Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 September 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Humanities desk
< September 20 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 22 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 21[edit]

John Kalymon[edit]

The question above about ESTA made me curious about the deportation of Nazis from the US, specially when I read today in the news that John Kalymon will probably be deported (he is in the List of denaturalized former citizens of the United States). So, from a legal perspective, he is being accused of killing at least one Jew, in a region which was Poland, but is now Ukraine, and that was occupied by Germany then. How do they decide now where to deport him to? Israel, Poland, Ukraine, Germany, Hague? Couldn't the US claim something like a universal jurisdiction and judge him? Wikiweek (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Well it depends who is asking for him to be deported. They don't just "deport", they have to have a request from a foreign government first. (Except if they want to simply get rid of someone that is embarrassing, then they just try to find a government that will accept a new resident, but usually, there is a request first). --Lgriot (talk) 08:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure this is the same case as John Demjanjuk: Germany is pursuing some former real or imaginary minor collaborators of the Nazi Regime. Surprisingly, Eastern Europeans get pursued much more often than former German Nazis (although the latter group is much bigger and easier to persecute, go guess). Not surprisingly, the courts try to proceed as fast as possible, to bring the proceedings to a close before the accused dies. Obviously, there are just a handful of such proceedings. When you wait 60 years to get tough on Nazis, as Germany did, there are not many Nazis left, and even Israel doesn't get interested on it. (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that you're predujiced against Germany and/or Germans in general. Take your cheap shot at your own nation (whatever it may be). Flamarande (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how you jumped to the conclusion that I could be predujiced or even prejudiced against Germany or Germans in general. I was just commenting a pretty concrete procedure in the same way many could criticize Guantanamo without judging the US or any similar case. (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I dunno, 88.8. Maybe it's we remember your last comments on this subject a couple of days ago [1] [2] which had the same sort of tone. "he possibly never was a death-camp guard, and the whole German trial was just a farce to make Germany look tough on Nazi criminals in a rather pathetic way." Your words, but we're free to draw conclusions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I made both comments, and still hold the same position: the whole thing is pathetic. However, my comments do not refer to the whole of the German society. In the same way that you are not anti-semitic if your criticize some action of the Israeli military or anti-American when criticizing Guantanamo. (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Who Funded the 'No to AV Yes to PR' Campaign in the UK?[edit]

I would like to know if there is any information about the groups and / or parties that funded the No to AV Yes to PR campaign in the UK. I seem to remember some news stories saying that the conservative and labour parties had donated money, but some initial googleing has provided nothing definitive. --CGPGrey (talk) 08:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't know who funded it, but it was reportedly organised by Lee Rotherham [3] of the Taxpayers' Alliance, a right-wing pressure group, and Piotr Brzezinski who works here at the Policy Exchange, a right-wing "think tank". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Their financial return is here. They report £21,149.67 of donations, but if you read down, all of that came in the form of non-cash notional spending on their behalf by the No Campaign. There may be more detail in the No Campaign's own return, which is not due until 5 November. Check back on the Electoral Commission website when it comes in. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is 'non-cash notional spending'? --CGPGrey (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Goods or services provided free or at a discount.[4][5]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
So does that mean that, in effect, the No campaign paid for all the 'yes to PR' ads? --CGPGrey (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
No to AV campaign neutrality under spotlight over Tory party funding - this grauniad story points to a "datablog" of funders, apparently. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

MAG or MUG[edit]

Origin Africa, particularly Uganda. A drinking cup in the form of a man made out of metal and painted. Any ideas? Kittybrewster 11:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there a picture or a reference to something that would help zero in on it? Bus stop (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
No. Kittybrewster 12:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


Why is Israel racist against Muslims and especially Palestinians? -- (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think racism correctly characterizes the conflict you refer to. You seem to be assuming that it does. Can you tell me how you see the referred-to conflict as being racially defined? Bus stop (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC) -- There are well over a million Arabs (mostly Muslims) with Israeli citizenship within the borders of 1949 Israel, and less than 10,000 Jews remaining within all the 20 or so Arab-ruled countries (over half of them in Morocco, which is the only Arab country which has consistently protected a whole Jewish community -- not just a pitiful remnant of a few old people -- over the last half-century or more). So based solely on hard factual numbers (i.e. statistical-demographical grounds) it would seem to be more fair to ask why Arabs are racist against Jews. For example, in 1967 Libya (under the king, not Qaddhafi) conducted a classic old-style pogrom which reduced the Jewish population from thousands to effectively zero in about a week, despite the fact that there had been Jews in Libya since before there were any Arabs in Libya, and few of the Jews had much connection with Israel... AnonMoos (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a vast amount of information on the Arab-Israeli conflict. For claims that Israel is racist, Israel and the apartheid analogy is a good article to start with. You should be aware that Israel's attitude to Muslims and the Arab world involves three interrelated topics: the status of Arab citizens of Israel; Israeli treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territory; and Israel's relationship with other Arab and Muslim nations. The following Wikipedia articles are relevant to these topics: History of the Arab–Israeli conflict, Human rights in Israel, International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict, Political status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Arab citizens of Israel, Palestinian territories, Status of territories captured by Israel, Foreign relations of Israel. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd also suggest you read propaganda. Seeing any of the world's many complex and long-lasting disputes in simple terms is usually a result of propaganda from biased newspapers, TV etc, and general ignorance of the detail of these problems.

