Humanities desk
< April 26	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 28 >

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.

April 27

20 Points of Law

I had stumbled onto this document on the internet while doing my daily rounds of surfing. It has incredible notions about ownership of nations and of the IRS. Does this document truly present factual/legal statements? This is the link to the page: 20 Points of Law

Thanks in advance for the help 65.34.233.119 (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather simple... Check the references he puts after each point. Notice that those same references are used by thousands of websites that claim there are secret societies using national taxes to keep everyone a slave. Now, go to Social Security Administration (here on Wikipedia). Check the sources. Notice that those sources go straight to real laws where you can read the law for yourself. It is not uncommon for conspiracy people to share imaginary references to back their points. The attitude appears to be that if enough people cite the same imaginary reference, then the absence of the reference can be justified by claiming that the conspiracy is hiding it from the public. -- kainaw ™ 01:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Definitely did some illumination. 65.34.233.119 (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However you have to be careful, because the above is also true for views that are merely politically unacceptable to power systems. Here is a simple example: Bush geared up for an attack on Iraq saying they had weapons of mass destruction. Then literally overnight (when the pretext evaporated) he changed the pretext from "preempting their WMD" to "liberating 'em". But you will not find this sudden change in pretext mentioned in any reference here on Wikipedia, or in any other "respectable" source. There are tons of other examples, this is just the one that I find the most hilarious. Everyone knows it was about oil (an open secret) and the sudden change in pretext without mention by anyone is perfect proof, but power won't have you mention it. 79.122.1.164 (talk) 06:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While 79.122's general point is correct, in their specific example they are making extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. --ColinFine (talk) 08:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? My claim ("it was about oil") is the ordinary one everyone understands. The extraordinary claim would be that God really spoke to Bush after his WMD pretext faded and he realized that Iraq needs to be liberated from an evil dictator.

Anyway what I said about the news you can remember yourself if you were around at the time, or do about 2-5 minutes of archival research (iraq WMD, liberation, etc). You will find that as the first pretext disappeared, the second one was offered without this change being commented on by any respectable news source. Anyway if you really are such a poor researcher you can't do this yourself, I will point you to articles from before and after the change, and you can see there is no NY Times headline: "New Reason for Attacking Iraq: We're Liberating Them" or any other mention of the change. It's quite hilarious actually, but you can remember it yourself if you were around, no reason to waste either of our time. 79.122.1.164 (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No 79.122 that "it was about oil" is a common (cynical) assumption, it is not something that is evidenced - and if such evidence was compelling then the US would face a lot more criticism international than it currently has. The war itself was controversial, but there is little mainstream evidence that the war was fought for a 'hidden' reason. Is there any compelling evidence that shows planning based on it being a war for oil? Is there any evidence of conspiracy by the government? The original reason may have proven to be incorrect, and the war may have been potentially unjust, but that's a long way from a government willfully lieing to the general public about its intentions. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you say "there is little mainstream evidence that" is exactly right. Why would evidence become mainstream, when becoming mainstream goes against everything power would have? It doesn't make sense. I gave you a very clear example: from one day to the next the pretext changed, and there was no mainstream comment. If you don't think my example is right, go ahead and point me to the New York Times article that points out the change in reasons for the war. You can't, because pointing that out is not a mainstream idea. (It doesn't mean it's not easily shown, I just told you how to do it -- it will take you about 5 minutes of archival work, you can clearly see the before and after, but no one in the mainstream would dare comment on the change.) It's quite hilarious. 79.122.1.164 (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clear example of how conspiracy theorists use lack of evidence as proof that there is evidence. However, this question is not about Bush or the Iraq War. -- kainaw ™ 13:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man much? I didn't mention a whisper of a conspiracy. I said newspapers are indentured to the wishes of power. And I gave you a way to check yourself in 5 minutes whether this is so. It would be ridiculous to suggest that the editorial offices of respectable newspapers conspire to suppress obviously newsworthy facts. Here's a tip for next time you strawman: don't pick a ridiculous suggestion, then people will take your mischaracterization seriously. 94.27.209.202 (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence that this question is about Bush, but they would destroy that evidence, wouldn't they? APL (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As well as checking references, the other thing you can do is apply common sense. For example the document says "Britain is owned by the Vatican" and cites a document from 1213. 1) There was no such country as Britain in 1213, only the separate states of England and Scotland (among others). 2) A lot changed since 1213, including the Protestant Reformation and the foundation of the Church of England. Even if it was true then, it might not be now. (You can probably find documents saying England is part of the Roman Empire if you look hard enough). 3) Does the UK act as if it is owned by the Vatican? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other trick this document plays is to state a perfectly simple uncontroversial fact as if it were shocking or important. Take "Judges do not enforce Statutes and Codes". It sounds bad if you think that judges should be doing that - but in fact they aren't supposed to. The people who enforce laws are police officers and the like. Judges are there to decide questions of law. You probably don't want a judge coming to your house if there has been a break-in. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the final trick is the "citing of the fictitious reference". This site lists all the documents of the 73rd Congress: observe that there is no Senate Document 43.

