the term came about because of the more rigid beliefs about sex during that time. Sex was something taboo/not openly discussed, nor expressed. So it was felt that sublimation would take care of the problem of improper sexual urges. It would benefit society more if the sexual energy of the libido were instead transferred to endeavors that would better benefit society, such as in art or the sciences. I'm unsure if this is the motivator my friend was talking about. In ways it makes sense to the objective of the character I'm writing, who is a retired physics professor. But I just can't get past the reasoning. My writer friend suggested that the practice was believed to help scientists in their abilities. It was not spiritual in nature, to avoid materialism. And it's not quite the Freud sublimation term either, because that just suggests transferring energy that was felt to be improper. I believe the philosophy I'm searching for is a celibacy motivated by the belief that it ENHANCED the scientists abilities. According to your article, this was exactly what Tesla believed/what motivated him. But it didn't state what Tesla attributed this to/a specific term. My question is, if there was a term for this, what was it?

Thank you so much for any help you can provide! Kim KrauseKkrause26 (talk) 04:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla was notably eccentric, and may have suffered from OCD. I imagine he held a number of highly unusual beliefs. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hm, perhaps your friend was thinking of Francis Bacons New Atlantis? The inhabitants of his scientific utopia Bensalem are apparently very chaste, though as far as I recall I don't think they are completely celibate. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You might compare the celibacy of Isaac Newton and Temple Grandin. Note also the latter's autism and the suggestion that Newton had Asperger's. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The idea that celibacy would have not only moral enhancements but also physical and mental ones has been variously popular throughout many eras. Certainly there were those in the 17th century who thought this (e.g. Newton); there were those in the 19th century as well. The idea that seminal fluid was "vitalizing" had a lot of play in the 19th century; the work of Charles-Édouard Brown-Séquard was particularly influential. I doubt the 17th century folks thought of it in quite the same terms — it seems rather clear that Newton considered it a moral issue, not a physiological one. I don't think there's a single, well-known term for this set of beliefs, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

That idea is the ancient Chinese concept of qi, and it was rediscovered by Europeans in the C18. I don't have a good reference for that though and would be interested in one. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's simply a rationalization for a pre-existing organic condition or personality quirk. Not that one could complain at the contributions such people make. μηδείς (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently it is still common belief in modern American tv (although TV Tropes doesn't say anything about it). Most notably with the Seinfeld episode "The Abstinence", where George Costanza becomes a genius on account of sexual abstinence, while Seinfeld on the other hand becomes a moron. The same theme is sometimes being mentioned in the sitcom The Big Bang Theory. I am sure there are other examples. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Native Hawaiian or Native American

Look at these two pictures: boy and girl and these pictures: other boy and other girl. Do they look Native Hawaiian or Native American? Does the two girls look the same except in different clothing or are the two different girls? Don't judge by textual evidence. Now after that did the photographer, as listed on the Smithsonian, Henry Wetherbee Henshaw ever went to Hawaii?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

They all look Native Hawaiian to me and I believe they are two different girls. I'm sorry but I haven't a clue whether the photographer went to Hawaii after taking the photos.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

All except the "other girl" look very Polynesian (I won't say "Hawaiian" if I'm ignoring textual evidence), and they're definitely two different girls. FiggyBee (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"In December of 1894, due to failing health, Henry resigned from the Bureau and moved to the Hawaiian Islands to regain his strength. There he became known as a photographer capturing many valuable images such as the native costumes, houses, and other hard to reproduce negatives."[3] He also wrote this book at that time. FiggyBee (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Why do names of fictional characters get censored in some fictional stories?

An example from a 19th century horror story I just finished reading, 'The House and the Brain' by Edward Bulwer-Lytton:

"The house is haunted; and the old woman who kept it was found dead

in her bed, with her eyes wide open. They say the devil strangled

her."

"Pooh! You speak of Mr. J----. Is he the owner of the house?"

"Yes."

"Where does he live?"

"In G---- Street, No. --."

"What is he? In any business?"

"No, sir,--nothing particular; a single gentleman."

I gave the potboy the gratuity earned by his liberal information,

and proceeded to Mr. J---- , in G---- Street, which was close by

the street that boasted the haunted house. I was lucky enough to

find Mr. J---- at home,--an elderly man with intelligent

countenance and prepossessing manners.

It also goes on to blot out names of other characters in the story, such as the narrator's servant and a traveler he meets at a gentleman's club. I'm guessing this was for legal reasons (similar to the standard "purely coincidental" disclaimer you see written in the fine print within books and movies today), but is my assumption really 100% correct? I've also come across this phenomenon in other stories whose titles I can not recall, but I have mostly seen this in fiction written around the same era as this story (although I think I may have also seen this name-mangling pop up in a couple of short stories by Asimov from the 1950s -- but it has been a long time, thus I may be remembering incorrectly).

Oddly enough, later in the same story, a character by the name of "Mr. Richards" is explicitly introduced, with his name not blanked-out. This inconsistency is why I have doubts. --66.235.32.3 (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It is hardly for legal reasons, but were a common trick for writers at the time to convey a feeling of realism to the story, as in "I won't divulge the name of this character or this town, because they exist in real life" (but of course they didn't). --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec)The author is conveying a sense of reality and a sense of focus and urgency. By omitting the names, on the one hand he adopts a style that might be found in newspaper reports of real events, and as a side effect he communicates to the reader that he will not bother him or her with unnecessary detail. It has nothing to do with legal concerns, but is a literary device. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Reinforcing the above editors, they censored Mr. S————'s name for the same reason that fictive television blurs characters' faces, or censors words they are permitted to broadcast: an appearance of verisimilitude by mimicking artefacts of media that claim to present fact. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I always thought that it was the result of the author 'not bothering' finding a name for a minor character who would not appear again. Kafka uses this in some of his novels, at least in 'The Castle', and Dostoyevsky also does it in Crime and Punishment. I believe (can't remember) that in both cases it's done with characters who appear once, and are never heard of again. Why insult all the people who share a last name, when a simple initial can do the trick? V85 (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not from laziness. Stephan Schultz's answer is correct. It is an attempt to imply (or reference others who imply) that the characters and locations are real. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

So, clearly, that strategy didn't work on me, since the characters seemed less real, than had they been given actual names. :-) V85 (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

True, but (and I'm probably labouring the obvious here) the stories were written for readers of their era used to that convention, not to someone from a different culture far in the future. "The past is another country. They do things differently there." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.109 (talk)

I just saw this in a China Miéville short story, which surprised me because I thought that that practice had died out. Supporting what folks have said above, it was the only story in the collection in which the narrator was a London-based author named "China Miéville". Paul (Stansifer) 19:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd bet good money that China is, in that story, deliberately evoking the feel of the period when the practice was common, and aiming it at a readership familiar with the practice from reading stories from the period. The New Weird movement of which he is a prominent member builds on Steampunk and plays with Penny dreadful and Gothic fiction sensibilities, so cannot be fully appreciated without a familiarity with original Victorian-era (and earlier) stylistics. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.109 (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

In a related topic, it was once fashionable to write dates in a similar manner, as in "September 1, 197-" or "January 4, 19--". Is there a general name for this literary device? I'm surprised there's no article... Matt Deres (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If done to mimic media reporting, it is an attempt at creating verisimilitude. Syntactically it is a form of ellipsis, and the punctuation used is the em dash. FiggyBee (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

You see the same thing in other countries, too. In Russian, it was a very common device to use N (Cyrillic letter H) to replace a surname or, more typically, a given name/patronymic. The N stood for "nobody" (никто). Anton Chekhov used it a bit. When Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov first adopted the nom-de-guerre "Lenin", it often appeared as "N. Lenin". He himself signed some of his pre-revolutionary articles this way, and 100% of Russian readers of those articles understood the code, viz. a bare N signified that what came after the N was a pseudonym. If a person's true name was ever shortened to initials, both the given name and patronymic were initialised. For example, Russians sometimes refer to Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky as "P. I. Tchaikovsky", never as just "P. Tchaikovsky". Unfortunately, some Western reporters assumed "N. Lenin" indicated his first name was Nikolai, and reputable Western reference books for years proclaimed his correct name as "Nikolai Lenin", which he never used ever in his life. It was originally just the one-word name "Lenin", but that later became his surname, and his original forenames Vladimir Ilyich were reattached to it. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Letters of Marque

I would like to know if there is any location archiving Letters of Marque issued in Britain, specifically the Elizabethan era, where it is and if they permit access to their records.86.161.81.212 (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I suggest the first port of call is the National Archives at Kew. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You might also get a steer from the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.109 (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Carl Sagan and sekded-ef em khetkhet

On page 39 of his work Cosmos,[4] the astronomer Carl Sagan made reference to an ancient Egyptian phrase sekded-ef em khetkhet, or "who travels backwards". It is apparently used as an epithet for Mars, describing the planet in terms of its occasional retrograde motion at opposition. There are a few other books that make reference to this, but I can't find a published paper about it. I would like to track down the original scholarly source for this phrase. Does anybody have a good suggestion? Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The earliest reference I could find in English was R. A. Parker, "Ancient Egyptian Astronomy," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A 276, no. 1257, (1974), 51-65. It is not referenced specifically (very little is referenced specifically in the article). --Mr.98 (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I would just point out that it's apparent retrograde motion (rather than actual retrograde motion), and it's exhibited by all the planets, not only Mars.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

That's true of course, but kind of irrelevant to the question. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks like this comes from the astronomical paintings on the ceiling of the burial chamber ("Hall K") of KV17 (Seti I's tomb). A detailed description of the ceiling, with citations, starts here (see "Column 26" for the description of Mars).---Cam (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you, Cam, and you too Mr.98. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

other olympic events

apparently some of the earlier olympic gameses used to include non-sporting events, mostly artistic in nature I think, but having searched around a bit, I can find no mention of these. Did this actually happen, and if so, can anyone direct me towards a list of these events?

79.66.102.253 (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe you're right but I'll leave it to others to provide the links. Meanwhile, here is the Cultural Olympiad. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Our article on Olympic sports lists all current, discontinued, and demonstration sports. I don't see "artistic in nature" (by which I assume you mean painting, etc) events on the list, but I note that there may be some confusion due to things like "Artistic" as a subclassification of gymnastics. There are, certainly, things that might seem odd to the modern Olympic audience such as tug-of-war on the list. — Lomn 21:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You are thinking of Art competitions at the Summer Olympics.--Cam (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're absolutely right; there were medals awarded in architecture, literature, music, painting and sculpture at the Summer Olympics of 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928 1932, 1936 and 1948. We have an article that details the history of the art competitions at Art competitions at the Olympic Games. Interestingly, the reason for ending the competitions after 1948 was not a lack of interest, but the fact that the artists entering were overwhelmingly professionals, as opposed to the athletes who were [supposed to be] amateurs - professionalism was seen to be against the Olympic spirit. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

That sequence of Games, btw, may look like it has gaps, but they correspond to the Games that were cancelled due to global wars. In fact, all the Games that were held between 1912 and 1948 had these art competitions. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

There was an Olympic Arts Festival in association with the 1984 Olympics. There isn't much there, but see 1984_Summer_Olympics#Arts_Festival. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

There generally is today. I attended a classical music concert at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta that was in some performing arts center or other. However, I don't believe medals are awarded today. It's more "held in conjunction with" than "part of". And I'd be willing to bet that the elimination for the reason Cucumber Mike says was at the instigation of Avery Brundage who was both a purist on amateurism, and an art collector of note.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

J. Abrial

Who was J. Abrial? The only thing I know is he was an artist of some kind in the 1840s but I can't find anything about him. Also in old engravings/lithographs what did dibt on the left mean and the place name and lith de. [different name] on the right of the image mean.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

He was an artist of some kind in the 1840s, and I doubt there's much more to find. "lith de." means "lithograph of" and is followed by the name and address of the printer/publisher. FiggyBee (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it's José María Avrial y Flores (1807-1891). He did lithographs and his name was sometimes spelled Abrial. Here is one reference, others can be found by Googling his full name.--Cam (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The "lo dib." after his name is short for "lo dibujó" which means "[he] drew it."--Cam (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

June 19

Purpose of Purge of the Red Army in 1941?