Your question can be turned around. You might easily ask (to take one of the muslim groups) why is Hamas racist against Jews and expecially Israelis?. Your question and the one I just posed both have elements of truth in them... and huge great lumps of untruth.

There are racist Israelis and there are racist Palestinians. But there are also many who are not, just like the people who live in the rest of the world. Nearly all the Israelis and Palestinians I've ever met have just wanted peace and an end to the killings and none of them have come across as racist.

And in the same way, you can interpret the statements and actions on both sides in many different ways. Racist or self-protecting? Aggressive or defensive? How you see these things, ultimately, will sadly often be affected by the propaganda you consume. See also historiography. --Dweller (talk) 13:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Additional relevant articles are Zionism and Racism in Israel. Marco polo (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Overcoming the effects of propaganda isn't easy, but one solution is reading the other side's point of view. Try this piece on the BBC new site? --Dweller (talk) 10:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

"Yossi Klein Halevi, an Israeli author and political commentator, argues that all the Palestinians need to do to get a state is to convince Israelis that this state does not represent a threat." - I've been waiting a long time to see words like this published. I like this author already, smart. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 23:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
When smart=voices my opinion, you know you're living in a bubble, Flinders, old chap. I suggest a little more Fisk might help. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest getting to know many more Israelis mate. I'm pretty sure they know what they want and it's much better than getting it secondhand from a journalist or writer. Face-smile.svg Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 00:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
By the same token, you could get some new pals? --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh my no; I've many already from all over the globe. One of the benefits of living in New York City. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 00:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

reductio ad absurdum, a logical fallacy?[edit]

How can a legitimate form of argument be a logical fallacy as seen here --Dondrodger (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the article you linked to? It says

In formal logic, the reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate argument. It follows the form that if the premises are assumed to be true it necessarily leads to an absurd (false) conclusion and therefore one or more premises must be false. The term is now often used to refer to the abuse of this style of argument, by stretching the logic in order to force an absurd conclusion. For example a UFO enthusiast once argued that if I am skeptical about the existence of alien visitors, I must also be skeptical of the existence of the Great Wall of China, since I have not personally seen either. This is a false reductio ad absurdum because he is ignoring evidence other than personal eyewitness evidence, and also logical inference. In short, being skeptical of UFO’s does not require rejecting the existence of the Great Wall.

Reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate style of argument, but it can be easily misused by nonsensical exaggeration. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
(EC) Legitimate form of argument according to whom? There is no official arbiter. Not only reductio ad absurdum, I have noticed most of the popular logical fallacies being used by reputable people and institutions under the impression that they are legitimate forms of argument; the point about listing them as logical fallacies is precisely because they are used as legitimate forms of argument. In the case of reductio ad absurdum, the essence of the logical fallacy comes in the leap between what is actually proposed and the version of it when its opponent has reduced it to the absurd. If the opponent does not leap the gap but instead makes a reasonable argument that the proposal would actually reduce to the absurd proposition, then that is not a logical fallacy. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
What you describe after "In the case of reductio ad absurdum" is a description of a different logical fallacy the Strawman argument. Your last sentence confirms the consensus that reductio ad adsurdum is a legitimate style of argument, which is as near to an "official" arbitration as we need. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

In mathematics, Proof by contradiction is considered a perfectly-valid form of proof... AnonMoos (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Many so-called logical fallacies can be legitimate (though not always conclusive), e.g. argument from authority should be persuasive if the people speaking are generally recognised as authorities on the subject under discussion, but if the Pope tells you something about biology that's less persuasive because the Pope isn't a biologist. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to argue from authority, it helps to talk about the credibility of an proposition rather than its truth or falacy. Since we know people aren't infallible, the best you can say is that something is probably true if an expert says it is. You can't say it is definitely true. If you can come up with a logical argument from accepted premises, then you can make a definite assertion of truth (conditional on your rules of inference being sound, I suppose, but you have to start somewhere!). --Tango (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Reductio ad Absurdum is a narrow step away from the slippery slope fallacy. In short: if there is a direct and logical link from one action to the next then the argument is valid. If there is NO logical link from one to the other, then it is a fallacy. As an example, "if you outlaw religion A because it's anti-national why not religion B, or C? soon we might ban religion altogether!" is a valid attack on anticlerical fascism- there is a link between religion A, B and C, for instance they are all christian denominations with similar beliefs. On the other hand "If we ban rocked launchers what's next? Pistols? hunting shotguns? before you know it we'll have to register our kitchen knives!" is a slippery slope fallacy because there is an essential difference between a military antitank weapon, a sporting weapon and kitchen tools. HominidMachinae (talk) 05:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll give you my kitchen tool when you take it from my cold, dead hands. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Right wing Irish republicanism and left wing Ulster unionism[edit]

