Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 March 13

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.

March 13

Age to stay in hotel alone

In Kansas, United States, may a person under 18 stay in a hotel without someone over 18 staying with them? If not, does the person over 18 have to be a parent/guardian, or can it be any person over the age of 18? I did a quick Google search [1], but don't exactly see much in the way of reliable sources, so if someone could provide a non-answer site source that would be great. Thanks in advance, Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You could call up the hotel you are thinking of spending a night at, and ask. I don't think there are any legal restrictions, but of course I don't really know. WikiDao ☯ 00:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There may or may not be legal restrictions, but, as a practical matter, I'd expect most hotels to refuse to allow minors as the only guest. The reason is that the risk of damage to the room, annoyance to other guests, and of lawsuits, if the minor is injured, outweighs the benefit (the money they might make). Similarly, it may be illegal for a minor to be in a hotel room with an unrelated adult (does the Mann Act cover this ?), but, since they don't check the ID of the child, this isn't likely to come up. StuRat (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As a male in Australia I've often shared a hotel room with my son, and nobody has ever checked who we really were. I obviously don't know about Kansas, but I expect the practicalities of checking would probably mean you could obviously do the same there with no trouble at all. HiLo48 (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, you weren't checked because they didn't have reason to suspect anything. If a minor comes alone to a hotel, he will have to - mostly - pay with his credit card, and show some form of id. 212.169.190.126 (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If they do let you stay alone, they may at least require an adult to provide their credit card details as security. It is normal to require a credit card when you are staying in a hotel in case you leave without paying or damage the room, etc., and since under-18s can't have credit cards, someone else will have to stand as guarantor. --Tango (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That is not universally true. I've stayed at plenty of hotels in the US paying strictly with cash. For sure, they weren't always good hotels... Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

In the US, minors can have a credit card. 212.169.190.126 (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I find that very unlikely. They may be allowed a secondary card on their parents card, but minors cannot take out loans. They can get something like a Visa Electron (which apparently isn't available in the US, but I'm sure there are equivalents), but hotels probably wouldn't accept those. --Tango (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Stop me if I'm wrong, but I think the answer to this question would come down to the policies of individual hotels, and not to national or state laws. The only way I can think of to answer it is to make a list of the hotels in the area you'd like to visit, and call them by phone and ask them, one by one. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No, you are not wrong. Calling the hotel seems the easiest way. Although the OP might just want to know if in general this is possible. 212.169.190.126 (talk) 02:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be correct; I'm looking mostly for a "most common practice"...the reason I'm asking is I'm looking into the possibility of my 17 year old friend (who lives out of state) coming to visit, and I'm looking at whether in general she would be able to stay in a hotel by herself because with me being a guy it might be a sticky point with parents and her boyfriend if I or another guy in her circle of friends here (there are no 18 year old girls in the circle of friends) had to stay in the hotel with her. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

In that case, one option would be for you to check in with her, but not stay, just leave her alone in the room. However, beware that if your credit card is used, then they will bill you for any extra services or damages. Since 17 is above the age of consent in most US states, (or is that all ?), then you should be safe from charges of statutory rape. StuRat (talk) 08:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing StuRat just said should be construed as legal advice. There are states where the age of consent is 18. You say there are no 18 year old girls in the circle of friends; but are there parents of friends she could stay with, or other older women (teachers, professors etc.)? That would not only be more reassuring for her parents and her boyfriend (and possibly herself), but also less expensive. —Angr (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

However, note that the age of consent in the specified jurisdiction, Kansas, is 16: Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#Kansas. StuRat (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an anecdote, not a legal policy... I stayed in hotels with a friend of mine when I was a teenager. We were both well under 18. Nobody made a big deal about it. We didn't pay for it. It was paid in advance by our parents. -- kainaw™ 16:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Chain hotels in Europe tend not to allow it. For example, if you book inclusively through Eurostar they won't even allow children to share one room while the parents have another. There has to be at least one adult in each room. You can't send a group of teenagers off to Disneyland Paris on their own. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Do they make an exception if it's for Roman Polanski? Realistically, I don't see how they can control that who's-in-which-room situation. The parents could book two rooms, maybe with connecting doors, and then stay in the one room with the kids in the other - kinda like at home. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

They can't control it when you get there. It's the automated booking system that won't allow any rooms to be booked for minors only. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