What I would be interested in knowing is where this crap started from? Who first made it up? DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Everard

Can you explain why there is no refernce to Barbara Everard in Wikipedia. She should be listed as one of the 20th century's foremost botanical artists and illustrators, principally in watercolour, with many examples of Malaysian orchids and flors of the British Isles. She has been published in several books, magazines and greetings cards. She was born in 1910 and died in 1990 at the age of 79. I have written one but do not seem to be able to get it in to "main space". Why? Neversoft (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best place for this question is the WP:Help desk, which is for questions about using Wikipedia. This desk is for help in finding research sources.

(I notice that you asked this same question at the help desk on March 23 and they explained that you had inadvertently created your article on your user page instead of in the encyclopedia. Looking at your contributions, that seems to still be the case. Post again on the WP:Help desk to find out how to move it. And please, read carefully their comments about conflict of interest, because sometimes it can cause problems if you write about your own family. Take heart, though, if your mother was famous enough to be in an encyclopaedia, someone is sure to write the article one day.) Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article on your user page needs some work before it could be moved to mainspace. The biggest problem is the lack of citations, which are essential to prove notability and to verify the facts within the biography: Original research is not allowed on WP. A quick google search confirms Everard's publications but offers little evidence for the biography or the claims regarding "leading botanical artist", other than a BBC public post by her son (you?), which would not meet WP's policies on reliable sources. If you can find some appropriate sources, I can help you prepare the article for mainspace. Gwinva (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can explain it. There is no reference because nobody has decided to create one, (or just possibly, somebody has decided to, but not found satisfactory sources). That is the whole of the answer. But I don't take kindly to a question that starts 'can you explain' and seems to have the subtext 'you should do something about this'. --ColinFine (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bite the newbies, please. Tempshill (talk) 05:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one likes a question that starts 'can you explain' and seems to have the subtext 'you should do something about this', whether at Wikipedia or in life. People who avoid subtexts as a matter of policy develop attractive reputations for being frank and direct. These are general truths; they "bite" no innocents.--Wetman (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Children With 'Illegal' Names

Does anyone have any information on parents going through legal battles for naming their kids by names which were not considered appropriate by the law. I know there is a child in Sweden whose name is currently spelled 'Brfxxccxxmnpcccclll mmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116' (but pronounced 'Albin'), and the parents are going through court battles to either allowa them to use that name or change it to 'A' (still pronounced 'Albin'). Also, a Chinese couple were apparently jailed for naming their child '@', and a couple in America had their children taken into care for calling one 'Adolf Hitler' and the other two were called 'Aryan Nation' and 'Hoszlynn Hinler'. Are there any more?--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii. Algebraist 16:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)On a side note, there is also a child whose name was in the news recently for being called 'Drew Peacock' (first name is 'Drew' and surname is 'Peacock') and the father was shocked when he did a Google search for famous namesakes and Google said 'Do you mean droopy cock ?', but this never became a legal case.(after edit conflict) Oh thnaks, I will check that one.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning... There is a viral email that goes around and around that claims a new law in some area (usually Alabama) black parents must have all children names authorized by a white person. The email is not based on truth in any way, but there are many discussion forums and web sites that use the email as supporting documentation to demonstrate either how oppressed black parents are or how terrible black parents' ability to name their children may be. -- kainaw ™ 17:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's terrible. Also, I've just realized what the Korean version of my Japanese nickname is pronounced like. 'Young ho', and I think I might change it. Somebody recommended it to me a short time ago, in all good faith, as I am moving to Korea shortly, but I think I might choose another name.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I believe Wikipedia really does have an article on everything: see Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116! Re the question, see these:

Turkey banned Kurdish names in 2001, repealed in 2003 (not a bizarreness issue, but definitely a legal one). [1], [2]

Denmark requires names be sanctioned by two agencies and also need to be chosen from a pre-approved list, though a 2006 update means the law is less restrictive than it used to be [3], [4], [5]

New Zealand Not only Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii as above, but officials also rejected the name "4 real" for having numerals in it. [6], [7]

France had a list of preapproved names in force from the early 19th century to 1993. [8]

Germany apparently bans invented names and names that don't clearly designate a child's sex. [9]

Sweden has relaxed the rules recently, allowing the previously banned name Metallica. [10], A history of Swedish naming laws. WikiJedits (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very surprised New Zealand rejected the name '4 Real' because it had numerals in it when, according to the first link in this thread, they accepted 'Number 16 Bus Shelter' which also has numerals in it....--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well this article [11] mentions a bus stop but no number 16 bus stop. Perhaps the number 16 part was rejected. Or perhaps it's number sixteen (since the parents probably wouldn't care about whether it's spelt or numeral). Regardless I'm hoping they weren't naming their kid after the place it was conceived Nil Einne (talk)

In the U.S. we have a Jennifer 8. Lee who legally has a numeral for a middle name; I have heard interviews with her and this has apparently created almost no problems for her. People give a little "hmmm." and move on; even those who officially I suppose could care don't. Apparently the computers at the Social Security office don't care, so no one else does. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see there's a full stop after her "8", implying it's an initial. If so, what's her full middle name? What is the 8 short for? And if the answer is nothing, what's the full stop for?

The same as the full stop is for in Harry S. Truman. — Michael J 22:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Japan about 15 years ago it was reported that some parents tried to name their kid the equivalent of the English word "Devil" and I believe they were stopped by a court. Tempshill (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A number of countries, such as Japan or Sweden, pass judgment on the appropriateness of a child's name. Others, such as China, apparently simply don't have computer systems that can cope with the complexity of their languages. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's an extensive Google Answer that mentions some of the above and may offer you scope for further research if you wish. I believe the UK does not permit numerical digits to be part of a registered name; I can't offer you a citation but I clearly recall newspaper reports some years back of a couple who were not permitted to register their daughter's name as "Z 13" (after a type of motorcycle) but who did then register the child as "Z" (or "Zed") Thirteen, which was allowable. I've found a couple of throwaway refs to this case online but nothing authoritative, however. Ka renjc 12:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some bits of that Google Answer are fishy:

Name day is not a uniquely Czech custom (the first I heard of it was from a Swede).
Morocco: Isn't there an Arabic form of Adam?
Chihuahua: "Western" contrasted with "Spanish"?!