Since apparently there aren't any major political parties that take such a stand, who do more left wing leaning unionists and right wing republicans vote for? Also, why is that part of the political spectrum void of major parties in Northern Ireland? --Belchman (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

There are left-wing Ulster Unionists, including most notably Chris McGimpsey who frequently spoke at Labour Party conferences in the 1980s and 1990s. The Democratic Unionist Party originally identified itself with the left-wing in economic policies, although this is less so nowadays. Back in 1918 the Ulster Unionists set up the Ulster Unionist Labour Association to attract the support of working-class voters. Two successive Unionist MPs for North Down have been or become Independent MPs who normally align with the British Labour Party: Robert McCartney and Sylvia Hermon. As far as right-wing republicans, many have conservative views on social policies. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
There have been a few historical occasions when some working-class Irish Protestants and Catholics have found common cause in economic grievances against the English ruling classes, but the Anglican ascendancy generally found this to be far more threatening than Catholic-only disaffection, and took steps to effectively break up such alliances. The main Catholic/Nationalist-aligned party which could be considered somewhat "moderate" (though hardly right-wing!) is the Social Democratic and Labour Party... AnonMoos (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The Progressive Unionist Party is left-wing, though it's smaller than the UUP or DUP. The Alliance Party of Northern Ireland is described as "liberal", and gets support from both unionist Catholics and Protestants. Catholic Unionist covers some boundary crossing, but suggests it's rare. In first-past-the-post elections different considerations are involved, and unionists may vote SDLP to keep Sinn Fein out.[6] --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
There was previous discussion of left-wing unionism at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 October 3#Left-wing unionism. Historically, large sections of Sinn Féin and the Nationalist Party were conservative, and despite SF and the SDLP both being nominally on the left, significant minorities within the parties support conservative social and economic policies. Fianna Fáil, which is broadly conservative and historically republican, had planned to stand candidates in Northern Ireland before its electoral woes set in; it attracted interest from some SDLP members, and Gerry McHugh defected from SF.
As to why no major parties are left-wing unionists or right-wing republicans, I know of no good evidence, but I would hypothesise that republicans saw many of their supporters discriminated against, naturally desired social change to rectify this; meanwhile, unionists in defending the union with Britain have tended to see this as good reason to defend existing social conditions, or have romanticised those from the period before the Troubles. Warofdreams talk 15:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
As regards PUP and their left-wing tendencies, LVF founder Billy Wright (loyalist) described the Belfast UVF as "communists". PUP is comprised of former UVF members.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
So in other words, nationalism and populism are generally orthogonal. (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Nobody has mentioned populism, so that's not a useful summary of the discussion above. Warofdreams talk 09:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
A couple of other points: prior to Irish independence, the Conservative Party generally opposed Irish Home rule and the more left-wing Liberal Party supported it. Many of the leading figures in Irish nationalism, such as James Connolly, were socialist. In the west of Scotland there was for most of the 20th century a strong, almost tribalistic, connection between on one side the Conservative party and Protestantism, and on the other the Labour party and Catholicism. The principal parties of Scottish and Welsh nationalism, Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party are both leftwing (elsewhere regionalist parties like the Northern League in Italy may be on the right - possibly because northern separatism in Italy is based on the rich north being reluctant to subsidise the poor and often corrupt south, while Ireland, Wales, Scotland traditionally feel poor and hard-done-by). Hence in Britain there's a strong link between unionism and rightwing politics, and between the desire for regional independence/devolution and leftwing politics. It's often the case that political parties hold multiple orthogonal viewpoints, e.g. social liberalism/conservativism and leftwing/rightwing economic policies, or the divisions in British politics over European integration. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

MMP & Overhang Seats[edit]

I'm having a hard time understanding this section on the Overhang seat article as it relates to Mixed-member proportional representation:

Take the number of additional list seats off from the other parties' proportional entitlement — A party is allowed to keep any overhang seats it wins, and the corresponding number of list seats allocated to other parties is eliminated to maintain the number of assembly seats. This means that a party with overhang seats has more seats than its entitlement, and other parties have fewer.

It's unclear to me how a party that is already over-represented ends up with an extra seat and makes the parliament bigger.