What was the contemporary purpose of the Purge of the Red Army in 1941? The article doesn't say. The Masked Booby (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Purges are performed when those in power perceive a potential threat to their authority, whether real or imagined. Also, as alluded to in our article, they can blame defeats on "traitors", then execute them, so they can't tell the real reasons (incompetent leadership from those in power). StuRat (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Milovan Ðilas, amongst others, provides a generalised analysis of purges as being an element of necessarily self-discipline amongst the nomenklatura in order to place the survival of the class ahead of the survival of any specific members in an urgent battle for production. As Ðilas himself notes, this isn't necessarily bloody. Same with the studies of technical specialist purges in the 1930s at local levels. In the case of the 1941 Airforce purge, it looks to be a combination of internal power struggle within the nomenklatura combined with demonstrative executions for economic failure. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A number of military-minded commentators have pointed out that the purges of the military from the Tukhachevsky trial (1937) to the German invasion were militarily rather counterproductive, since they eliminated many of the most able commanders, and people who had forward-looking ideas on issues such as the use of tanks in concentrated formations etc., and replaced them with people who were often afraid to take any initiative on their own without direct orders from Moscow, and who were more concerned with keeping their heads down and not rocking the boat than advocating for improvements in the Soviet military system. Stalin had a very poor record when it came to military planning (which was always subordinated to political factors and his personal whims). AnonMoos (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and this accounts for the Soviet Union's defeats early after Germany invaded. However, to his credit, Stalin soon realized the importance of letting good commanders make their own decisions, since the Soviet Union could collapse and he could have been executed by the Nazis if he kept going the way he had. However, he continued to interfere in wars on fronts which were not as critical, such as in the Continuation War, where Finland was able to hold back Soviet forces. StuRat (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Can an action have a purpose that's not contemporary? —Tamfang (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it true that France has less alcohol related problems than USA does?

In terms of drinking and driving, diseases related to alcohol and such. ScienceApe (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

In past decades, many claimed that the pattern of allowing children small sips of wine under parental supervision resulted in overall healthier attitudes towards drinking in young adults than the pattern of teenagers first indulging in alcohol furtively and illegally. More recently, there have been counter-claims that there's not a big difference in the end results. I don't know which is true... AnonMoos (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Anecdotally I can tell you that at the University I attended in the US, at least one freshman a year would die of alcohol poisoning. Yet even though the drinking age was 21 in my state, in high school we had the choice of Spain, France or the German speaking states to visit as 17 or 18 year olds for our senior trip. Parents were advised we would have access to alcohol and signed a waiver. None objected. We were largely Catholics who could drink in moderation at home on holidays. No one got drunk enough to cause an incident. My first drink was at 12 y/o and it put me to sleep in the backseat on the ride home. Usually the college kids who died did so their first time drinking. See http://www.hopenetworks.org/addiction/alcohol/Overdose_Deaths/List_of_Lost_Youth_Alcohol.htm μηδείς (talk) 06:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This is one of the downsides of the US drinking age, and how it's enforced, that I've had personal experience with. I've known young people in the USA who've become dangerously ill from binge drinking, but who refused to seek assistance because they were afraid of being arrested. FiggyBee (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

According to Alcoholism, starting younger increases the risk. It's important to realize that alcoholism is basically an addiction, but not universally so. It's like some significant percentage of the public has one or more components in their physiology and/or psychology which will make them more vulnerable to this addiction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the way the French drink alcohol (a bottle of wine with a meal) is healthier than in the US, where binge drinking is common. I get the impression that the French don't usually drink to get drunk, while Americans frequently do. Note, however, that some other nations are even worse in this respect. Russia comes to mind (does anybody drink vodka for the taste ?). StuRat (talk) 07:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I drink English vodka (Chase or Sipsmith, not Vladivar or Blavod!) for the taste. A good Russian vodka can make a serviceable cocktail, even a mostly-vodka one like a Vodka Martini - I recommend Stolichnaya.

But yes - the US does not seem to be the worst in this respect, but my own perception/experience is that the taboo about drinking, and the high minimum age, has been counter-productive. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Does vodka actually have a taste, other than that of alcohol itself? I find myself a little mystified at what people will pay for a premium vodka. If you just mixed absolute ethanol with distilled water, wouldn't that be pretty much the perfect vodka? Is this a case of five hundred still frames of Joe Biden eating a sandwich? --Trovatore (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Not all vodkas are colourless and unflavoured: many, like similar drinks from other cultures, are flavoured with fruits or other adjuncts – imported Pepper vodka had a vogue in the UK a few years ago. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

(Oh, just a note in case anyone thinks, "Hey, there's a good idea!". Supposedly, lab grade absolute ethanol may contain traces of cancer-causing benzene.) --Trovatore (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Because vodka is required to be highly purified, the impurities that remain are highly detectable. My preferred sipping vodkas have faint sugary notes - presumably from the breakdown of the starch in the original brewing process. All vodkas taste quite astringent; the ones I wouldn't drink neat also have a bitter undernote. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know much about vodka; it may be the case that exactly the right trace impurities make for a superior drink, and that is difficult to achieve. I certainly don't agree with the premise of five hundred still frames of Joe Biden eating a sandwich with regard to wine, however. Cheap wine is cheap for a reason, and that reason is usually that it tastes like cat piss or boot polish. You don't need to be a snob or a connoisseur to recognise that some things taste horrible. FiggyBee (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comprehensive WHO figures for all countries in Europe are [5] and for the Americas [6]. The simple answer is that it depends which statistics you look at. Alcohol consumption has fallen steeply in France but is still above the level in the USA, where consumption is stable. France still has more deaths from cirrhosis of the liver. The USA has more people who abstain from alcohol, but in the USA a greater proportion of those who drink are "heavy episodic drinkers". I haven't done the calculation but it seems that more of the general population are "heavy episodic drinkers" in France. "Le binge drinking" among young people has recently been identified as a serious problem in France, leading to a ban on supermarket alcohol sales to under 18s. This followed a wave of "apéros géants", big town centre drinking parties, advertised on Facebook, and corresponding press coverage. But an international survey of young people showed that French teenagers were consuming less alcohol than before, using more cannabis than before, and less alcohol, more cannabis than in most other European countries. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A lot of young Australians also drink with the intention of getting smashed off their faces. Just going out, having a good time, meeting some new faces, hearing some cool music, having a few drinks - but still being in a reasonably coherent state at the end of the night, seems to be too boring an idea for them to contemplate. If they don't end up at least throwing up, they think they've wasted their evening. Weird. Imagine if people at restaurants ate and ate until they vomited. What's so bad about their lives that they have to regularly obliterate all memory of it? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

As an adolescent of Newcastle in the 1990s, I can give you a list of what's so bad. I think mass teen alcoholism in Australia is a rational response. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Bring back the six o'clock swill. FiggyBee (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow. That's just further proof to this mature aged Australian that Wikipedia Has An Article On Everything! . HiLo48 (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This area fascinates me. It seems that everyone with a prejudice can find scientific research to back up their position, whatever it is, and everyone has their own story to tell, about themselves, someone they know, or their own, now grown up children. So I'll give my own view, without bothering to claim there's any science behind it, just my own observations and common sense. ;-) If kids grow up in families where alcohol is used sensibly, and have alcohol available in small quantities from a young age, it generally leads to a healthy attitude to alcohol in adulthood. If they grow up where alcohol is banned until some arbitrary age, and then join a group where alcohol consumption is common, they will tend to overdo it. HiLo48 (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I think there's another factor as well, which is the social meaning of alcohol and its consumption, which also varies between societies. Kate Fox, in her Watching the English: the hidden rules of English behaviour, says (p. 261 in the Hodder & Stoughton hardback) "The experiments show that when people think they are drinking alcohol, they behave according to their cultural beliefs about the behavioural effects of alcohol" (but annoyingly doesn't give any references). This means that in 'Nordic' or 'temperance' cultures (including much of the US as well as the UK), the social ill-effects of alcohol tend to be much greater than in 'Mediterranean' cultures. This doesn't say anything about the prevalence of alcohol-related effects on the health of individuals, though. --ColinFine (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, you left out the third option: kids who grow up in families where alcohol is abused (one or more non-recovering alcoholic parents). In my case, the result was someone who grew up avoiding alcohol like the plague and who still refuses to touch a drop (except for Communion wine) because he hates not only the taste but also the short- and long-term effects it has on individuals and society. But other people who grew up around heavy-drinking parents become moderate social drinkers as adults (e.g. my sisters), while others still become alcohol abusers themselves. Pais (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are many possible pathways. I'm glad you survived yours :-) HiLo48 (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven’t found any research done on this (and I've looked) yet on my travels I've noticed that it is predominately those who drink modern fast fermented lager beers that suffer the most problems. Even taking into account that in years gone by when 'weaker' beer that was drunk by the gallon because it was safer that well water, it doesn’t account for the effect the chemical larger beer has on people nor the physical damage done to their organs. --Aspro (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Italians

Is it true that amongst Europeans, Italians are sometimes known as "the Chinese people of Europe" because of low morals and high corruption? I've never had of that phrase before, and I'm wondering if it's a commonly known stereotype. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Given that you've never heard it before, where did you hear it this time? It seems to be one of those clever(?) expressions that manages to insult two ethnic groups at once. Ugly. HiLo48 (talk) 09:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I heard it from a Chinese history teacher discussing Italy. He's well-educated and knows a lot about Europe, which is why I suspect it might have some basis, even though I haven't been able to find other references to it. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Is that a person who is Chinese, or a non-Chinese person teaching Chinese history? HiLo48 (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The first thing that came to my mind is the Irish being the Niggers of Europe, an expression not meant to insult either group. As to "Italians being the Chinese people of Europe", I don't know if "low morals and high corruption" would be the first thing to come to most European's minds about either the Italians or the Chinese, so as a racist allusion it does rather lack comprehensibility. FiggyBee (talk) 09:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the Chinese, but it's a common enough stereotype of the Italians (normally referenced in discussions about Silvio Berlusconi and his apparently much higher approval in Italy than elsewhere). The Chinese government may be percieved as having low morals and high corruption, but I haven't heard the same applied to the Chinese people as a whole. --Tango (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Google certainly doesn't throw up evidence: the British, French and Dutch are all described on a very small number of websites as the "Chinese of Europe"/"Chinese people of Europe". The Dutch for their trading expertise, but no idea about the other two. Generally "the Chinese people of Europe" refers to people of Chinese origin living in Europe. (One site says Basque language is the Chinese of Europe.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This is just the latest of a series of questions from 140.180.5.169 (talk · contribs) whose purpose at least appears to be to foment arguments. 10:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I've asked exactly 2 questions before this one: one about animal sexuality, and the other about how adults perceive the world differently from children. That's hardly a "series" of questions, and the second is not even remotely likely to cause an argument. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

