Miscellaneous desk
< January 28	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 29

Scottish Referendum on Independence

For the vote, do you have to actually be Scottish, or just living there (as a UK citizen - and therefore possibly including English, Welsh, or Irish)? How would you prove that you are actually Scottish, anyway? Theoretically, though highly unlikely, lots of people from the other three member states of the UK could move to Scotland just before the referendum, and tip the balance of the vote. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish independence referendum, 2014#Date and eligibility lists the criteria for voters. There is no legal definition of "being Scottish" only "living in Scotland". -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly the franchise is wider than usual, as it includes "citizens of the 53 other Commonwealth countries who are resident in Scotland", "citizens of the 28 other European Union countries who are resident in Scotland" and "members of the House of Lords who are resident in Scotland", none of whom are entitled to vote in UK General (and other) Elections. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually all three categories are eligible for UK elections; see our article here. UK residents who are Commonwealth citizens are eligible for both UK General Elections and local elections. UK residents who are EU citizens and House of Lords are only eligible for local elections, e.g. independence referendums. So the franchise is exactly the same as any other local election. Dncsky (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I (obviously) never knew that. Thanks for the correction. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EU citizens are allowed to vote for the European parliament, no mater where in the EU they are living. Irish citizens resident in the UK can vote in all elections. CS Miller (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By "eligible for elections" do you mean able to be elected (the literal meaning of 'eligible') or able to vote? Or something else again? —Tamfang (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's like the rest of the UK at General Election time then you have register and get a slip through the post to vote. No Scottish postal address, no vote. Plus, they would probably realise something had gone amiss when a higher population voted than Scotland housed. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 15:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "slip through the post", aka polling card, tells you that you're entitled to vote, but there is no requirement to show it when voting. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it is necessary to be on the electoral register maintained by the authority to whom you pay council tax. I don't think there are enough empty houses in Scotland to house enough extra voters to make a significant difference, but, in theory, it would be possible to have a large increase in the number of eligible voters at the time when the register was being compiled. Dbfirs 18:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the minimum voting age in the referendum will be 16 rather than the 18 it usually is in UK elections. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 11:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name of a specific type of work duty

Hello, I was driving along a rode when I saw a person on the side of the road, dressed up as the Statue of Liberty, doing a dance. I assume he was advertising local restaurant "New York Pizza" as there was one very close by. What is the proper name for the types of employee that do this sort of thing? -- 140.202.10.134 (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Human billboard --Viennese Waltz 15:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that he might also have been advertising Liberty Tax, they're rather famous around my town for their "Wavers" with this costume. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it could be Liberty Tax. I have one nearish me and have seen someone in a Statue of Liberty costume dancing about outside their shop before. Dismas|^(talk) 17:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you place a Toaster Oven on a plastic surface safely?

I have a small kitchen with little surface space, and this has made it impossible for me to set up my Cuisinart Classic Cuisine toaster oven broiler. So I asked a friend to buy me a cupboard of drawers to fill double duty (I don't currently have the cupboard space to fit my pans either.) My thought was that if he gets me basically a chest of drawers for my kitchen, I can put the pans in the drawers and the toaster oven on top of it.