Lets say there is a ten-member parliament with 5 constituency seats and 5 list seats. There are three parties who win the results in all the constituencies as follows: A 34% B 33% and C 33%

Under this result, A would be over represented because it gets all of the constituency seats giving it 50% of the parliament. How are the rest of the seats determined and where do the overhand seats come from? --CGPGrey (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

There are numerous ways of doing this. For an example, the Scottish Parliament uses the D'Hondt system. To allocate the first seat, each party's total votes are divided by a number one more than the number of seats they already won. Whichever party has the highest total is awarded a seat. This is then repeated until all seats are filled. In your example, assuming that party B had one more vote than party C, of your five list seats, three would go to B and two to C. There is more detail on the Scottish system in this factsheet, but bear in mind that this is only one possible way of apportioning the seats.
I think that the section in the article is confusingly worded, and I'm unconvinced that it is appropriate to call additional constituency seats "overhang seats" in these circumstances where the size of the parliament is not increased. Warofdreams talk 15:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Let me give an example : in the 2008 New Zealand election the Maori party got more constituency seats than it should have, and the size of the parliament was increased by one. Where did this extra seat come from? --CGPGrey (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
That's the first example in the overhang article - "Allow the overhang", not the second one which you asked about above. In this case, the extra list seat was granted in order to ensure that each party still got the number of list seats to which they were entitled - it didn't come "from" anywhere. Is the explanation about this in the mixed-member proportional representation article any clearer for you? Warofdreams talk 17:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, I think I'm getting muddled up here. Let me see if I understand, in general, how overhang seats happen.
Lets say there is a ten-member parliament with 5 constituency seats and 5 list seats. There are three parties who win the results in all the constituencies as follows: A 34% B 33% and C 33%
So party A gets all 5 constituency seats.
According to the proportional results, of the seats, Party A should get 4 and Parties B & C should get 3 each. However, because party A already has five seats, it gets none of the proportional seats. Now, at this point B gets three list seats and C gets three list seats for a total of 11. Is this correct? --CGPGrey (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
That is correct for the "allow the overhang" approach. Warofdreams talk 09:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Destinations per airport[edit]


since traffic seems to fall under economics (by the way, I feel the helpdesk categories are a bit in "questions about giraffes/questions about non-giraffes" territory) I'm asking this here:

Which airport currently has the highest number of destinations served with scheduled passenger flights, domestic and international combined?

Cheers, -M.

-- (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

World's busiest airport says that Frankfurt has the most international destinations, which doesn't answer your question but might give you some leads. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Domestic connections from FRA are limited by the size of the country. My personal hunch is the boring choice ATL. Just wanted to entrust myself to the Wikimind's better wisdom!

-- (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Contributors to this forum did some research and found that Frankfurt has the most non-stop destinations overall, including both domestic and international destinations. Neither Atlanta nor O'Hare really came close. It's not so surprising, really. Frankfurt is THE hub for a nation of 80 million people in a part of the world with a greater density of cities than North America, and it serves in addition as a transfer point for people traveling to and from every continent except Antarctica. Marco polo (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd seen that discussion, but it was from 2001. Still, thank you for the effort! I think it's the closest we're going to get.


-- (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Questions on Non-Disclosure Agreements[edit]