—Tamfang (talk) 00:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent link! Excellent link! Thank you! Lot's of information there!--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

China is in the process of banning names with unusual characters. 85% of Chinese people have one of 100 surnames. Government computers can only read 32000 of the 55000 Chinese characters in existence. Parents sometimes search for rarely used characters so their child is not one of 20,000 in a city with the same full name. The government is going to require 60,000,000 Chinese people to change their names to common characters, and is issuing a list of only 8,000 characters allowed for future names.Edison (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that's a mis-story, or whatever you call it. Chinese government computers can read 76,000 out of the 130,000 total possible characters (and more than the 55,000 standard characters). The whole "banning weird names" story comes from mis-reporting by the Yangcheng Evening News, which somehow, in a headline, conflated the two stories "Government to issue updated 8,000 character printers' standard" with "Linguistics expert believes choice of characters for personal names should be regulated". The Yangcheng headline (not backed up by the content of the same article, btw) was picked up by the internet community, while stories refuting/clarifying the situation were pretty much ignored.

It's depressing sometimes how a lie (well, sensationalised headline) can run around the world before the truth can get its boots on. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Reserve and Bureau of Engraving and Printing

The Federal Reserve creates the money, but the Bureau of Engraving and Printing prints the actual paper money. The latter is part of the United States Department of the Treasury. What if the supposedly independent Federal Reserve runs out of dollar bills but the Department of the Treasury disagrees with its monetary policy and refuses to print more money? Thanks, MMMMM742 (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a pretty random "what if". What if giant space aliens came down and demanded to be paid in nickels or they would impregnate our teenage daughters? What effect would that have on the price of beef in Iowa? Seriously, I don't know that such a crisis would be all that likely. Even if it were to occur, it wouldn't make a lick of difference. Printed currency is created essentially "on demand"; as banks need more currency they put in orders to the Fed. The actual supply of money mostly exists as entries in spreadsheets on computers; even counting for all the U.S. currency outside of our borders, the total supply of currency accounts for a tiny fraction of the U.S. money supply, something like less than 10%. The actual printing of paper money has little to no impact at all on money supply in any real sense. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is probably: it would be illegal, someone can ask the Supreme Court for a judicial review of the administrative decision not to print money, the Supreme Court will issue an order for the money to be printed, and the Treasury can either comply or suspend the Constitution and proclaim the People's Democratic Republic of the Treasury Department.

Someone with a better grasp of US administrative/constitutional law should probably fill this in. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the Treasury refused to print dollars, it wouldn't matter. The Fed can increase the money supply by crediting banks' deposits. There doesn't have to be physical money. It's the same as when you receive a paycheck and deposit it in your bank. You don't get physical dollars, but you have "money" to spend. Wikiant (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikiant says, the physical bills are mostly irrelevant to the operation of the Federal Reserve. They just click "Add Gigabuck" on the right account and *poof* there it is. Anyway, the general term for when various arms of the government decline to fulfill their constitutional duties is a constitutional crisis. --Sean 13:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sociological metrics/research on racism?

are there standardized metrics of racism sociologists measure and keep track of over time? what are these and where can I read some? I am especially interested in breakdowns by target group (target of racism) and subject group (group measured for racism), and in different countries. I would like especially to compare countries for prevalence of racism, and be able to compare the most prominent target groups. Thanks! 94.27.209.202 (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there are standardized metrics of racism—in part because the manifestations of racism are always blurred with other metrics (socio-economic, political, what-have-you). With institutionalized racism one could imagine coming up with very broad metrics on the extremes of things (comparing Jim Crow to Apartheid, for example) but for more subtle questions (modern US racism; the question of racism in Israel; etc.) I can hardly imagine how you would disentangle those from other variables. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Play around with the GSS. RACFEW seems of interest "Would you yourself have any objection to sending your children to a school where a few of the children are [whites/(negroes/blacks/African-Americans)]?". You can break that down by year, by race and year, etc. (Row = RACFEW, Col = YEAR, Control = RACE). Variable RACDIN is "How strongly would you object if a member of your family wanted to bring a (negro/black) friend home to dinner?".--droptone (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "quantifying racism" throws up quite a few hits e.g.[12][13][14][15]. There are many possible measures, e.g. income disparities between races, rates of racially-motivated crime, racial segregation of neighbourhoods, death rate disparities, health disparities, %age owning their own home, unemployment rates, delinquency rates, educational achievements, racial makeup of parliament/business leaders/academic faculty. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]