Well, the chest of drawers he bought me is plastic. Toaster ovens get hot when in use I'm pretty sure, can I safely place a toaster oven on a plastic cupboard or do I need to buy a sheet of stone or something to go on top? --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This may not breach our medical/legal advice ban, but it's still a question we can't answer definitively because we don't know enough. I'm sure you will probably get plenty of opinions here; it's up to you to decide whether they are any more valid than your own. Here is a link to what I hope is the manufacturer's manual for your toaster oven. It says: 18. A fire may occur if the toaster oven broiler is covered or touching flammable materials such as curtains, draperies, and walls, when in operation. Do not store any items on top of the appliance when in operation. Do not operate under wall cabinets. It doesn't mention putting it on a plastic cupboard, but it does imply that the appliance can get hot enough to damage nearby flammable objects. For any more detailed advice, you should contact the manufacturer. - Karenjc (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If necessary: I understand and affirm that any replies to this question are solicited and do not represent the opinions of Wikipedia or even necessarily the replier. They may contain errors and any actions or beliefs taken on my part from advice given in this section are the responsibility of solely myself. I claim any and all possible consequences for following the advice as my own and I will not pursue any sort of action, legal or otherwise, against Wikipedia or any of the repliers for this question. Also for what it's worth, I'm probably going to go buy some sort of covering regardless of what ends up being concluded, just to be on the safe side. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I was nervous about the toaster oven getting the surface too hot, I would place a ceramic tile on top of the cupboard - they're cheap and you can probably find a color that looks nice in your kitchen. Even just placing a baking sheet upside-down under the toaster oven would keep it from radiating heat straight into the plastic. Katie R (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I, too, would prefer to place something under the oven. Most of the heat will be convected upwards, but there will be a limited amount of radiated heat downwards, and a simple precaution is better than a regret when the top of the plastic surface distorts from the heat. An alternative would be to lift the oven an inch or more above the surface (so that you can get your hand underneath to see how hot it's getting). For safety, it would be necessary to ensure that the "legs" are firm and stable. Dbfirs 18:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the plastic catching fire is only one risk due to overheating. It might also give off fumes, discolor, or crack, without ever catching fire. So, I agree that something under the toaster oven would be a good idea. There should ideally be an air gap between the chest and this item, as in a trivet. StuRat (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdote: I had an oven toaster in Japan, placed on top of the fridge (plastic surface) and it melted a hole in the top of the fridge. I would advise buying a wooden chopping board or some sort of thermal insulator, and placing it on that, if the surface below would have been plastic. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A glass chopping board? -- SGBailey (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glass might crack. There is glass designed for the oven, but a chopping board might not be made of that. StuRat (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the USA is more violent because it is "new" then how to explain Australia and Canada?

I was reading Steven Pinker's "Better Angels of our Nature" where the author attempts to explain why humans have gotten progressively less homicidal from the stone age to the present. As we all know, the rates of homicide in the United States are much higher than in Europe. Pinker's hypothesis is that the USA short-circuited the state-civilizing process by going straight from anarchy to nominal monarchy to democracy, whereas most of the "old world" went from anarchy to feudal warlords, to monarchy to democracy. Pinker also asserts that the Western US and parts of the Southern US were anarchic until the early 20th century, which would explain the propensity to violence of the USA. Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, however, are all similiarly "new" societies, but those nations have rates of violence more in line with Europe. Why are those nations not as violent as the USA? Jojo Fiver (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because they don't have as much of an underclass of people who were deliberately and systematically oppressed by the majority population for centuries, and the lingering effects thereof. Any explanation that doesn't include the lingering effects of institutional bigotry on the socioeconomic situation in America is ignoring the biggest problem. The problem of the 20th century is the problem of the color-line. That problem didn't disappear in the blink of an eye, and lingering effects of poverty and the crime said poverty brings continues to be a problem into the 21st century. Pinker's hypothesis is interesting if we ignore all the real problems that are antecedents to violence in America. --Jayron32 21:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have statistics or sources to validate the claim that this violence is derived from an "underclass", or is it just an opinion? After all, being the Reference Desk, we'd like some actual facts. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Australia and New Zealand absolutely have a racial "underclass": The Aboriginal peoples and the Maoris. Australia also had a large, unsettled "outback" arguably more "wild" than the American "old west." Still, the rates of violence in Australia and NZ are more in line with Europe than America. (The racial explanation was given in the "Better Angels" book as well but conveniently ignored the Aboriginals and Maori). Jojo Fiver (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a problem is you're only thinking of homicides. There is significant concern over violence, including domestic violence among New Zealand's 'underclass' and the stereotypical violent criminal in New Zealand is a a Māori or Pacific Islander. Homicides are likely lower in NZ for a number of reasons some mentioned elsewhere in this thread including much less access to guns, a different way police and the public deal with violent crime etc. AFAIK there is also generally much more access to social support in NZ than there is in US for those in the underclass or otherwise not very well off. Also while I don't want to underestimate or demean the discrimination face by Māori, I don't think it's generally been to the level of what went on in the US, there was obviously no official institutional slavery (well some Māori may have kept slaves and of course there may have been stuff similar to slavery [1]) nor was there anywhere the level of instutional segregation [2] yet I suspect there may have been a greater level of mutually voluntary segregation. Nil Einne (talk)