I have some questions regarding non disclosure agreemenent. They are contracts, correct? If that is so, then do the standard requirements of consideration apply to them? Also, what are the remedies for its violation? Breach of Contract? What sorts of equitable remedies are there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabuve (talkcontribs) 16:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You may want to read the article titled Non-disclosure agreement. --Jayron32 17:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
And, if you are a party to a specific NDA and want to know what that means for you, then you should consult a lawyer. --Tango (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Sadly, the article doesn't seem to answer any of the questions raised by Rabuve. Sigh. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but there are also external links and references which can be followed. Perhaps the answer lies there. Wikipedia is a starting point, not a destination, for research. --Jayron32 17:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
But this page is. -- (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The consideration is the "valuable" confidential information disclosed, and injunctive relief is always available, with most courts very willing to issue preliminary injunctions. Equitable relief is slightly less common, beyond attorneys fees, and may be up to the judge or jury or both depending on the jurisdiction, if I remember right. But I'm not an attorney so don't believe me without a corroborating lawyer's opinion in the pertinent jurisdiction. (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Consideration does have to be shown. It's going to vary with the particular agreement and circumstances, but in general, the consideration is the communication of the confidential information, just as says. Typically the owner of the information will seek to be able to obtain an injunction forbidding disclosure of the information; this is a kind of equitable remedy. The owner may also be able to receive cash damages, which is a legal rather than an equitable remedy. John M Baker (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
That's for contractual non-disclosure agreements. With an agreement under statute -- one of the various "Official Secrets Acts", for example -- owner of the information could put you in jail (or gaol, if you prefer) for disclosure. If it's on the statute books, you could probably put away for threatening to disclose information or other inchoate offences. Or are we talking strictly contacts here? --Shirt58 (talk) 03:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The Official Secrets Act, at least in the UK, isn't an agreement. It's a law. While people talk about "signing the Official Secrets Act", you are subject to it whether you've signed anything or not, just like any other law. The act of signing it (or, rather, a declaration about it) is just a way to make sure people are aware of their obligations. It isn't a requirement for the law to be enforced. --Tango (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Equitable remedies are only available where there is no adequate remedy at law. That is money is not enough. The equitable remedy article has this ancient legal doctrine burried near the end. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that it is a violation of due process to deny a defendant a jury trial when a plaintiff pursues equitable relief when monetary damages are sufficient. I forget the name of the case, but it is from the 19th century. Do a google scholar search for "no adequate remedy at law" to learn more. Non-disclosure agreements could be the subject of a number of causes of action. Breach of contract, invasion of privacy (as was the non-disclosure agreement between Jennifer Lopez and her former husband), interference with advantageous relations or other business torts, false light or other defamation claims, copyright or patent infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets or others. The agreement could be used as the basis of the claim or it could be used as evidence of intent or maliciousness. The agreement must follow contract law, so consideration is necessary. Often a severence package, a paycheck, or continued employment is sufficient consideration. If you were already fired, the non-disclosure agreement may not be enforceable. It is going to depend on the facts and the jurisdiction. Gx872op (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the statements: "We can't really answer your question, as the answer will change depending on the specifics of the case and the legal jurisdictions involved" and "Consult a lawyer if this is more than just curiosity" are the best answers to any legal question. Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The NDAs that I have seen say that the consideration is the receipt of the confidential information in order to evaluate a possible business relationship. Riteota (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

VP of the US[edit]

Does the VP of the US have any authority to give orders to persons in the US military? Presumably, POTUS could as the commander in chief but I don't recall that the VP has any official military capacity. Googlemeister (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Cheney gave orders to the military to shoot down hijacked airliners late in the sequence of events on September 11, 2001. It is not clear either that he had the authority to do so. It is not clear that the military would have carried out his order. Edison (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The vice president has exactly two constitutional powers: 1) He takes the powers of the presidency if the president dies or is incapacitated, and 2) In the event of a tied vote in the Senate, the vice president can cast a vote to break the tie. Unless the president has died or is incapacitated, the vice president has no more constitutional authority than a street vendor in Cairo to command the U.S. military. Marco polo (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
As a de facto matter, the VP can probably credibly claim that the President's travel during a rapidly unfolding series of events is sufficient "incapacitation" to make his orders authoritative. If I recall correctly, nobody including the President ever objected to or refused the authority of Cheney's orders to shoot down the planes on 9/11 during or after the crisis. There's probably a law review or similar article about it somewhere by now. But I hope to goodness that the military wouldn't let a VP launch an attack against foreign soil or forces without much clearer presidential incapacitation. (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hence John Nance Garner's pithy quote that the Vice Presidency wasn't "worth a bucket of warm piss". In the modern age, the VP has a lot of symbolic power; they are a visible representative on their party, much like the president; they can be given special powers by the president, such as heading a special commission, or appearing in the President's stead to represent the interests of the U.S.. The president can also use the VP as a trusted advisor, to influence executive decisions based on the VPs advice. Not being codified in the constitution doesn't mean there isn't any real power. There's lots of ways power can manifest itself. Lobbyists have no legal standing by the constitution, but they have real power... --Jayron32 19:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Cheney never had much regard for constitutional legal limits to his power. Sadly, he is not the only government official who has frankly violated constitutional limits with impunity. Marco polo (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
You know, that comment would be good for more than just a contemptuous chuckle if you would point out an actual concrete example of Cheney having done something unconstitutional. μηδείς (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Apart from the possible theft of two elections and the attempt to command the U.S. military during the hysterical reaction to 9/11, you are right that there are no clear cases of constitutional violations, so I have edited my statement. However, there is plenty of evidence pointing to Cheney's involvement in illegal actions, such as the Plame affair, lying to Congress and the public (as discused in Plan of Attack), his support for "enhanced interrogation techniques" violating the Geneva Convention, and so on. In effect, he is probably guilty of war crime. Cheney himself fears prosecution for war crimes. Marco polo (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Remember also that the U.S. was under a state of emergency and operating under the (mostly secret, even from Congress) Continuity of Operations Plan plan, not entirely the Constitution. Rmhermen (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Both Bush and Cheney violated the Constitution by swearing the Oath of Office for offices they weren't legitimately elected to. Or is electoral fraud merely illegal but not unconstitutional? Pais (talk) 07:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
That is far from a "concrete example". I'm assuming you're referring to the 2004 United States election voting controversies? —Akrabbimtalk 13:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
More likely he is thinking of the United States presidential election in Florida, 2000 situation. Googlemeister (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Can the US president delegate some of those powers to the VP? Separately, I remember being told that in the last days of the Richard Nixon administration, Henry Kissinger quietly told the US generals to check with him (Kissinger) before doing anything drastic that the president might order. He seemed to have been concerned that Nixon would torch the globe in a fit of pique. Is there any evidence this occurred? Riteota (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure he can. There are things the President can delegate to the VP (like "Go represent me at this summit meeting of world leaders"), but the enumerated powers of the President are likely his solely, unless he declares himself incapacitated under the terms of section 3 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, then he can't willy-nilly abrogate his own personal responsibility and authority merely by designating the VP to make the decision. Clearly, he may be within his right to take the advice of the VP, even in an automatic and unquestioning way (Bush was often accused of this sort of relationship with Cheney, especially with regards to matters of national security), but ultimately the President, and not the VP, is ultimately held responsible, in a legal way, for the execution of his constitutional powers, especially including his role as Commander-in-Chief. --Jayron32 16:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The concept that I've heard is that the White House business model is more or less reinvented with every new administration. My guess is that the President can delegate whatever he (not she, yet, but I have a feeling that will happen sooner or later) wants, but it's still his authority and his neck on the line if something goes wrong; i.e. the President screwed up by letting the VP handle it when he should have found someone more competent/reliable/etc... The only thing the VP is legally responsible for is his rare opportunity at a vote in the Senate, everything else is the President's authority. SDY (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Railroad workers in gilded age in US[edit]