They ask everyone's age on the booking form? What other nosy questions do they ask? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Most hotels will at least ask the # of adults and children for rate purposes. At the hotel I work at, it costs an extra $5 for every adult in the room after the first two, but kids don't cost extra. It's not nosy, it's business. That being said, we often have school sports teams or field trips, where there are four kids to each room, and separate rooms for coaches/chaperones. In that case, we obviously charge the same amount as if there were one or two adults in the room, but the system has to accept 4 kids, no adults (we can't lie about it, due to fire code or something like that). So I'm curious how the system itsmejudith refers to would handle that sort of situation. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Anxiety against anxiety

How can one type of anxiety - like eating disorders, which block a person from eating - overpower the fear of death? Shouldn't the latter anxiety be always superior to the former? 212.169.190.126 (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the time we're talking about a mental disorder. Now I didn't take much abnormal psych myself (I was a psychology major for a year in college, which does not make me an expert), so I can't really give you the whole pathology of anxiety disorders (including anorexia), and certainly it is not a behavior which promotes survival, but whatever chemical and mental causes lie behind a given anxiety disorder most likely disconnects the potentially life-threatening behavior from the fear of death. Perhaps someone at WP:PSY, the relevant WikiProject, might be able to give more info? Wabbott9 (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The OP's question has a built-in false assumption. In reality, nearly everyone thinks they're immortal, or at least that there's nothing they can do to themselves which will kill them unless they choose to do so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter here is everyone thinks he's immortal. We still have embedded instincts: eat, breathe, don't kill yourself. Why could one of them be turned off, is the question. 212.169.183.128 (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do people do anything that could get themselves killed? Anorexics in particular may get kind of a "high" from not eating that overrides theoretical instinctive behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Another difference is that non-eating is an immediate pleasure, whereas not-dying is a long-term pleasure. Quest09 (talk)

Psychologically, a person will not generally have multiple competing anxieties, but rather one central anxiety that manifests in different forms. For instance (note: this is purely hypothetical, and should not be taken as any form of fact or diagnosis), an eating disorder may be a manifestation of a fear of death that has passed through a number of cognitive distortions - e.g. from an unconscious association between death and being overweight - so that the disorder is an indirect response to the fear of death, despite its health risks. --Ludwigs2 05:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and in general a Neurosis is the visible manifestation of an unconscious conflict. The neurotic attempts to work through the conflict by dealing with the manifestation: thus, someone deeply afraid of death might take up extreme sports (see Denial and Reaction_Formation). Depending on the defense mechanisms involved, the manifestation can look very different (or even appear to be the opposite) of the source of the conflict, as in Paranoia. Note that (1) dealing with the manifestation alone won't generally resolve the conflict, and (2) this explanation assumes a Freudian approach to the psyche that some practicing psychologists won't share. Even among those that do share it, the underlying etiology of eating disorders often involves repressed trauma, and models of therapy focused on healing trauma are more likely to be successful than those based on neurotic anxiety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.186.80.1 (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Simply put, these are psychological disorders. Sometimes a compulsion forms with the anxiety, especially with cases like OCD: someone with a hand-washing compulsion will, in some cases, wash their hands so much the skin begins to crack & peel... even though they're harming themselves, the compulsion makes it difficult, if not impossible, to stop. Even knowing that the action is harmful doesn't make the compulsion go away. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of life

What is the purpose of life other than eating and having sex? Why do we live? What are the value of our existence? --EditorThomas1991 (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

See purpose of life, a reassuring article. 213.122.42.235 (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do you assume there is some sort of externally-assigned "purpose"? It's up to you to create your own purpose for being. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Presumably it's possible to create a purpose which is wrong. You might as well ask: why do we assume there is some kind of externally-assigned "truth"? (Assuming we're of the same mind on that point.) Purpose is a highly personal thing, though, of course, so the exact nature of objectively right and wrong purposes will vary a great deal from person to person. My goal in life, for instance, is not to run a marathon every day. That would be an incorrect purpose for me. Once upon a time I found a great Wikipedia article about all this, which I thought was the meaning of life article I just linked to, but it seems not. The article I found - which I hope still exists - said, in a nutshell, that the value of our lives is the range of human values, and it had a handy list of them. (I found the example "athletic achievement" rather out of place on the list. Most of the values seemed to revolve around knowledge in some way.) 213.122.42.235 (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Traditionally, religions try to help someone create a purpose which is "right". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