So you didn't ask the loaded question about Muslims? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't ask any question relating to Muslims. I respectfully ask you to recheck my contributions and apologize here for your mistake. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you're right, it was a registered user that asked that question, and you merely provided some evidence. Meanwhle, you should answer HiLo's question, immediately below. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

(Please note that the IP got the same question before, in this thread, and also answered it above; thirteen minutes before your latest posted message, @carrots! The answer is not a very `reliable source', of course; and that teacher might have been joking, anyhow.) JoergenB (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

But where did you hear this? HiLo48 (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware of such an expression being used in Europe. However, according to this book, the designation (among North Americans) had to do with skin color of immigrants:

"Italians were called 'the Chinese of Europe', (...) Chinese and Italians 'occupied an ambiguous, overlapping and intermediary position in the binary racial schema'. Neither black nor white, both were seen as in-between, or 'yellow', 'olive' or 'swarty'." - Lindert (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on what time period you're talking about. Currently, I do not think that comparison would find many takers, since the Italians are perceived to be a bit more lazy (low morals) and have high corruption, whereas the Chinese culture frequently is portrayed as purveying high moral standards. E.g. the Chinese focus on education, 'Tiger mums' and the alike. However, as Lindert states above, it might be a statement from the 19th century comparing two ethnic groups that were not too highly regarded. As HiLo48 said initially, this seems to be one of those statements that probably wouldn't stand up to scrutiny, but is merely based on stereotypes of both groups. V85 (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice that in the book Lindert quotes it was actually North Americans using the term. It is unlikely to have been Europeans since Europe (possibly with the exception of the UK) never had any large number Chinese immigrants until the end of the 20th century, and even then it is very low numbers as compared to the US. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

reaction to new apple product

Hi,

This is kind of out of the purview of the reference desk demographic, but I'm curious what the "hipster demographic" 's reaction was to the new Macbook Pro with Retina Display? Do the "hipsters" still care about Apple now that the old man has passed away? Sorry if this is a difficult question to interpreter, it's really a marketing question / what's cool for artsy-types.

thanks

Juan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.85.231 (talk) 10:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The hipster is not reputed to favor low resolution displays. As an artsy type I would still favor a high resolution display even though Steve Jobs has passed away. Bus stop (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm specifically asking about that demographic, thanks. I also love the announced computer (though I can't afford it now). But I'm asking about a different demographic, which I don't belong to. --78.92.85.231 (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not a hipster (otherwise I wouldn't hang out on the Wikipedia reference desk, haha), but I would suggest that hipsters do indeed still care about Apple. Their devotion to the brand is so great that it is unlikely to be swayed by Jobs no longer being around. Jobs' whole philosophy permeates the company so his death has not had, and will not have, any significant impact on its future strategy and image. As for the MBP with retina display, I would say hipsters would love it. --Viennese Waltz 10:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, I know they don't belong here. I'm asking about them however. Could you give me any evidence that led you to this conclusion? Or is it a guess? --78.92.85.231 (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know what a "hipster" is, but the only two reason why this old school UNIX hacker hasn't ordered it yet are a) I have a unibody MacBook Pro, and it already is a very very good notebook, and b) I like to wait until the initial wrinkles of new technology have been ironed out. Reasons why I want it: Excellent form factor, robust, enough performance to make the NSA nervous, good battery life, ohmygofhaveyouseenthedisplayofthatthing? Things I'm less happy with: Incompatible MagSafe2, no optical drive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Stephen, I'm asking a marketing/demographics question. You might as well tell me what uses you may or may not have for a tampon. I'm not asking about you, but about a different group of people/demographic. 78.92.85.231 (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Spectacular way to make sure no-one else proffers an opinion. Almost Godwinesque in its unsubtelty. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, and I support the OP's response to Stephan Schulz's post, which did not attempt to address the OP's question at all. --Viennese Waltz 14:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I should add that I am thankful for your responses as well, but really this is a marketing question and not about whether the product is good/bad for you or for me. So, an appopriate reponse might cite some forums that are used by those in the requested demographics: what do they have to say about it? Or, if you've talked to any. Thanks and sorry about being so specific, but this is what I'm really interested in. --78.92.85.231 (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is a company occupying the underdog space that Apple occupied ten years ago. Therefore the tepid competition that Apple offered ten years ago to the behemoth Microsoft is no longer an ingredient in that marketplace at all. "Hipsters" would have no product to embrace nowadays in that consumer product area if they wanted to champion the underdog. They would only be able to measure products by standard features—in the absence of the cache that might have once been associated with Apple products. Bus stop (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a platform/company occupying the "underdog space", and that company is the one behind the Raspberry Pi. It originates from the BBC Micro and the thread can be traced all the way up to the Pi (and other similar boards). (Disclaimer note: I am not a geek, but my husband is an uber-geek, and runs our home network off a RISC PC when he's not running the network for our local mega-hospital. There's a Beagle board sitting in a plastic box on the lounge table as I speak. I suspect the community he belongs to corresponds to the Apple nerds.) --TammyMoet (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hipsters' liking for Apple has never been anything to do with Apple being the underdog. It's because, historically, the Mac has always been associated with creative applications such as design, music and desktop publishing. Whether it's true or not (and I believe it is), there has always been a perception that the Mac is better for those types of application than the PC. Plus, a Mac looks a whole lot cooler than a PC. --Viennese Waltz 15:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Cache has no cachet. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

From a marketing perspective, who is Apple actually targetting with the Pros? The hipster, or the boss of the hipster approving the purchases? Are you asking what the hipsters want to buy, or what the people employing 'the hipsters' want to buy? Are you sure that 'marketing' vs 'what is cool' perspectives are the same for Apple? Unilynx (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am asking what the hipsters want to buy and whether they pine for this one (even though most of them can't afford it): I'm asking about their reaction. Not interested in their boss's reaction in this question or any other demographic. Sorry about being so specific. --78.92.85.231 (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The demographic of those willing to pay a premium for stylish, high-end products is large, but not the majority. I suspect that, in the future, Apple may continue to market to those folks (who you call "hipsters"), but also go after the mainstream market more aggressively. A different brand name might be in order for their low-end products (Crabapple ?). StuRat (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Not using the term hipster to be derogatory, just specific. Not asking how much of a market it is is. I'm quite specific in that I'd like to know the reaction of this demographic and how they feel about this new product. Do they even care? (not saying this is Apple's market or anything else. Don't try to read more into my question than it contains, it really is quite specific. I'm not soapboxing here, nor do I even have a view. It's nothing related to a view or philosophy and the question is not related to where Apple gets its sales.) --78.92.85.231 (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I just did a handful of database searches on the terms "hipster," "hip," "macbook pro," "retina display," and "reaction" in various combinations, and got no relevant results. The closest thing I could find was Graham, Jefferson. "Talking Your Tech." USA Today 02 Apr 2012: Newspaper Source Plus. Web. 19 June 2012: "She totes an iPad with a Bluetooth keyboard, iPhone, iPod Touch, MacBook Pro, HTC Evo phone, Shure microphones, white WeSC headphones and a Jambox portable speaker. "Every podcaster should have at least one obnoxiously hip item that they use," she says of the headphones. "It makes me look official and a little pretentious.'" While this does not mean that hipsters do not have a reaction one way or the other to the product, or what that reaction might or might not be, it does suggest that it's something that mainstream journalists are not concerning themselves with at the moment. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

We seem to be operating on a need-to-know basis in this thread, which would be a very bad precedent for a reference desk. For those who may have read through this entire thread and still, like me, end up wondering what the hell a "hipster" is, see Hipster (contemporary subculture). -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The best thing I can give by way of evidence is this (very long) forum thread. This forum is definitely populated mostly by hipsters, and this thread shows the hipsters enthusing over new Apple product. --Viennese Waltz 19:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Some classic (pre-Retina) snark is here. 69.228.171.149 (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

English term for 'Cabinet question'

I have a political science type of question. this seemed to be the appropriate place to put it; but please inform me, if you have a better suggestion!

I've in vain sought through some en-wp articles (and some dictionaries) for the precise English term corresponding to Danish Kabinetsspørgsmål, Norwegian nn:Kabinettsspørsmål, and Swedish Kabinettsfråga; literary, this translates as 'question of cabinet'. The concept is closely related to the concepts motion of confidence' and 'motion of no confidence', but there are some important differences of nuances.

I've been wondering if the reason I haven't found the corresponding concept might be that it is particular for the Nordic monarchies. I simply do not know enough about "the Westminster system" to know if it works in precisely the same way as ours, in this respect (which I always thought). Therefore, my question is twofold:
Is there a tradition or concept of explicitly announcing certain 'material proposals' as decisive for whether the cabinet will remain, under the Westminster system? If so, what is the term (in English) for this concept?

In case there might be a true difference of systems, let me briefly describe the Scandinavian system I know, and then you Britich, Canadian, and so forth, guys may tell me whether this sounds familiar or strange:

In Denmark, Norway and Sweden, the government (i.e., the cabinet) may lose a vote of minor importance in the respective parliament now and then. This is considered to be no big deal, especially if the decisions just concern legislative details with no or little budgetary impact. Of course, if the government loses too many such votes, which separately are of minor significance, it might decide the situation untenable, and resign, and/or try to find a new parliamentary governmental solution, or (not in Norway, though, I think) demand a dissolution of the parliament. The reasons for losing votes may be that this is a minority government; and/or some of the individual members (or parties in a coalition government) may go against the government; or the question simply may be non-party-bound. (Some fifty years ago, I think that the majority of questions up for voting in the Swedish parliament were "non-partisan"; I do not know how common such motions are to-day. Of course, in such cases, the motions in general are not presented by the government, which nevertheless may have opinions about them.)

On the other hand, a decision might be so important, that the government decides that it cannot go on ruling, if it loses that vote. This is more or less automatically true for major budget decisions; but it is in general up to the prime minister or the entire cabinet to decide whether the question is important enough. If they do, the proposal is declared a 'cabinet question'. This means in practice, that the vote will have a dual function: Primarily, in the 'material matter', but secondarily (and often more importantly) as a kind of vote of confidence. Everybody knows that the government will resign if it loses. This often may cause members from the government party or parties to vote for the proposition, ot at least abstain from voting, if they are against the material proposal, but do not wish to cause a government resignation. However, in some situations, it may also induce e.g. members of the opposition to vote against a proposition they actually materially support.

If the government nevertheless loses the vote, it resigns. The parliament negotiations often leads to a new government; possibly a minority government lead by the former opposition leader. In an impossible parliamentary situation, instead, they may lead to a re-election of the parliament. The negotiations also may end in parts of or the entire government returning to power, after a compromise of some sort has been reached about the material matter, with this compromise having a majority support in the parliament.

Answers to these question would be very valuable both for iw linkage and content in the mentioned articles; whence I also would appreciate sources, if such are available. Thanks in advance, JoergenB (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Not what you asked, but. The country in which I've spent the most time that has a parliamentary system is Italy. There, this is called porre la fiducia, to "put the confidence" (that's kind of a word-for-word translation; there may be a more elegant one somewhere). In the States, of course, there's no such thing at all (a Congress's mandate continues to the next election no matter what; a President's, as long as he doesn't resign or get impeached) so I don't have much experience with it in my native language. --Trovatore (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I immediately thought of the motion of no confidence, to which you have already linked, but I suppose you're right, that is slightly different. A no confidence vote would probably cause the government to collapse, and a new election would be called. We often have cabinet shuffles, after an election for example (or a by-election), or to replace cabinet ministers who have resigned, or just to shake things up a bit. For the other situations you desrcibe, I can think of similar recent examples in Canada where there was a minority government, and the opposition parties strategically voted with the minority governing party on certain issues in order to avoid a new election (which the other parties knew they could not win at the time). But these situations are "confidence" questions, not "cabinet" questions. Perhaps "cabinet" has a different meaning in Scandinavia. In the Westminster system, a cabinet is the ministers appointed from the ruling party to lead the major ministries (foreign affairs, defense, health, etc). For you, is it just another name for the government in general? Adam Bishop (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It is clear to me that the answer is a vote of confidence. Adam's talk about cabinet reshuffle is not relevant, because I think when JoergenB says "cabinet" it means "government" in our terms. --ColinFine (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

@Trovatore, thanks a lot! Is this the matter covered in the article it:Questione di fiducia (ordinamento italiano), which I see also lacks iwlinks?