Does anyone know any statistic about railroad workers in gilded age? Anything like wages, hour of work a day, total death toll (anything death that related to railroad work including suicide if caused by railroad), % of death out of total workers, any other statistic would be helpful. Thanks.Trongphu (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC) And statistic on injured workers. Total and %?Trongphu (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Well during construction of the first US transcontinental railroad, our article states that Central Pacifc laborers worked 8 hour shifts and foremen worked 12 hour shifts. According to wages averaged $11-12 per week in 1860s Massachusetts anyway. Googlemeister (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there any accident related to railroad that the cause is workers didn't get proper equipment.Trongphu (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Trongphu, "gilded age" is not a common expression in English. "Golden age" is a familiar expression, but the limits of the period it designates are rather vague. It might be helpful if you delineated the period you are interested in more clearly. --ColinFine (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Golden age is totally off compare to what i'm talking about. Here, Gilded Age, this is what i'm talking about.Trongphu (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
My apologies. I had never met the expression before, and thought it was a language problem. --ColinFine (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
No problem man, everyone made mistakes all the time so feel free to say anything.Trongphu (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

In the late 19th century, railyard workers in the US switching freight cars had to stand between the cars and drop in a pin at the right instant as the parts of the 2 cars came together. If it failed to drop, they were apt to be crushed between the cars. There was about a death a week in the Chicago switchyards alone. Passenger cars used automatic couplers, which cost more and eliminated the hazard. 50 unnecessary deaths a year in the second largest city, from one cause. Here is a description of one such death, at another location. The loads from the flatcars extended closely enough together that his head was crushed, even though he successfully coupled the cars. There was only 4 feet or so from the ties/ballast to the load, and only 5 inches between the loads of the 2 cars. An appeals court said there was no negligence on the part of the railroad, and the man knew the risk when he took the job. They said he should have crouched under the load between the cars and only raised his hand above the load to drop the pin. Another worker had lost his hand doing such an operation, and again it was not the railroad's fault. See [7] which discussed national legislation in 1891 to require railroads to adopt automatic couplers. The railroad owners preferred to save money on couplers at the cost of limbs and lives lost unnecessarily by workmen. See also [8]. See [9] for discussion of the economics of maiming and killing workmen to keep equipment costs low. In 1889, 300 men were killed and 6757 injured coupling cars. It took years to get the auto couplers installed, standardized, and perfected, so that by 1903, with link and pin couplers almost gone, there were still 253 fatalities and 2788 injuries, since workers had to go between cars to fix problems with the automatic couplers, often with the cars still moving, due to lack of regulations requiring the train to stop before going between cars. Edison (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

As for wages, note that they would have likely paid less to "Coolie laborers" (mostly recent Chinese immigrants). StuRat (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
There are deep methodological problems with uncritical wage comparisons, especially over time, space, gender and race. Outside of the social contexts of gender and race, there are methodological problems in computing different wages across different spaces (cost of living, expectations, what parts of the social income were "commodified" and reduced to wage labour, access to commons, etc), and different times (inflation, declining proportion of social return to labour, etc.) It seems like Trongphu really needs to start reading through the table of contents of labour history and industrial relations journals—there are problems in reading historical death statistics without the context supplied by deep reading. Also, as I've previously noted, most of the studies I'm familiar with seat industrial death and workplace control within the framework of class or industrial conflict, rather than an impartial and universal standard of acceptable industrial death—even social democrats, progressives and liberals note the conflict between labour and management over "management's right to manage" workers into shallow graves. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
This [10] paper may be of interest, and a book by the same author is cited. This was a period when the authorities were only just starting to collect systematic statistics. Do heed Fifelfoo's warnings about hasty comparison. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thank you everyone for useful information.Trongphu (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Chiropractic in Medicare[edit]