To the OP today, eating and sex may be the only things that matter, but even if they enjoyed unlimited amounts of such things, most people would find it difficult to continue enjoying it if everyone around them was in massive suffering. Humans tend to want to do something about the conditions in which others live, even if only for their closest family. And then those family members want to make thing better for some others. And so it goes. It quickly gets very complicated. We cannot help trying to help at least some others. HiLo48 (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If we all dedicate our lives completely to helping others, that would cause an infinite regress and a complete lack of meaningful purpose. On the other hand, if everybody else were to help just one person to pursue his own goals - me, for example ...81.131.13.43 (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. We'd be one big happy family, without any wars or poverty. 92.15.11.100 (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how the lack of wars or poverty would produce a purpose, in a world where nobody has any purpose but to be parasitic on other people's purposes, which are in turn parasitic on other people's, and so on, with no ultimate foundation.  Card Zero  (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing poverty and ending wars and similar distress are such overwhelmingly important and challenging goals that finessing about what to do once they are achieved does not butter any parsnips. However they are part of the general goal of looking out for and maximising people's happiness. Have you never noticed that one's personal happiness (and unhappiness) largely comes from the actions of others? 92.15.5.217 (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

We'll get back to you on that. Meanwhile, don't do anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Presumably the one person we are all dedicating our lives completely to helping is this one, right? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In a Darwinian sense, the purpose of life is to make more life. In a philosophical sense, there is no one 'purpose' for life- you're simply here, and if you want your life to have a purpose, you have the privilege of deciding for yourself what that purpose should be. Some people choose love, art, money, work, power, community, justice, charity, pleasure, or despair, but those are not your only choices.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

My own view is that when we ask what the "meaning" or "purpose" of life is, we are usually just being imprecise in our speech. (I'm not a huge follower of the philosophy of language, but this is something I agree with.) If you refine the question down a bit further, you will get better answers, or at least structured ones. "What should I do with my time?" is still vague but a bit better. "What should I do to get into heaven?" is in my opinion not a very fruitful question, but there are still lots of people who will offer up structured answers regarding it. "Why did I evolve this giant forebrain that worries so much about purposes, anyway?" can come up with very plausible results. Just as a set of examples. Treating everything as having a "purpose" is as linguistically problematic as treating "nothing" like just another "thing" — you can form it into a grammatically correct sentence, but it doesn't mean it makes any logical sense. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

To help others. 92.15.26.29 (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

So to quote one of the Peanuts characters, "Then what are the others here for?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Its very sad that you consider the value of others in such instrumental terms - that people only have value if they are of use (to you). Less altruism in North America than in Europe it appears. The short answer would be "To help you". 92.15.11.100 (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

To provide food and sex? HiLo48 (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Shelter is, or should be, higher on the hierarchy of needs than sex is. In fact, maybe the OP should read hierarchy of needs to get some more insights. ("Lower", actually, i.e. more "basic".) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

To take my shot at it, I would start by considering: what is the purpose of the universe? Because life is the interaction of a person with the universe, and its purpose should be the same. Now for a religious person, the universe was created by a supremely reasoning Creator for some good reason. For others, it may be alleged that the universe was a random accident; but then again, where did the idea even of random accident come from?

My speculation is that the universe is a draft, not a final product, and its purpose is to serve as an intermediate stage toward that final product. The evils within it are like the wax in lost-wax casting; they bring out the countervailing good which is the desired artwork, which is to be saved for the next draft. Fulfilling Maslow's hierarchy of needs to continue life is temporarily useful, and often noble, but it does not address the goal directly, but moves perpendicularly to it. In the end, there is some goodness in people which is meant to come out, which they can choose, and in so choosing now, establishes their character in future versions. But the use of the final product, that work of art so lovely that divinity itself toils to attain the pleasure of seeing it? Well, I suppose that is the use. Wnt (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to correct Bugs (forget which indent this belongs under) Sex is actually more basic on Maslow's heirarchy of needs than shelter is. In other words, according to Maslow, sex (or at least, sexual release) is more important for psychological well-being than shelter is. You should read articles before recommending them, especially for points where you are wrong. Though, to clarify Maslow's position on this, it is a little more nuanced. Maslow places at his base level physical needs, which include all biological processes; so "sex" in terms of "orgasm" fits on that level. Sex in terms of an act of physical closeness, "intimacy", and relationship building would fit on the third level, the "relational" one. In other words, according to Maslow, the drive to mate is absolutely basic. The drive to connect to others in a sexual relationship is more advanced. So, maybe Bugs isn't completely wrong, but to just say "sex is more basic than shelter" isn't completely correct, depending on what part of sex you refer too... --Jayron32 16:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That's what I was driving at. You can survive just fine in celibacy. You can't survive without food and water, and you'll have a much tougher time surviving without shelter than with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Maslow's heirarchy has nothing to do with survival in terms of physical survival; it has to do with psychological health, in Maslow's own terms, as a means to understand how successful and psyschologically healthy people are so successful and psychologically healthy (until Maslow, psychology was the study of defects in psychology, i.e. mental illness, with little attention given to what made normal people "normal". Maslow found this weird; that there was an entire field devoted to the study of deviance without any understanding of what the actual ideal that people were deviating from.) When Maslow places sex as a more basic need than shelter, he isn't saying you would die without sex before you would die without shelter, he's saying that in general, the more basic needs for psychological health are those of the physical body, orgasm being a physical process, so someone with problems there will tend to have more psychological problems than someone who is merely homeless (which is not to say that the homeless don't have barriers to psychological health; safety and security issues like shelter are still fairly low on the heirarchy). From a sexual psychology point of view, in order to be sexually "healthy" by Maslow's reasoning, you'd need