@Adam Bishop and @ColinFine: Yes, I here use "government" as synonymous with "cabinet (government)". As to whether or not the 'cabinet question' is the same as a 'vote of confidence': What is the custom in Canada as regards the cabinet losing in the parliament? Will it resign or dissolve the parliament as soon as it loses any voting in the parliament; or will it tolerate a few minor losses (as the Scandinavian governments/cabinets do)? JoergenB (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

@Trovatore, I sought for porre la confidencia in itwp; but most of the references seemed to concern regular motions of confidence (as separate issues). Of course, I'm not that good in Italian (but it cannot be that much harder than Latin, can it?:-). I think that the example most closely related to what I am seeking is an historikal item, typically enough from the time of monarchy, namely it:Camillo Benso, conte di Cavour#Il primo governo Cavour (1852-1855). If I understand the text correctly, Cavour indeed made a motion about civil marriage to a 'cabinet question' in approximately the sense supra. Is this correct? JoergenB (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, confidencia is not an Italian word. Try porre la fiducia or mettere la fiducia or inflected forms thereof (pone la fiducia, pose la fiducia, ha posto la fiducia, mette la fiducia, mise la fiducia, ha messo la fiducia). --Trovatore (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You can find lots of Google hits on "mette la fiducia". Try this article just as an example. --Trovatore (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

From Parliament of Canada: "The lower house may attempt to bring down the government by either rejecting a motion of confidence—generally initiated by a minister to reinforce the Cabinet's support in the Commons—or by passing a motion of no confidence—introduced by the opposition to display its distrust of the Cabinet. Important bills that form part of the government's agenda will usually be considered matters of confidence, as are budgets. Where a government has lost the confidence of the House of Commons, the prime minister is obliged to either resign (allowing the governor general to appoint the Leader of the Opposition to the office), or seek the dissolution of parliament and call a new general election. A precedent, however, was set in 1968, when the government of Lester B. Pearson unexpectedly lost a confidence vote but was allowed to remain in power with the mutual consent of the leaders of the other parties." 81.98.43.107 (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The closest equivalent in Westminster is, indeed, the confidence vote. That can either be an explicit motion of confidence, or it can be a vote that is conventionally considered to be a confidence vote in addition to its regular function. Those are the vote on the Queen's Speech at the beginning of a session, and votes on money bills (the definition in this context is a little different to the one in that article - any bill that involves collecting taxes is a money bill in this context). There can be other votes that are deemed to be politically equivalent to a confidence vote, in that it would be untenable for the government to continue, but there is no convention actually requiring them to resign in that case (this is all just matters of convention, as with a lot of the Westminster system, there are no explicit rules about this stuff). Another relevant term is the three line whip, which is where a party tells its members that they absolutely have to turn up and vote along party lines or they risk being thrown out of the party. There is no convention requiring a government losing a vote that they declared a three line whip on to resign, but that could easily be the result. --Tango (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Supply is a confidence motion in Westminster systems. For example, traditionally in Australia, Supply or the Budget, has been a prerogative of the lower house, the upper house agreeing to pass supply bills as a matter of course. (Failure to pass supply bills might mean, for example, rioting postmen). In the early 1970s an Australian government failed to pass a Supply motion because the upper house chose to block supply. This caused a crisis—but as the government was able to maintain its majority in the lower house, it had not been defeated in its own house on a confidence motion. The matter was settled when the Governor General (the ultimate "executive" figure) accepted another party's proposal to form government. (Whitlam dismissal) Fifelfoo (talk) 23:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

But only after he had asked the leader of that party to please make such a proposal, which occurred after he had dismissed the incumbent government. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there certainly were a variety of irregularities in terms of Australian Westminster conventions and sources of constitutional power that year. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

From the article Motion of no confidence: "Sometimes, the government will choose to declare that one of its bills is a motions of confidence." This is what a "Kabinettspørsmål" is: The government makes any vote, regardless of how trivial the topic might be, a vote of confidence, in order to coax the parliament into supporting it. Given that it is such a powerful tool, though, it would make sense to use it for something that's somewhat important. Going by the sentence in the article "Motion of no confidence", it would seem that "Kabinettspørsmål" and "Mistillitsvotum" are two terms for basically the same thing, but it depends on who initiates the vote of no confidence (government/cabinet or parliament, respectively). Another difference, at least in Norway, is that a vote of no confidence, initiated by the parliament, is institutionalised (Constitution's §15), and legally binding, whereas a vote of confidence, initiated by the government, isn't institutionalised in the same way - there are no laws laying it out. So, if the government is at the losing end of a vote of no confidence that it itself initiated, it could choose how to interpret the result. Well... 47.5% is actually 50% when rounded up... close enough!. V85 (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm an American so I don't have a lot of experience with this, but I am reasonably certain that, in English, a motion of no confidence is proposed by the opposition, not by the government. If you vote aye on a motion of no confidence, you are voting for the government to resign; I suppose it's not impossible in principle that the government itself could propose such a resolution, but plausible reasons that they would are hard to come up with.

I think this is the difference between a vote of confidence and a vote of no confidence — in the former, an aye vote is to retain the government, whereas in the latter, an aye vote is for the government to step down. I can't say I'm sure, though. I would like to see this explained better in the article, and possibly have it split into two articles (one for confidence, one for no confidence), as they seem fairly different circumstances. --Trovatore (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind, is that this is not, strictly speaking, a vote of confidence/no confidence. It is basically a threat from the government attached to a bill: If the bill doesn't pass, the government will resign. The vote of confidence is thereby indirect. A bill will be before parliament, that bill is on some issue, e.g. reducing pollution. According to the laws of the country, the only thing that the parliamentarians are voting on, will be the issue at hand, in this case pollution. However, since the government has said that it will resign if the bill doesn't pass, the vote is simultaneously a vote of confidence: a vote against the bill is also a vote of no confidence. V85 (talk) 04:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

In Australia, at least, there have been direct votes on motions of "want of confidence in the government". These are always initiated by the opposition and are almost always symbolic gestures, as the numbers on the floor of the house are extremely good predictors of the result, and if the government has the numbers, they get to stay in power as long as everyone turns up to the vote, and votes along party lines. It's only when there's a hung parliament, as we have at the moment, where the government remains in power only through the support of independents and minor parties, that there's any real prospect of such a motion ever passing. But it's not unprecedented. Back in 1940, the last time there was a hung parliament, the UAP/Country coalition government led by Robert Menzies had to resign when 2 independents switched their allegiances to the Labor Party, and John Curtin became PM. That switch wasn't actually a result of a motion of want of confidence in the government, but it easily could have been. In fact, it happened when they chose to vote against a budget measure involving a triflingly small amount of money. See, principles triumph after all, when it suits people for them to do so. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The situation, I suspect, is different in parliaments with no more than (say) four significant parties where the government usually consists of no more than two major parties (e.g. the Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition in the United Kingdom, the Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union coalition with the Free Democrats in Germany, or many governing coalitions of the Irish Labour Party with either Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael), or one party supported "from outside" by another (e.g. several Canadian parliaments where the Liberals were supported by the New Democratic Party, or several British ones where Labour was supported by the Liberals, the latter party in each case not being in the Cabinet but either voting for the government's programme or at least promising not to vote against it). In more pluralistic parliaments, it doesn't seem unusual for the prime minister, tired of friction with several coalition partners, their demands or their threats, to threaten to call his or her own vote of confidence (by whatever name) with the implicit threat that if the government falls, the minor partners will lose their seats in Cabinet, subsidies to favoured causes, perhaps their entire parliamentary delegation in a snap election, etc. I'm thinking (perhaps falsely) of the Israeli Knesset, where I have the impression that several recent Prime Ministers have at least threatened to make a major vote (e.g. on settlements) into a vote of confidence. But perhaps someone more knowledgeable about Israeli politics could clarify. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, a "cabinet question" is not exactly the same as a vote of confidence (or of no confidence); it has a dual character. The user V85 reminded you of this. I am a Swede, and V85 a Norwegian; and I suspect that there really is some difference between the Scandinavian practice, and the Westminster one. For a pure vote of confidence, there is just one important issue: Whether or not the cabinet will retain (or gain) the confidence of the parliament. On the other hand, when a proposal has been declared a "question of cabinet", the "material issues" in that proposition remain, and may actually be more important than the accompanying question about the cabinet.

Nevertheless, some of your answers pointed out that some questions by custom are considered as "implicit votes of confidence", or that a cabinet by custom may declare a question to be of this dignity. Of course; all this goes "by custom". Remember that "parlamentaric monarchy" in countries like the UK (which one older Swedish encyclopædia called "a republic indisguise") essentially evolved from "real" monarchies by a slow, creeping process, where often more democratic "custom" de facto changed the political content, while still retaining the older monarchistic de jure forms. Thus, I'm not interested in the formal votes of confidence, but precisely of the customary practice.

Shall I understand your answers to mean that there is no other term than "vote of confidence" for this? Would a Canadian journal write something like "The Prime Minister declared that this piece of legislation is a vote of confidence", or are there also other terms for this? Moreover, it was pointed out to me, that the Swedish term "Kabinettsfråga" originates from the French question de cabinet, according to Svensk etymologisk ordbok. Does anyone of you have access to a good French-English dictionary, and the possibility to check what the direct translation of the French term is? JoergenB (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this helps, but in the unabridged Dansk-Engelsk Ordbog (Danish-English dictionary) by Hermann Vinterberg & C.A. Bodelsen, published by Gyldendal, 2004, on page 977: "kabinetsspørgsmål" has the following translation: "question (or matter) of confidence", with the given example: "the Government decided to treat the rejection of their proposal as a vote of no confidence". --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have herd the term "matter of confidence" used before on the matter, as in something like "the Prime Minister declared that the bill would be considered a matter of confidence." I think it matches up with the term cabinet question quite well, personally.Rabuve (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that there is not clear 1:1 translation of this term, and that this way of dealing with issues is unknown in Westminster-style democracies. (Keep in mind that the British parliament is set up in such a way as to yield clear majorities where the government needing to 'threaten' parliament might not be necessary, as it already has a majority.) Perhaps the best approach, if you want to discuss this at length, would be to provide a short paragraph outlining exactly what a "Kabinettspørsmål" is.

I searched :fr:WP for the term question de cabinet. Sadly, they don't have an article on it, but from reading the paragraphs in the few articles where it is used, it seems to be a term relatively close in meaning to the Scandinavian "Kabinettspørsmål".