When did the US government first include chiropractic coverage in Medicare? Chiropractic history (which is currently up for moving; it might help if you'd offer an opinion about that proposal) and Chiropractic controversy and criticism mention Medicare, but only in passing, and Medicare (United States) doesn't mention chiropractic at all. I'm working with congressional papers from 1971 and 1972, and I've come upon tons of letters from people to their senator, urging him to vote for a bill that would include chiropractic coverage in Medicare for the first time. I don't know whether the bill passed, since I'm not concentrating on this subject. Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

42 U.S.C. § 1395X (the Social Security Act) §§ 1861(r)(5) seems to have been enacted in 1965, but someone please double check that it was in the original bill, because we both have reason to believe it might not have been. You might need a law library for the history of the statute, or maybe just more time to google around for it than I have at the moment. (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Everybody that wrote on the issue (average people, medical doctors, Readers' Digest, and chiropractors) agreed that chiropractic wasn't included in Medicare; while the medical doctors and the magazine may not be as significant, you'd think that significant numbers of would-be chiropractic patients would know that they couldn't get compensated for their chiropractic visits, and I can't imagine 100% of any significantly-sized group of chiropractors incorrectly believing that they couldn't be compensated for their work. Nyttend (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Outcry stopping an execution in the US?[edit]

Has the popular and media outcry, Pope and EU intervention, ever stopped an execution in the US? Quest09 (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, about 268 times since 1976 but some of those commutations involved more or less public pressure than others. (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
That's a surprise answer. I'd expected something like none. Quest09 (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Given that many of those with power to stop executions depend on public support to be elected, I would expect plenty. HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Well clemency has never been politically popular with the silent majority. Governor George Ryan granted clemency to all of Illinois' Death Row prisoners on his second-last day in office because of all of the controversy over the death penalty, but he couldn't have gotten away with that had he been running for re-election. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, they do have other options, like delaying the execution or commuting to life imprisonment (which could also lead to a new trial and possible release, if new evidence appears). StuRat (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Would a 6'3", relatively strong, 252 lb and aggressive white male in his mid-twenties be likely to be raped in an American prison?[edit]