Aboriginal peoples in Canada generally haven't had the greatest time since the "new" country came about, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The comparatively easy access to handguns and rifles in the US may contribute something, plus the fact that Hollywood action movies tend to have at least everyone except the main character die from either bullet wounds or in an explosion. Contrary to what you may beleive, European countries do, however, have their fair share of violence. We in the UK have shootings and stabbings on a near daily basis. They are just not newsworthy (worldwide) because it happens so often, and just becomes local news. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

European countries do of course have violence, but the rates for intentional homicide in the UK are much lower than the US. (Relatively easy to compare homicides rates, more difficult to compare overall violent crime rates due to wide variance between jurisdictions as to what constitutes a violent crime). See List of countries by intentional homicide rate where the homicide rate of the UK is 1.2 homicides per 100,000 population whilst that of the US is 4.7. (Suicides not included). In other words, you're almost 4 times as likely to be murdered in the US than in the UK. On the other hand, the homicide rate in Russia is 9.7, so the US is not particularly murderous compared to some parts of Europe. What is more striking is the disparity in firearm-related homicides - 0.04 in the UK and 3.6 in the US (stats as per List of countries by firearm-related death rate, some variance from year to year) so you're about 90 times more likely to be shot dead. (There were 38 firearm homicides in the UK in 2011, with numbers varying between 15 and 61 per year in the preceding decade [3], so while crimes involving guns do occur in the UK, there are very few deaths as a result). Valiantis (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The US homicide rate since the Civil War corresponds largely to prohibition form 1920-1932 and the war on drugs since the 1960's, corresponding largely to heroin and cocaine use. See this graph. About forty percent of homicides are currently directly drug related according to this source. I am not sure whether homicide includes suicide in this source. If it does, the vast majority of non-suicide homicides will be drug related. Perhaps someone can find a graph comparing suicide and drug-crime related deaths. μηδείς (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron is probably on the right track. According to this government publication, homicide rates for black males are up to nine times those for white males. This doesn't fully account for the disparity with European countries and other former British colonies, since homicide rates for whites are still somewhat higher in the United States than in those countries. Still, a legacy of racism explains much of the disparity. This is a very complicated cultural phenomenon, having to do both with the (sometimes unconscious) racism of many non-blacks, which for example discourages black school-age children from hoping for academic success, and with a widespread despair among lower-class blacks at the prospect of success through legitimate means. Ultimately the roots of this dynamic go back to slavery and institutionalized racism in the United States. Feeding into that is a culture, especially among black (and also Latino and to a lesser extent white) urban adolescent males that glorifies violent crime and even considers it glamorous. (The wealthiest and most powerful people in some urban neighborhoods are successful criminals.) This fosters often homicidal gang activity. This culture of violence is disproportionately located in a lower-class nonwhite population that has faced and still faces racial barriers to legitimate success, but as Medeis points out, the drug trade plays a role in this, and many white homicides are involved in the drug trade. While Australia and New Zealand (and Canada for that matter) have oppressed racial minorities, I believe that this cultural dimension is missing. Also, of these countries, only in New Zealand does the oppressed minority make up anywhere near as large a share of the population as in the United States. As KageTora correctly points out, in many U.S. jurisdictions there are very weak or virtually no barriers to the acquisition of firearms. I know that rates of gun ownership in Canada are nearly as high as in the United States, but according to our Gun politics in Canada, to legally acquire guns in Canada a person has to go through a relatively strict licensing process. In many U.S. states, guns can be purchased, at least privately or at "gun shows", without any background check on the purchaser. This makes it easy for criminals to acquire guns. Guns are more effective at homicide than practically any other weapon. Putting together the combination of a unique and dysfunctional cultural dynamic around race, a thriving illegal drug trade, and easy access to guns, it is no surprise that homicide rates are higher in the United States than in other affluent countries. Marco polo (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the way the US had to fight two wars to achieve independence from England (American Revolutionary War and War of 1812) made a difference. Since the US colonies had no large standing army to fight the war, this made it necessary to rely on "citizen militias", which often supplied their own guns and training, and this established a gun culture which then became enshrined in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution in the US Bill of Rights. As correctly noted above, widespread availability of guns dramatically increases the homicide rate. StuRat (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the availability of guns and the culture of gun ownership is not, of itself, any direct cause. People who own guns don't instantaneously gain the desire to use them on other people. The desire to use guns on other people is a prerequisite to high murder rates, and in the U.S. the desire to use guns on other people is directly tied to hundreds of years of enforced poverty against racial minorities, leaving only criminal activity (i.e. drug trade) as a means to escape that poverty. If you eliminate the poverty and the racism, you eliminate most of the disparity between the U.S. and Canada, which as noted, has similar levels of gun ownership without a history of slavery and Jim Crow laws. --Jayron32 15:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a restatement of the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument of the NRA. The reality is that people get angry, especially impulsive people, and if they are well armed when this happens, they are far more likely to kill. If you can find a way to ensure that people will never be angry or impulsive, then guns would no longer cause deaths, I agree.