Whatever translation you go with will, of course, depend on the specific context, and not least, sentence structure; personally, I think Saddhiyama's suggestion is pretty good. V85 (talk) 07:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

JoergenB, I'm sure that (in Britain) "vote of confidence" is the phrase in general use, and therefore, in practical terms, the correct translation. Maybe the the average British person doesnt know precisely what it means constitutionally (as discussed above). But that doesnt stop it being the correct translation lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.85.213 (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Here’s a current usage:

• Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, meanwhile, is refusing to back down on his hardline on offshore policy. He has reiterated that the Coalition will not back the Malaysia solution, saying "it is not the job of the Opposition to support bad policy". He says the Government will have to negotiate with the Greens or take the drastic action in Parliament of making asylum policy a matter of confidence and putting the legislation to a vote. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

2012 "shackle" sneakers: what is the shackle for?

Google it, if you don't know what is it all about: [7]. Was that a SM edition from Adidas? Was that racist? I sincerely don't see any use for putting it there, so this open the door for speculation. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the sneakers were designed by Jeremy Scott who is not exactly known for subtlety in his designs. This is the reference desk, not the opinion desk, so I won't offer my own opinion on whether or not the sneakers in question were racist, but for what it's worth, Scott himself claims the design is based on one of his childhood toys. -- Ferkelparade π 21:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't want to enter into the question whether it's racist or not, but I couldn't recognize any practical or esthetical value on these sneakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsmanRF34 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

But you yourself asked the question "was that racist". FWIW I would say that the reason they were withdrawn was because of the uncomfortable associations of shackles with slavery. Whether that's "racist" or not I couldn't say. Nor could I comment on what Adidas were thinking of when they designed the shoes. --Viennese Waltz 21:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That was a rhetoric question, not meant to be answered. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

In that case it was a comment, even though you later disclaimed any desire to enter into the question. If you didn't want to get into such a question, why did you open it up in the first place? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, let me think again: actually I would like to know whether it can be racist, even if not intended. Can a message without intention have the non-intended meaning? What do you all mean? Please tell me your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsmanRF34 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Not racist exactly, just potentially offensive. And, unfortunately, the public won't get a chance to decide, since they were yanked by the shoe's maker. This kind of falls into the "What more they thinking?" category, like the folks who tried to replace classic Coca Cola. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear OsmanRF34. Authorial intention has been widely rejected in literary criticism. Sneaker criticism follows many of the rules of literary criticism. Therefore, critics of sneakers can declare that sneakers are racist, regardless of the intention of the sneaker's author. See Post-modernism, literary criticism and authorial intent. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I get your point (except the part when you extrapolate from literary criticism to sneaker criticism). — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsmanRF34 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there a source in which the designer explains just what fashion statement he was trying to make? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You could also look at fine art criticism, but literary criticism has the highest developed debate on authorial intention available. Sneaker criticism is a lagging field, with no full professors. In contrast almost all true Universities (ie: places with multiple faculties) have at least one member of staff who deals with literary criticism. So there's much more methodology available from literary criticism to deal with the intentions of an author. Using this, we can reject the intentions of a sneaker's author, and merely critique the sneaker itself on the basis of its poetics (inherent aesthetic techniques used). For one, I would suggest that the use of prison orange, combined with chained shackles, combined with over-priced mass market sneakers exposes an irony about the variety of methods used to oppress african americans. Also, its bloody offensive selling people their own oppression. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Slave bracelet bondage and discipline transgression fashion. μηδείς (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

illegal immigrants in the us

just curious, why are there so many illegal immigrants in the U.S.?

I would guess that the drug cartels drive a lot of people into the south U.S., and many try to avoid the legal immigration process due to difficulty getting in.

Also, has any politician ever really looked at why people migrate to the U.S. illegally, as opposed to just how to get rid of them? Heck froze over (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

We have a whole article on Illegal immigration to the United States. Please read it and let us know if you have any unanswered questions. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It ain't rocket science (or a science question at all): rich country + looong border with a poor region + mild penalty for getting caught + difficulty immigrating legally = influx. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Well said. I'd just add that many illegal immigrants send the money they earn back home, to help relieve poverty there. There are some villages devoid of any working age males (and most working-age females), since they are off earning money for their families.

A good follow-up Q might be why their own economies are so poor. Part of it seems to be the Spanish colonial policy of extracting resources and sending them back to Spain, rather than building up local infrastructure. However, illegal immigration to the US may also provide a "safety valve", which allows their own governments to keep them poor. If there was no US where they could earn a living, they would need to either have a revolution or starve to death. So, I suspect you'd see more revolutions, and more socialist governments as a result, distributing the wealth of those nations more evenly. StuRat (talk) 07:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

While revolutions would be more likely, I'm not sure why you'd refer to them as socialist. Historically revolutions in central/south america have led to dictatorships, I'm sure most that would happen would end up the same way. Most states in that region aren't particularly flush with resources they're hoarding among a few, many are poor on average as well. Chris M. (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It's possible to both be a dictator and be socialist. While hardly ideal, the initial redistribution of wealth can improve conditions enough for the poor so that they don't actually die. If not, you get revolution after revolution until either democracy is achieved or an acceptable dictator is found. StuRat (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Short answer: the great majority come here looking for work. And there are a number of businesses that depend critically on migrant workers, in particular picking fruits and vegetables. Having lived in California and South Texas, I have known a number of illegal immigrants, and on the whole I find them to be the hardest-working and most reliable people you will find anywhere. Looie496 (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone in the government ever considered making the legal immigration process a little easier? I know my father (an asian engineer with 20+ experience when he first moved here) had trouble getting in. Heck froze over (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe the problem is that a group with considerable political clout, the "fiscal conservatives" (like Mitt Romney) want it the way it is (as distinct from the "social conservatives", who don't want any immigration at all, except perhaps white Europeans). The fiscal conservatives want there to be immigration, and they want it to be illegal immigration. This ensures a large labor force for their businesses, which, due to their legal status, have no protection from the law. This allows their businesses to thoroughly exploit those workers, which is the ideal situation for increasing profit. "Liberals", on the other hand, tend to favor legalized immigration, but, in tough economic times, they don't push this very hard, since many of the poor people they represent are worried about losing their jobs to immigrants. StuRat (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Because everyone wants to be in the United States. FlySoHigh.6783 (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Except Canadians, apparently. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't say about the general population, but there are quite a few American actors who were Canadian-born. William Shatner and Dan Aykroyd come to mind immediately. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a presumption here that if people want to get in but can't that something is wrong. But the U.S. has 40 million legal immigrants (more than 10% of its population) compared to 11 million illegal immigrants. It accepts 1 million immigrants a year (more people as citizens in 2006 than all the rest of the world combined, according to Immigration to the United States). The foreign born population in the U.S. has reached the level of the early 20th century - including almost 1 million Canadians (about 1 of every 40). Although almost 1 of every ten Mexicans lives in the U.S. Rmhermen (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The US is really very generous with immigration, but we can't let everyone in. Where would we put them? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

"Your country appears to be dangerously underpopulated". - Apu Nahasapeemapetilon. StuRat (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If everyone in the world were to move to Texas, the resulting population density would be that of a typical suburb. (Or so I once read somewhere.) —Tamfang (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That statistic (more new citizens than the rest of the world combined) gives a very different impression to List of countries by foreign-born population in 2005, which shows that the US has a large number of immigrants relative to its population, but smaller than many other countries. Note that legal immigration is very different to citizenship - perhaps the US makes it particularly easy or desirable for immigrants to acquire citizenship? 130.88.73.65 (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That's right. We just want to do some cross-border shopping. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I suppose one reason for not addressing the root causes of illegal immigration, is that those reasons are very complex and difficult to resolve. Instead, politicians focus on policies that might deter people from illegally crossing borders, such as physical barriers, to make it more difficult to cross the border, or penalties such as imprisonment and fines, and lastly, deportation, putting the illegal immigrant back to "Square 1". (The efficacy of such policies is, of course, debatable.) Solving the underlying causes, however, would require a lot more work. As Clarityfiend says, it is caused by a long, porous border separating a rich country from a poor country. I.e. to solve the underlying problem, you'd have to solve poverty. How do you do that? It's much easier to find a simplistic solution, such as building a fence. V85 (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not up to us to fix Mexico's problems. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It might be up to "us" to refrain from causing them, e.g. with the drug war. —Tamfang (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You seem to imply that the US should at least tackle the underlying causes of illegal immigration, and I fail to understand why can't the US just choose whom to let in and ignore the situation south of the border. As stated above, 40 million are already here, and 1 million is allowed to enter legally each year, the illegal 11 millions are clearly out of place. OsmanRF34 (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The OP asked "has any politician ever really looked at why people migrate to the U.S. illegally, as opposed to just how to get rid of them?" I was trying to answer that question. V85 (talk) 06:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Reference is nice, and opinion ... is just opinion. I would suggest the OP to read Illegal immigration to the United States, which Someguy1221 provided earlier, and Beyond Borders: A History of Mexican Migration to the United States ISBN: 978-1-4051-9430-3 and form your own opinion. As for politician looking into the why behind illegal immigration - they have no incentive to, because any self-respecting politician aiming for success would not go against local public sentiment and opinion on this issue. Royor (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that pollies are driven by votes, rather than ethics and principles? :-0 HiLo48 (talk) 07:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hard to tell, but they used to say this about Richard Nixon: "If he thought America had wanted a President with scruples, he'd've had some." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that the USA doesn't really have that many refugees and asylum seekers. According to this data from the UNHCR, the US has only the 10th most 'refugees and people in refugee-like situations'. The countries higher in the list may surprise you - Pakistan is top by some margin, followed by Iran, Syria, Germany, Kenya, Jordan, Chad, China and Ethiopia. Other than Germany, all those countries are close to an area where there is serious war, famine or civil disorder. I haven't got time now to go through the data to tie in refugees vs population, but I am prepared to bet that the US (and much of the developed world) take in a lot fewer refugees (and spend a great deal less on supporting them) per head of population than many third world countries. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow! A quarter of a million people doesn't qualify as a 'that many'? The US is in the top of almost 200 countries. Sure, any country could probably do more for people who have been forced to flee, but the US does seem to be doing its share. ::Furthermore, the developed states might not take in a lot of refugees, but they do give a lot of money to organisations working with refugees. In 2009, the US, was the UNHCR's biggest donor, providing it with over half a billion dollars.[8] So, even if they aren't spending money on refugees at home, the US is certainly providing financing for refugees abroad. According to the UNHCR, all of Pakistan's 1.7 million refugees were assisted by the UNHCR, and the Pakistani government provided no funding for the UNHCR.[9]

Another question is how long a refugee stays a 'refugee'. I recall reading (somewhere...) that most conflicts in the world today last 10 years or longer, potentially meaning that a person who is a refugee could stay a refugee for 10 years of longer. One way in which the number of refugees in the US might be lower than what it actually is, is the question of how refugees are labelled by the authorities. Are they labelled as 'refugees', or perhaps some other type of 'alien resident'? Another way in which the US number might be comparatively lower than for other countries, is that people who originally came to the US have naturalised and become citizens - by definition, they are then no longer refugees. V85 (talk) 04:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Coming in the top 10 isn't that impressive when you bear in mind that there are only about 30-40 'developed' countries, and that the US is vastly larger than any of the others. Though I think, as Cucumber Mike said, proximity to warzones has a much greater effect on the numbers than generosity - parts of Southern Europe seem to have a particular problem with dealing with large numbers of refugees from North Africa and the Middle East. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 09:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

When immigration is illegal (as it is for most people), only illegals will immigrate. —Tamfang (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