Just asking. Are there any sources you can draw on for this.--Sharon and girls (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Depends on how much respects he gets and how many dudes are bigger. If he doesn't play his cards right, he might get shanked or gang-raped in the shower, never know. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 23:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Prison rape is much less common than fiction might make us believe. And it's even less common among those not serving a life sentence and those who are not effeminate. (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Prison rape in the United States suggests the prior probability is about 2%, and presumably being above average sized would tend to decrease that probability, but the particular prison, cell block, sentence, crime, and the inmate's predisposition along a number of psychological dimensions might make a bigger difference. (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I might just point out that that number seems to be reported rapes. That's necessarily going to be smaller than those which have actually occurred. The difference between those two numbers may be quite amplified in a prison situation. Even in the non-prison world, rape is one of those crimes that is heavily underreported. So I'm not sure anyone knows what the actual incidence is. It's probably a lot less than 10%, but probably a bit more than 2%. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
A prison inmate who was brought to a criminal psychology class told us "You WILL be tested to see what they can do to you. It is not a question of IF." It's confusing when implies that if you are in for life (murder, repeated felonies, serious offenses) that you are more likely to be raped than if you are doing 2 years for check fraud. Gang membership is said to be somewhat protective, at a price. The tall "relatively strong" fat guy would seem less at risk than a willowy and effeminate little guy. Edison (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh it's not a case of being "relatively strong". You see, I am not even American. And if you think I am fat I am slightly fat but I have big muscles which I have gained over the years from work and the gym and that has been what has given me my weight for the most part.--Sharon and girls (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Well Sharon, what gaol were you thinking of being locked up in specifically? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 00:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No, if he gave in first he would not be raped. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that is logically true. Wouldn't it still be rape if beyond a certain point—of being beaten up—that one "gave in"? There are physical forces beyond anyone's ability to withstand. There are always stronger people than anyone, and additionally one can be outnumbered by multiple adversaries. Bus stop (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The OP's inquiry raises a lot of questions, the first of which, to me, is, well, does he want to be raped, or doesn't he? I have heard plenty of stories about murder in jail and plenty of stories about homosexual sex, of the eager and desperate and situational versions, directly from inmates of Rikers and Sing Sing with whom I have had personal relations and elsewhere. But I have never heard an actual prison rape story. Those seem mostly to be the fantasies of fantisizers and fantasists. The way this question is asked makes me suspect the desired answer to will he be raped is...yes. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Without knowing much about your friends, I would guess many people are far more willing to discuss how they had consensual sex, even if it was with someone of the same sex and they don't consider themselves gay, then they are willing to discuss how they were raped. Some rapists may enjoy boasting about their rapes, others may not, particularly if they're partially reformed and may prefer or even had deluded themselves in to thinking their rapes were entirely consensual sex. As for murders, again I don't know the context for these. But a murder does tend to be more public then a rape so it's likely more people would be aware of these even if the number that occured was equal. Also again without knowing the mentality of the people you've had discussions with, I think people often prefer to turn a blind eye to things which make them uncomfortable and in many cases this applies to rape more then murder. Also it's generally far harder to presume a murder was an accident or suicide then it is to presume a rape which you hear about or witness was actually consensual sex. More generally, it's commonly presented on TV and in movies that some people will semi-consent to sex with one person, with the desire to gain their protection and ensure they aren't raped by anyone else (and possibly the person they 'consented' to). How often this occurs in real life I have no idea. But while I don't know what you should call these, I don't know if they should be called consensual either. Nil Einne (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
In addition to the above excellent responses, I think it's important to emphasize that the person in question should, if he can, avoid going to jail, and so avoid this risk altogether. Jail has many detriments beyond the risk of prison rape, such as a complete loss of personal freedom. Dcoetzee 07:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Here's a 2006 study, refuting the media's view on the prevalence of actual prison rape, but confirming that homosexual relationships do exist, though it is regarded as situational and understandably kept quiet when they get free.
Prison rape does exist though, but I agree that it would probably be quite rare. Even though being the unwilling victim of one and thus keeping quiet out of shame shouldn't be discounted either. Crazily enough, the victim is almost always regarded as the gay one, and the rapist as the "real" man merely giving in to his sexual urges. And then there's the propensity for legislators to regard any kind of homosexual contact in prisons with suspicion, and view it as rape. Some previous studies included inmates who actually prostituted themselves along with the victims of actual rape.
So no, an inmate most probably won't get raped, but depending on how long he stays there or how lonely he gets, it's likely he'll seek some sexual outlet that involves another person. Be it prison staff of both sexes or another male inmate. But it is not necessarily rape.
Here's a bibliography (with links) if you want to know more about the different studies on it. This paper also discusses the possibility of the reports of rape merely being attempts to reassert heterosexual identity, thus painting what may actually be consensual sex as a violent attack to distance themselves in postprison life.-- Obsidin Soul 08:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
An article I read but do not have a link to said that when youthful offenders are put in jail for minor crimes and commit suicide (as by hanging themselves in the cell) it is often because they have been raped and fear repeated rapes. I'm not sure how to search for the article without turning up tons of sites I would just as soon not see. In the US, it seems odd that "strict law and order" figures in fiction often seem glad that straight offenders will get gang raped in prison, despite the authority figures disliking homosexuals. In this schema, the prison is a place where gang lords and the most vicious criminals are rewarded for their incarceration with victims for their lust. In real interrogations police supposedly threaten suspects with the prospect of some horrific cellmate raping them, to get information or confessions, in a way reminiscent of medieval inquisotors "exhibiting the instruments of torture" to get confessions or information on others. Edison (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
To wander off topic onto the subject of youthful offenders, some statistics are in Beck, Allen. J; Harrison, Paige M.; Guerino, Paul (January 2010), Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-2009, U.S. Department of Justice. (Not sure why I don't have a link to that, I'm sure it's available online.) I think it describes roughly 10% of inmates as reporting unwanted sexual contact from a staff member within the last year involving use of force, and roughly another 10% without use of force. Reports of unwanted sexual contact from other inmates were much lower. Very strange figures, perhaps I misunderstood them in some way. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Where to find companies whose stocks trade on more than one stock exchanges ?[edit]

Hi, All:

where to find companies whose stocks trade on more than one exchange ? For example, some companies, whose stock maybe traded both on European (London) stock exchange and Nasdaq.

I am particularly interested in finding out these Asian and African companies whose stocks are traded on more than one stock exchanges.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

So that you can buy low on one and sell high on another? It would seem that were that possible someone would already have thunk it.μηδείς (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Not only has someone thought of it, they have a word to describe the practice. See arbitrage. --Jayron32 02:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Cool. I remember that word from the 80's. See: μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm just attempting to address the question, don't mind me. (They have a word for 'arbitrage' because it exists and is practiced, across asset classes, actually.)
The original poster should read American Depositary Receipt and look at the external links. For example, this link to Deutsche BAnk's Depository Receipt Services, which has a detailed search tool. Riggr Mortis (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)