The US is also really bad at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the violently mentally ill, or alternatively keeping the violently mentally ill locked up (they do keep criminals locked up fairly well). Things like gun shows with no background checks ensure a good supply of weapons to the most dangerous people. StuRat (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your responses. Remember the issue is why the USA a higher homicide rate than Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, not debating whether the USA is more violent than Europe (which is obvious). Others have shown that firearm ownership is not the answer, as Canada has the same gun ownership rate as the USA. The racial underclass problem is something that Pinker mentioned in his work. Another thing was that the USA has at least three different regional cultures each that had differing paces of development. Knowing that, is Northern, Western, or Outback Australia more homicide-prone than Eastern Australia? Does the Maori minority in New Zealand have a higher homicide rate than white NZ? Jojo Fiver (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian natives seem to be "much more likely than non-Aboriginal people to be victims of violent crime and spousal violence" and are "highly overrepresented as offenders charged in police-reported homicide incidents and those admitted into the correctional system". InedibleHulk (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a matter of temperature, too. Much of the American South is hot and muggy for most of the year, and densely packed with people, glass and concrete. Likely not the main cause, but fuel on the fire. More detail here. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It surprises me to read that Canada has the same level of gun ownership of guns as the USA. Are they the same types of guns? With no formal evidence at all, I would hazard a guess that the public carrying of the types of guns that can be quickly used to hurt others would be more prevalent in the USA. Australia doesn't just have fewer guns than the USA. It has strict laws on where guns can be kept, on handgun and automatic gun ownership, on physical separation of gun storage and ammunition storage, on who can have them, etc. Do these differences exist between the USA and Canada too? HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's sort of apples and oranges, but compare Gun politics in Canada#Laws and regulations to Gun law in the United States. Also not sure of numbers, but in personal Canadian experience, I've seen many more guns that can't fit under a shirt than ones that can. Of course, there might be a more obvious reason for that. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While there are some potential clues here (and some directly relevant figures under Crime and Calamity), I'm inclined to say it small, because Canadian TV propaganda teaches us we're too nice to boast, rather than too entitled to die. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]