June 20

Prostitution (or not) in Ilfracombe

On British TV last week, Bill Shatner joked about Ilfracombe's prostitution scene, to which the former mayor of that sleepy little town has rather po-facedly retorted "there is no prostitution in Ilfracombe" (perhaps he thinks Have I Got News for You is a documentary). That's a tall claim for a town of more than 10,000 people; I have difficulty believing that it's really true. 2005/6 crime statistics do show Ilfracombe has a pretty low crime rate, half or better the national average in most categories. But that doesn't call out prostitution-related crimes as a separate item (I don't know if it falls under any of the categories listed there). Does the ex-mayor's claim stand up to reliable source? (no, I'm not about to phone up the Ilfracombe police and ask "where the hookers at?") 87.115.12.193 (talk) 12:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I've never been to Ilfracombe, but I would have thought it incredibly unlikely that there were any prostitutes working there. The phenomenon is restricted to large towns and cities. Prostitutes have to advertise to get work, and you can see such advertisements in the local press of all the major cities in the UK. I'd be prepared to bet there are no such adverts in the Ilfracombe local press. --Viennese Waltz 13:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The police don't generally arrest people for engaging in prostitution in the UK (the act itself isn't actually illegal, anyway), so crime statistics won't be much help. Viennese Waltz is correct that looking for adverts is the best way to determine if there is prostitution happening. Unfortunately, a Google search doesn't help much due to a large number of sites that just have a page on every town in order to appear in search results. I expect you could find them if you looked hard enough, though. Where there are people, there is a market for prostitutes and where there is a market for something, you'll find people supplying it. There may not be many (if any) street prostitutes there (that generally is restricted to large towns and cities), which is what people usually think of when they talk about somewhere having "a problem" with prostitution (people tend not to care about what happens behind closed doors), but I'm sure there will be call girls servicing the area. --Tango (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm there are a couple of prostitutes in Inlfracombe. See here for example - note that she has the inbred South-West England look so is probably a native. Egg Centric 16:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have been to Ilfracombe, and can confirm it's a pleasant, fairly sleepy and rather remote seaside resort, with a high proportion of elderly people and quite a longstanding unemployment problem. Obviously there could be prostitutes working anywhere, but Ilfracombe is remote from any major population centres, and there is highly unlikely to be any overt street prostitution, or publicly advertised prostitution, there. Obviously, also, there is no such thing as an "inbred South-West England look", and comments like that are simply ignorant, as well as insulting. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

True. It's quite a common look in Norfolk as well. Egg Centric 18:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You're being unfunny again. This is a reference desk. Please remove your obnoxious comments. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

No. It's a ridiculous thing to get offended about, if you actually are offended. I strongly suspect you are not in fact offended, in which case I suggest that you let provincials look after themselves.

Your comments about it being unfunny, however, are noted. Next time I shall try harder Egg Centric 22:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I never claimed to be offended, because I wasn't. You weren't being funny, and if you want to try harder in future, I suggest you try elsewhere. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

To the broader question of whether any city of 10,000 people could be free of prostitution, I suppose that it could be, if it was very harsh on prostitutes, and there was a nearby town which was lenient. Thus, the prostitutes would all service their customers from that other town. StuRat (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ilfracombe has a historical reputation for moral rectitude. Its two beaches, only accessable by tunnels dug in the 1820s, used to be segregated for males and females. I recall reading that an elderly man used to be employed to perch on the rocks between the two, and would blow a bugle should anyone attempt to catch a glimpse of the opposite sex. Alansplodge (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

However, such a degree of repression typically means that the forbidden activities still take place, just in secret. StuRat (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

More info on the Tunnels here. Mixed bathing was banned until 1905. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't you take the tunnel reserved for your sex, then swim around to the other beach? Doesn't look very far. --Trovatore (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

If a man tried that, presumably the women would be warned that a shark (Etymology 2) had been spotted in the water. StuRat (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Any politician who proclaims "there is no prostitution in ..." is in the same ostrich-like camp as the uniquely unique Bob Katter, who's on record as insisting there are almost no homosexuals in north Queensland and promised to walk backwards from Bourke (about 1,000 km) if they represented more than 0.001 percent of the population; or that Iranian dude who made the same ridiculous claim for his entire country. Such claims have laugh-value only and do not not require any serious analysis or rebuttal. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me guess... His catchphrase: "They ain't no queens in Queensland!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Never heard him say that. His own half-brother has revealed himself to be gay, and he's publicly told Bob to pull his head in. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but prostitution is an activity, while homosexuality is an orientation. You can possibly prevent an activity, with sufficiently harsh penalties, but can't change an orientation, except perhaps by unethical medical means (hormone treatments or abortions on a potentially "gay" fetus). StuRat (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about, StuRat? Culturocenting again? You want to tell a prison cellmate that homosexuality is not an activity? As for Ilfracombe, well, don't you Brits have Craig's List? μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There are many with a homosexual orientation who never engage in homosexual activity, because they think it is immoral or are afraid of the reaction (execution, imprisonment, getting AIDS, being shunned by friends and family, being fired, etc.). StuRat (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't you heterocent to me young man. You're taking coals to Newcastle. μηδείς (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That's right. I've often made that distinction here, when OPs ask how many countries still outlaw homosexuality. I reply that no country ever has or ever will, because you can't outlaw feelings. What some have done, though, is to outlaw homosexual activity. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I wonder, is that true? I would agree that you shouldn't outlaw sentiments, no matter how disgraceful to our common natur'. But can't, really? I bet some countries have done so. (Enforcement, of course, is a separate question.) --Trovatore (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Note: the "disgraceful" bit was just generalizing — not to be applied to the immediate topic of discussion. --Trovatore (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you can show me where any country has ever made it an offence simply to feel an attraction to a member of the same sex, regardless of whether one does anything about it - then we might have something to talk about. Heck, it's not even an offence to be tempted to sexually interfere with a 2-year old, or to feel like assassinating the president; acting on the temptation/feeling, that's a whole other ball game, obviously. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

In liberal countries, that's true. Is it true in, say, theocracies? If we can bring in fictional examples, it certainly wasn't true in Oceania. Thoughtcrime does not entail death; thoughtcrime is death. --Trovatore (talk) 08:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I suppose the equivilant here would be outlawing wanting to pay for, or receive money for, sex. Unfortunately the only people who have never, ever, fitted in to at least one of those categories are pre pubescent or severely mentally challenged. Oh, and me of course. Pure as the driven snow. Egg Centric 22:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Or pure as the driven upon snow, perhaps ? :-) StuRat (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone who specializes in Fortran, of all god forsaken things, can never question my purity from a higher ground. Egg Centric 22:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Come back when you've programmed Fortran 2 on a PDP-8, via punched paper tape. Edison (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Egg_Centric, I really don't think your premise is true. Some people can be strongly repelled by the tawdry or sordid without being especially "pure" or asexual. An instinctive fastidiousness can be just as strong as any moral sense (and people are much less often conflicted about fastidiousness than conflicted about morality)... AnonMoos (talk) 04:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, this has gotten very much off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Actually since you're obviously referring to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, there is disagreement over what was actually meant. See Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad#Columbia University where it's mentioned it was later claimed he meant there weren't as many as in the US (which may not be true but is difficult to ascertain). For an alternative view from someone who grew up in Iran (but had been away for 35? years) see Talk:Iran/Archive 11#Demographics & Homosexuality where it's suggested what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually meant was that gays in Iran were generally predators of children (based on his cultural misconceptions), which isn't accurate but isn't the same thing. I don't know what he actually meant, but I do know it's easy to misunderstand what people are saying when language and cultural barriers come in to play. In fact, in such cases it can sometimes take considerable effort to really understand what people are saying. And Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been one of the favourite punching bags of many particularly in the US for a long time. It's clear no one was particularly interested in a genuine dialog or trying to understand where he's coming from or what he meant (not that I think he was really that interested either). Nil Einne (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Yes, he's the one. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 19:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Ahmadinajad was a "punching bag" in the U.S. during his 2007 NYC visit because he made absolutely no conciliatory rhetorical gesture which the U.S. public could understand. He didn't have to announce any major substantive change in Iranian regime policies, but a noteworthy conciliatory verbal gesture (phrased to appeal to the American people, and not in code words understood by few other than Shi`ite clerics) would have assisted greatly in preserving some of the usual courtesies, while the absence of such a gesture guaranteed him a rather negative/hostile reception. AnonMoos (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Is there any topic less relevant to prostitution in Ilfracombe than Mahmoud Ahmedinejad? Only on RDH. By the way if the OP needs an answer s/he should Google for massage parlours, saunas and escort agencies in north Devon. I'm not going to do it on their behalf. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC) That's how it may appear if taken out of context, but look back to see how he first got into the discussion and you'll discover a meandering pathway of fluctuating relevance. Remember, no matter how absurdly off track these refdesk discussions may go (and I'm not saying this one is like that), it's the journey that matters, not the destination. If you come from the right place (and Ilfracombe seems to be "a place of love"), this awareness will empower you to fully experientiate your self-actuation, and you will finally become all of who you are, and probably parts of other people as well.  :)  :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 23:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Someone above already found what appears to be an answer, before I replied to JoO. Nil Einne (talk) 05:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC) I don't really get the relevence of your comment to mine. I didn't discuss much in my original comment whether or not the punching bag etc was justified since it was a moot point and IMO too OT. My main point was given the context at the time, it's difficult to be sure of what was actually meant. But we definitely can't assume the later claims by a spokesperson are simply attempts to rewrite history or that the bulk of media reports of the time are an actual reflection of what was meant. And as for the punching bag bit, I said he had been a punching bag for a long time, not just in 2007. I also don't see why it was necessary for him to make any 'conciliatory rhetorical gesture' for people to actually be interested in what he was saying, rather then just pretending to understand what he was saying when they didn't (which they had already been doing for a long time). It's not like he promised to make such a gesture, and it's questionable why you would want invite someone for discussion if you're not actually going to bother to try to understand what they're saying, unless perhaps you're Fox News. (Note that this doesn't mean you have to agree with what they say, just that it's better to try to understand them and debate or criticise what they actually said rather then simply mock them for things they may not have said.) He wasn't even in the US because of the US government. It's not like many US presidents (etc) always make such gestures when visiting other countries on their invitation, if anything, they far more often berate them. And it's not like such gestures when visiting the US have generally been successful anyway despite your claims to the contrary. Note that as I said in my first comment, I'm not convinced Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was particularly interested in genuine dialog anyway (although then again who could blame him?) but this doesn't mean it's best to just make him a punching bag and not try to understand what he was saying. Nil Einne (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC) I saw his interview with Charlie Rose (who always tries his best to treat his guests fairly and try to understand their POV), but Ahmadinejad still came off as a nut-job. His comment that a study is needed to determine if the Holocaust actually occurred was one such example. At some point you do have to write certain people off and wait for a (hopefully saner) replacement. I believe he announced he plans to retire soon, so let's keep our fingers crossed. StuRat (talk) 06:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC) The guy holds offensive views but he's not mentally ill. Trying to make sense of his Holocaust denial without taking the Middle Eastern context into account is like trying to make sense of the Republican Party's climate change and evolution denialism without taking the modern American political context into account. Dismissing those who you disagree with as "insane" is not only a cop-out, it's bad analysis. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC) It doesn't matter much. Khamenei or whoever succeeds him is the real authority anyway. It concede that it did seem a little better under Khatami. --Trovatore (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Nil Einne -- A conciliatory rhetorical gesture would have been highly useful because of the previous tremendous ill-will and negative feelings toward him in the United States, which his previous actions and sayings had generated (starting with the international "I love Adolf Hitler" conference which he convened, and going down the whole long list). A conciliatory verbal gesture would have been a cheap way of presenting himself as a person of some degree of good will, and could have done something to smooth things over slightly and preserve a semi-façade of politeness. The lack of any such gesture convinced a significant segment of the American people that Ahmadinajad was proud of being an insufferable asshole, and was determined to continue as such... AnonMoos (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Is there any chance of someone who knows how folding the acres of political posturing above into one of those handy fold-up hidey things? For the benefit of those who still want to use this page as a reference desk. 180.148.3.62 (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC) I agree. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Henry Adams

Did Henry Adams write two books: Memoirs of Arii Taimai and Memoirs of Marau Taaroa, Last Queen of Tahiti or was it one book? Is it just the same book that has the encompassing title Memoirs of Arii Taimai e Marama of Eimee, Teriirere of Tooarai, Terrinui of Tahiti, Tauraatua i Amo; Memoirs of Marau Taaroa, Last Queen of Tahiti as abbreviated on the wiki page, or is it two different books. FYI Arii Taimai is the mother of Marau Taaroa, who was coauthor of the book(s) as her mother's translator. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's all one book. It was not one of his better known works. Looie496 (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

More exactly, there were two books but not in the way you mean. As I understand it, the first version was short and only distributed to a few of his friends, the second version was enlarged and published for a broader audience. Looie496 (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

June 21

Why are the concepts of Elasticity Supply are so Important to Government ?