• Level I: working sex organs
• Level II: a safe place to have sex (a sense of security and safety within the sexual environment)
• Level III: a relationship with the person you are having sex with
• Level IV: confidence in your sexual life, respect for your own and your partner's sexual needs.
• Level V: A full understanding of the role of sexuality in your own life and in humanity, in an depth manner, the ability to understand sex in a transcendant manner.

Maslow would argue that a person is at maximum psychological health, related to sex, when all 5 levels are complete. Failure to achieve one level makes all higher levels impossible (i.e. you can't actually have a sexual life if your sex organs don't operate properly; you can't have respect for sexual partners if you don't have any relationship with them, etc. etc.). Maslow is frequently abused and misunderstood... --Jayron32 20:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Level II requires shelter. In any case, the OP's question was a loaded question, in that it presupposed that there is a "purpose", i.e. some kind of "divine reason" that life came into being, which is the creationist argument; rather than it having happened by chance, as evolutionists would argue. The OP first has to decide if there is a divine purpose or if it's by chance. If it's the former, then he needs to seek what that divine purpose is. If it's the latter, he needs to define his own purpose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily so; in fact Maslow himself would probably feel that questions of purpose are higher-order need questions. More psychologically developed people (the "Self-actualized people") operate on the level where questions of purpose become central in their need-seeking behavior. In other words, those that operate on lower levels of the heirarchy, for whom seeking food or shelter or relationships with others, never get around to asking the serious and difficult questions of purpose like "Why are we here?" or "Why am I here?" or "For what purpose do I exist?" or "Where does my purpose come from and from what does it derive?" The OP's question isn't loaded; instead it could very well indicate someone with a desire to meet higher-order psychological needs, the very needs that Maslow places at level 5 in his heirarchy. --Jayron32 23:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. I just wonder if the OP has any more of a clue to an answer than he did when he asked. He's asking a question that can't be answered by facts or formulas. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly true - see my answer, below. --Dweller (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

42. (Can't believe I'm the first to say that) --Dweller (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Anger management and age

Do your ability to manage anger (i.e. not to burst) improves with age? 212.169.183.128 (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have the impression that women manage it better, and men worse, when they get older. Quest09 (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I know people of both genders who have got better at anger management with age, as well as people of both genders who have got progressively (and considerably, in some cases) worse. It depends on the person. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

yes and no. Younger people have more intense emotions that are more difficult to control; older people have more entrenched behaviors that are difficult to stop. People do tend to mellow as they get older - simply because testosterone production decreases over the years, if nothing else - but if you've spent 30 or 40 years losing your temper, it's tremendously difficult to break that habit. --Ludwigs2 17:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

But this guy dreamed of conquering the world when he was 49 years old. And this guy at the age of 68 said "those who don't love me do not deserve to live". --Reference Desker (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What has that got to do with anger management? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That was in response to Ludwigs2's comment: "People do tend to mellow as they get older". --Reference Desker (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

How do you know that Hitler and Qadaffi were/are not in control of their anger? And how do you know they were less mellow in old age vs. their youth? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was talking in general. My point is that it is a misconception that people tend to mellow as they get older, it all depends on the socio-economic status of the person. --Reference Desker (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and of course by finding an exception you've completely invalidated the rule. this is what passes for reasoning these days? --Ludwigs2 17:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I recall watching a show about prisons once, and they said that the aging of the prisoners works to the system's advantage. If a guy was a violent criminal in his teens or 20s, by the time he's 60-70 the fight is pretty much taken out of him. Maybe "mellowing" has to do in part with no longer having the ability to "do something about it" when you get angry? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Not everyone mellows as they age. Often personal characteristics become more pronounced.--Wetman (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Some people loose their ability to manage their anger, but do not get angrier, just show it more often. Quest09 (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Also consider that old people may have more to be angry about, since loss of independence, disease, and impending death can be rather frustrating. StuRat (talk) 10:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