I am bit confused of this term as the concepts of Elasticity of Demand helps the government in other way (i.e. imposing tax on a commodity). But what about the above mentioned topic? Can anyone explain a bit. I shall highly appreciate that. Thanks in advance--180.234.123.78 (talk) 08:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Elasticity can be seen as a very simple (though not simple to calculate) way for a Government to measure the effectiveness and impact of a given tax. Please see our article tax incidence. --Abracus (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• That article seems saturated with vast information on tax. I don't understand which are the materials I should add to this concept regarding on government issues. I googled it but no exact information available on above mentioned topic. Can you please explain a bit more so that i can get proper idea on it. Thank you--180.234.195.117 (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Elasticity of supply is the extent to which a reduction in profits causes a reduction in the amount of goods that are produced. A good example of low elasticity is small farms: farmers (to oversimplify a bit) usually try to produce as much as they can regardless of how much they get paid for it. When demand is high they make money, when demand is low they lose money, but they produce roughly the same amount of crops regardless. When elasticity is low, government policies don't have much impact on how much is produced; when elasticity is high, a tax can cause a substantial decrease in production. Looie496 (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Living conditions and number of cars in Iraq

An image circulating through Facebook suggests that living conditions and the number of cars in Iraq have decreased a lot since the American intervention. I'd like to research that, which seems not to be easy, especially for the cars - does anybody have info on that? --KnightMove (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently there are actually more cars in Baghdad now (according to this USA Today story from 2007. And of course obvious propaganda is obvious...it seems that there is a sandstorm in the second picture, and presumably it's not a good idea to drive during a sandstorm. Also, that is Firdos Square, so where in Baghdad is that exactly? Maybe cars aren't allowed there anymore, for fear of car bombings (although it seems not to be in the former Green Zone, at least). This is just random speculation, there could be dozens of other reasons the second picture looks like that. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

That USA Today story is nearly five and a half years old. It may have been overtaken by events. --93.96.36.99 (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

True although my impression is that things in Baghdad have 'improved' since 2007 although the reasons for that have been disputed [10] Nil Einne (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Also true but we don't know when that picture was taken either. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No 65-MPG Passat here? But why do the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf slip through the cracks?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBnlXGvA1Wk&feature=player_embedded

So we can't have 65-MPG Volkswagen Passats here in the US because the US DOT wouldn't like that to reduce fuel tax for road maintenance.

And they're common in Europe, OTOH.

So how do we still have the Toyota Prii, Chevy Volts and Nissan Leaves? How do they slip through the cracks while the 65-MPG Volkswagen Passat doesn't?

So if the reasons for the 65-MPG Passat not being driven in the US has nothing to do with fuel taxes, then why, pray tell, do we not have them already? Thanks. --70.179.170.114 (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, the information in the video is incorrect. Due to the way fuel consumption (gas mileage) is calculated in the States, as well as the difference between US and UK gallons, the stated fuel consumption for the same vehicle is not the same in the US as in the EU. This story explains the situation: http://pesn.com/2012/05/01/9602085_VW_not_allowed_by_US_government_to_sell_high_mileage_cars_to_US_consumers/ - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I have't watched the video and have no idea if it is truly because of the government, but the idea that efficient models of the same car are unavailable in the US is by no means debunked. It's true, sadly. --John (talk) 14:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Rmhermen (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be rather thoroughly debunked by the source listed right above your post. StuRat (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There are cases where an efficient model of a car is unavailable in the United States: it happens when the efficiency is created by omitting emissions-control or safety hardware that's mandatory in the United States. --Carnildo (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

And the most fuel-efficient cars are unsafe microcars, probably not allowed in the US for that reason. They are basically just motorcycles with extra wheels. Although motorcycles are legal, probably because they are at least cool. :-) StuRat (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Why are amendments to the US Constitution given so much importance?

I've always wondered – why does the US seem to take pride in amendments to their constitution? Of course many of these amendments, perhaps most famously the First Amendment were great contributions to government that were later copied by other countries, but why were they given names (like First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Fifteenth Amendment etc.) and given such importance? I'm unaware of any other country which seems to take pride in amendments to their constitution to the point of even naming them. For example, if the Philippines' constitution was amended so that the President would be elected in a run-off system rather than the plurality system currently used, the amendments in question would be referred to simply as "Amendments to the Constitution..." rather than "The nth Amendment to the Philippine Constitution...". Why is this the case in the United States? What is the historical reason, and why doesn't seem to be the practice in other countries? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Because it is hard to do, is not done trivially, and for the most part represents an advancement of the system, to bring greater equality or rights. It probably has to do with American pride in the system and subjective belief that it is a world model, so any improvement in the system, given the high degree of consensus needed to pass an amendment, is taken pride in.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well-stated. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Australians are highly adverse to electoral amendments to the Australian constitution (as opposed to High Court or defacto ones). Yet Australian amendments are not referred to worshipfully. There is a worshipfulness to the process of United States law, that I would suggest inheres in the state's origins in a partial bourgeois revolution, a partially completed transition from moral to political economy, which is reflected in a latent form in the customs and practice of your law. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I think a much more trivial reason is that the US Constitution, as one of the first written modern constitutions, itself specifies explicit amendments as the change mechanism. Most more modern constitutions have a change mechanism that changes the text of the constitution itself, i.e. a replacement, not just an amendment. As an example, the original Article 23 of the German Grundgesetz (extending its coverage to new regions that joined the FRG) was removed in 1990 with the German reunification, and later, in 1992, replaced by a new Article 23 covering the integration of Germany in the EU. In computer speak, the US constitution is represented as the original document with a set of patches, while the German constitution is represented as the result of applying the patches to the original. The first is better for maintaining the history, the second is better for direct application. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say all the amendments are revered like that. Maybe just the first ten since that was the original Bill of Rights, but even then I doubt many Americans could name more than two or three. The Constitution also seems to be treated as a religious text, unchanged and unchanging, despite the amendments that can be added (and that can change previous amendments), whereas in other countries if the constitution doesn't work it can be scrapped for a new one. I suppose American civil religion might be helpful here. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the reverence (for the content or the procedures) is overstated. There are a few amendments that are invoked fairly often in individual or national discourse. They are revered — not because they are modifications, per se, but because of what they mean (or what people think they mean). If freedom of the press, or the right to avoid self-incrimination, or avoiding unreasonable search and seizure were all articles in the Constitution (as opposed to amendments), we'd speak of them just as reverently. If the District of Columbia's right to an electoral college vote were in the body of the Constitution itself, it'd still be trivia to most people. If the commerce clause were an amendment, it'd still be invoked all the time, either way. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Is referring to an amendment by a number really worshipping, or even lending significance? That seems to be the most boring and obvious way possible of referring to an amendment. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I also don't think the amendments are revered or worshipped. The first ten are an exception, being the Bill of Rights and almost part of the original constitution really. I doubt most Americans could name the rest, at least by number. The one abolishing slavery is probably thought of as important. Some are definitely not "revered" or "worshipped", such as the income tax one or the two regarding prohibition. Pfly (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

And also, I suspect the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, are revered more than most of the specific rules of the constitution itself, being about the rights of ordinary people rather than the rules about how the government operates. For example, a lot of people care deeply about the 2nd Amendment (right to bear arms). Recently I saw a cafe/coffeehouse called "The Second Amendment Cafe". You'd never see "Senators Must Be At Least 35 Years Old Cafe". Pfly (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There's an article in a recent New Yorker about the Constitution (and its amendments), The Commandments: The Constitution and its worshippers. It points out that despite being one of the shortest in the world few Americans have read it. People refer to it a lot, and cherish it, and 86% say it has "an impact on their daily lives" according to a recent poll. The article also points out how even if people did read it they would find much of the Constitution difficult to understand. An example given is Article III, Section 3: "“The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted." Anyway, it's an interesting article about popular opinion, understanding and misunderstanding of the US Constitution. Pfly (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact that amendments to the US Constitution are numbered is just one more problem the foreign left has with us uppity Americans? What's the next question? "Why do Americans think they are so great because their country is all spread out over the map?" "Do Americans drive on the right because they are conservative?" "Why do Americans foist their Happy Birthday celebration on world culture?" Questions like this and "Why are the Prussians called the greenies of Hyperborea?" seem a heck of a lot closer to the troll than the reference end of the spectrum. μηδείς (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Eh? Your ref doesn't refer to the US at all. It refers to the West. Which of course means, speaking of trolling... Nil Einne (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think it was necessary to point out that "Happy Birthday to You" was written in the US. μηδείς (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Which is irrelevent. Did you actually read the ref? It's clear the concern is much more widespread then the song, and it wouldn't matter much to the person complaining whether the song was written by Americans, Dutch or Germans (or for that matter if the song didn't exist). It's not even clear the person complaining is aware of the history of the song (it wouldn't surprise me if the song had actually came from the Ottoman Empire the person would still be making the same complaint). And BTW in case you're wondering, I was aware of the history having read about the copyright issues a long while before as evidence by my talk page contribs. And no, making an issue about Americans (or whatever) when it isn't, isn't something that's a universal problem for Americans, simply something some people seem to suffer from. Nil Einne (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Having read your impassioned defense of trying to understand what Mahmoud Ahmedinejad "really" meant above, I think your insistence that I provide an accurate "reference" for a rhetorical question is just about the unintentionally funniest thing I've heard since Jerry Sandusky said he helped a lot of boys he didn't take advantage of. μηδείς (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't defend Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, I simply pointed out it wasn't clear he was actually saying what people claimed he said, with references including to RS (indirectly). Whether or not you're aware of this, it's actually possible to be interested in understanding people even if you disagree with them in many areas, or at the very least being interested in making fun of the truth rather then making fun of something which never actually happebned. The fact you're more interested in putting your own spin in to what people say, rather then actually try to understand them shouldn't be surprising from your response here, or for that matter many of your previous responses but doesn't bode well for someone wanting to contrib to the reference. (Since contributing references often means you should have some idea of what they actually say, particularly when you're going to make claims on the desk. As is stands, I think you've definitely demonstrated the validity of the last sentence of my original comment to this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 05:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Part of the reason the amendments are so important is that the first set of them, known as the Bill of Rights, set forth a number of fundamental liberties. The Constitution was only approved because of an agreement that those amendments would immediately be added to it. Looie496 (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Others have mentioned this, but most of the "reverence" comes specifically toward those amendments that guarantee things the government can never touch you for doing (but may want to). Whatever else happens, a person might say to himself, nobody can take away these rights. This is mostly true of the Bill of Rights, but where courts specifically incorporate amendment clauses to decide cases (the 14th Amendment is one of the most-often cited, or the result of a case may rest on a particular interpretation of the Establishment Clause), these also become shorthand for celebratory mention of individual rights. The naming of a bar or pub The 21st Amendment is probably on a numerical level with something like the White Horse - as of course there's probably no better, shorter, easier signifier of "Hey history buffs - come on down here and drink drink drink!" in American English. But of course nobody thinks they're in any danger of having troops quartered in their homes these days, and so very little case law cites the 9th and 10th Amendments.

I'll note also it's not just constitutional amendments: Title IX is similarly celebrated for its vast expansion of women's athletics across the country (and of course excoriated for its alleged responsibility for cuts in men's programs), for example. I'm guessing that the answer to the original question is more of a naming of laws issue, where American laws (or amendments, etc.) seen as good are celebrated by name, and laws seen as bad (e.g. that epitome of Orwellian naming conventions, the USA PATRIOT Act) are castigated, also by name. Each law is a particular event or campaign, a banner raised as part of a living history, rather than mere text being seamlessly incorporated into an amorphous blob of impersonal rules. And so (as Bugs someone mentioned) good laws are episodes in which we the people have made a decision that we still take pride in, and bad laws are episodes in which some group of assholes (also we the people, if we're keeping score honestly) has foisted evil constraints upon us. I know plenty of other countries' legislatures name their laws too, but I'm not aware of the same public vehemence directed at them as opposed to the actual MPs. Also, I don't know to what extent the notion of a nation of laws, not of men is responsible for this phenomenon per se vs. being a popular concept that is merely concurrent with it. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 19:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The OP also asked why they were named. I suspect it is simply because people like giving names to things. It makes life easier if you have a name to refer to rather than saying the section in the US Constitution that doesn't allow unreasonable searches and seizures. As 140.180.5.169 pointed out numbering them is an obvious way to go. Of course if they hadn't got names then over time they would have acquired them. So instead of saying the 4th Amendment you would say the Amendment to prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. The US isn't the only country to give amendments names, see Amendments to the Constitution of Canada#Post-1982 amendments to the Constitution. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the two previous comments are right: The amendments have to be called something, and given that the first 10 amendments were added en masse and dealt with something that the original Constitution didn't already include, it seems logical that they were just placed at the end as the ten amendments. It's impossible to guess how the founders imagined amendments to the Constitution being incorporated, but if the first amendment had merely been a change to one of the already existing articles, it might be the case that the American Constitution would have its actual text changed (as is the case with other Constitutions) rather than all new amendments added at the end (which does result in oddities such as one amendment specifically cancelling out another one).

The naming of the amendments (and, I have to agree - numbering the amendments doesn't seem very original) is a separate issue from how Americans regard their Constitution. As others have said, I think this is due to the fact that the US is a country born of a revolution against an oppressor, with the Constitution being a symbol of that revolution. This could also be the case for France, but the US is still governed by the same Constitution, while the French have had five different Constitutions since its revolution.

The US sees itself as a country apart, with a different politcal heritage from the countries of Europe at the time. As I said, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, are the symbols of the US being different from the rest. As other countries tend not to see themselves in this way, they don't focus on such written documents in this way. (That doesn't mean they aren't patriotic, it's just that the symbols of this patriotism are something else, such as culture or language. It might even be something political, but perhaps politics manifested in through practice rather than what is in the Constitution.) V85 (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

June 22

People of Loulan

What kind of people inhabited the Loulan Kingdom? The article does really talk much about the people. Are they the same as the Tarim mummy people?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice if the article had a map. Probably some of the inhabitants were Tocharians... AnonMoos (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

London, 1886?

Each episode of the current BBC series The Secret History of our Streets begins with a shot of some gothic megalopolis that looks like something out of a science fiction film. The narrator says it's London in 1886; it patently isn't. Can anyone identify what this shot is? 91.125.140.38 (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be based on London, because I recognise the tower of Westminster Cathedral in the foreground at the start, but other than that I've no idea. Mikenorton (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Judging by 1880s in film it looks improbable that it is actual footage from 1886. Personally, it made me think of Metropolis (film), but having watched the opening scenes of that film, that doesn't seem to be the source. V85 (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like artistic licence being taken to extremes. Drop the BBC a note and ask them as to what the designer was smoking where the designer go his 'historically based' inspiration from. --Aspro (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

For anyone (like myself) who haven't seen the show, the view of London 1886 discussed in this thread can be seen here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

And after having viewed it it is obviously not historically correct. It looks like there are several buildings qualifying as sky scrapers in that clip. I suspect it is just some very cheap CGI footage spiced up to lure in audiences at the beginning of the show. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. In the days before elevators and tall factory smoke stacks, there would have been church spires only, poking up above above the general melee of city life. The BBC (as a public service) needs to be questioned..., regarding this probably misleading re-invention of past vistas of that great city.--Aspro (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There were the Board Schools, rising above the smoke. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

So, Boarding schools where over a kilometre high. Inversion_(meteorology)#How_and_why_inversions_occur. The Victorians were more advanced than I thought. Pity the poor little kids though- as they climbed all those stairs. --Aspro (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Not "boarding schools" but "schools of the Board of Education School Board" - I went to one like this. Alansplodge (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You when to a school like that! My commiserations. Its even got different gates for boy and girls. How comes you were able to turn your life around and end up here? Suppose you sneaked off to night-school to learn Greek and Latin or Shakespeare or something ;-) --Aspro (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The London School Board was as advanced as they got. The schools still sail above London, see them on the train between Clapham Junction and Victoria. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The building in the photo doesn’t look more than five stories high! How low did you think that the smoke went. Think your getting confused with H.G.Wells's Black smoke which crept along close to the ground. That was fiction. Before the Clean Air Act 1956 (and for a few years after – I know, I remember those smogs ) the tallest buildings were covered in black sooty grime.--Aspro (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Not above the smoke then but above the masses. Poetic licence. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

So these comments of yours have nothing to do with the OP's question. So why post them?--Aspro (talk) 00:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Getting back to the point, the only recognisable building is Westminster Cathedral - our article says that "construction started in 1895". Alansplodge (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it is representing a visionary representation of London as seen through the eyes of the great contemporary writer Arthur Machen? --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that (if I've got it right) the shot captioned "London 1886" is a silhouette of a skyline at night, it doesn't look like an actual cinematographic shot to me. There is period film in the opening sequence, and from the dress I'd say it was shot in the very early 20th century (I have photos of my ancestors on my mantelpiece, all dated from 1880 to 1930, and the dress fits into the 1900 - 1910 period). Slums such as that existed until late in the 20th century at least. Of course we know what London in the 1880s looked like from contemporaneous artworks, so making a realistic mock-up shouldn't be too difficult. Don't be confused by the number of high buildings you see: it could be an optical illusion dependent on viewpoint. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

June 23

Platinum U.S. coins

31 USC § 5112(k) gives the Administration the discretion to mint platinum coins. Suppose they wanted to do so without inflating the currency. Is there a derivative instrument capable of locking in the low interest on Treasury securities? 71.212.226.91 (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "Inflating the currency" means in this context. If any such coins were minted, presumably their nominal currency value would be set far below their bullion value (as is the case for the gold "American eagle" coins today), and consequently they would never be circulated at face value... AnonMoos (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. According to article American Platinum Eagle, such coins already exist... AnonMoos (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. What does locking in low bond yields have to do with minting new coins? --Tango (talk) 11:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this is an offshoot of a theory I've seen in the WashPost that because the law doesn't specify the denomination of platinum coins, you could get around the debt limit by minting a $1 trillion platinum coin and selling it to the Federal Reserve. It doesn't work because as the Federal Reserve only places orders for coin to satisfy demand from its customers, no one is going to order a $1 trillion coin.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Are there any such restrictions on selling the Fed expiring options to purchase such coins? 71.212.226.91 (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I assumed that was the context. I don't know if it would work or not (it would probably require the cooperation of the Federal Reserve), but either way I don't know what the connection is to low treasury bond yields. --Tango (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so please let's explore the region from $1 to $1 trillion. Suppose one coin were minted for every homeless child in the U.S., and the proceeds were used to pay for infrastructure, or universal health care, or paying down the national debt. Or all three. Is there a way to raise enough money over the value of the platinum that money velocity would increase without prices increasing above the rate of inflation? What if we wanted to do all that and lock in the low interest rates available to the Treasury today? 71.212.226.91 (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Fiat currencies are based on the fact that the material in the money is worth less than the raw material needed to make that money and the labour going into making that money. If you have a gold currency (or any other currency based on precious metals/materials), it doesn't matter whether you use actual coins - the value of the money is in the gold, so a gold nugget or a gold necklace would be worth exactly the same as the coin (given that the amount of actual gold in the coin and/or nugget and/or necklace (and/or other gold item) is the same). With fiat currency, that isn't the case. I would assume that printing a $100 bill costs roughly the same as $1 bill. The economic yield of producing the $100 is greater than producing a $1 bill, since the money you end up with is worth a lot more. The same would be the case of the $1 trillon coin. According to XE Currency Converter, one ounce of platinum costs a bit less than $1,450. So, if you make a pure 1 oz. platinum coin with a nominal value of $1 trillion, the amount of money created is far higher than the value of the raw material needed. However, it doesn't seem to me to be a very sustainable idea for increasing the money flow, as it supposes that there is some institution out there willing to swap a $1 trillion coin(!) for $1 trillion cash in small, used, unmarked bank notes. The Fed might do it, but it might see this as overstepping the boundaries between itself and the government, as the Fed is the Central bank and should be independent of government-fiddling. V85 (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

So let's say Obama and Geithner call Bernanke and say, "Look, Congress has been deadlocked with filibusters and they've been telling me to spend but not authorizing the funds, and now they want to limit the debt ceiling again. Why don't you announce that we're going to be minting one platinum coin for each homeless child in the U.S., and I want you to auction some of them off the next time you go to sell securities to find out whether the market will pay for them. Auction off ten of them, and we'll use the proceeds to pay for infrastructure, universal health care, education, and the broad stock market to recoup our investment, To get things started, I want you to buy an option to purchase more of those coins. If you will do that, we will declare a state of emergency in health care for each of the 1.6 million homeless children." Why wouldn't that work? 71.212.226.91 (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Where to find my Hardy.

Dear Sirs and Madams,

As you know the story of Mr. Hardy and Mr. Ramanujan, and I would like to find a similar partnership after having your very fine answers to my question here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#why_don.27t_swampies_use_non-exchanging_heat_exchange_with_air.3F I have over 3000 ideas, a sample of any fifty of which should be sufficient to convince anyone who fits the ability of the person who answered this question. However, I do not think someone is able to be my partner only because they are rich, e.g. a VC. They cannot evaluate this in any way. So, the suggestions so far have not been suitable. Can you suggest to me a more appropriate method to find an appropriate person? I am not interested in starting a business, but instead in the merits of the individual ideas which I would like to patent individually. THank you for any help and general advice Sirs and Medams.

Ranbir — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.3.160.86 (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You need to find yourself a patent agent, who will assist in the process of getting your ideas patented. There is a list of links at the bottom of that article which will assist you in searching for the people you need. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)