StuRat, your comment is a stereotypical view of old people. Social status has something to do with it. Rupert Murdoch fathered a child at the age of 72. And Hugh Hefner at the age of 84 is remarkably calm and spend time with girls who are 50-60 years his junior. --Reference Desker (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I stand by my claim that older people have more trouble with disease, tend to lose their independence due to an inability to drive or live on their own (in a greater percentage than younger adults), and are closer to death. If you find references to dispute those facts, please share them with us. StuRat (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

People get frailer as they get older. That doesn't mean they get less ornery. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This document confirms my personal experience, that people with dementias such as Alzheimers can become more aggressive as the disease takes its course. IME again, it's often an act of aggression - which is said by the relatives to be "totally out of character" - which gives the health care professionals cause to diagnose Alzheimers in the old person. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What if Canada abolished the monarchy?

Would the Governor General or the Queen dissolve Parliament before the final vote on the bill? --70.244.234.128 (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No. DuncanHill (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Surely they wouldn't want to lose their power. --70.244.234.128 (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Neither the Queen, nor the Governor General actually has any power. Her role (and that of the Governor General when acting for her) is ceremonial and advisory. Blueboar (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The article says that they still have the power to dissolve Parliament or fire the Prime Minister. --70.244.234.128 (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The Canadian Constitution requires a proclamation from the governor general before the enactment of a constitutional amendment. The governor general could refuse to issue such a proclamation, creating a constitutional crisis. The prime minister would then call the monarch to ask him or her to replace the governor general. If the monarch were to refuse, the crisis would get really thorny. However, it should be noted that the British to my knowledge have not attempted to interfere with any transitions to republics since the Anglo-Irish War, with the exception of Rhodesia. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As always, this is a confusing issue. The crown has no real power, and the Governor General and Queen's role is purely symbolic. Though it can and has happened that they have used their Reserve power, it hasn't happened in almost 100 years. Besides, they get very little benefit from existing (The GG's salary is less than most CEOs. We don't send any revenue to the Queen in England. It all stays in Canada. If Canada wanted to dump the monarchy, we wouldn't need a war. We would just leave. Aaronite (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong about The Crown having no real power in Canada. See prorogation in Canada. It is an act that can only be done by the Monarch/GG and the proroging of parliment in 2008 was of significant national interest. i.m.canadian (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In November 1999, Australia held a referendum to decide whether or not we would become a republic. As a nation, we voted No. Four months later, the Queen visited Australia, and made a speech including the following words:

• My family and I would, of course, have retained our deep affection for Australia and Australians everywhere, whatever the outcome. For some while it has been clear that many Australians have wanted constitutional change... You can understand, therefore, that it was with the closest interest that I followed the debate leading up to the referendum held last year on the proposal to amend the Constitution. I have always made it clear that the future of the monarchy in Australia is an issue for you, the Australian people, and you alone to decide by democratic and constitutional means. It should not be otherwise. As I said at the time, I respect and accept the outcome of the referendum. In the light of the result last November I shall continue faithfully to serve as Queen of Australia under the constitution to the very best of my ability, as I have tried to do for the last 48 years. (Quoted from History of monarchy in Australia.)

I can't see why it would be any different in Canada. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

While I know it's not directly part of this discussion, it's important to point out that Australia did not vote No to becoming a republic. Australia voted No to becoming the particular kind of republic proposed in that referendum. HiLo48 (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That's right. We weren't given the threshold choice of "Do you want to become a republic?", and then "If so, what kind of republic do you want?". It was a particular change, or no change at all. But in the context of this discussion, it's only relevant to point out that there was a vote on a republic, and the majority voted No, but the Queen wouldn't have minded either way because it was our decision, not hers. If I may say so, the OP's question has a Hollywood concept of monarchy, with trappings of absolute power, the divine right of kings, and other medieval notions that have nothing to do with how modern constitutional monarchies operate. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The queen is good with P.R., which is a significant portion of her job anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The poor woman has been stuck in a cushy but meaningless and confining job for almost six decades. If I were she I'd be bloody well sick of it by now. I certainly wouldn't try to hold on to "power" by my fingernails at the age of 84.

I'm against monarchy, but I really kind of feel for the current crop of royals, who had very little choice in the matter. --Trovatore (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That raises an interesting point. It being an inherited job, the current and future monarchs are essentially stuck with it. Slaves to it, in a sense. What if the monarchy itself said, "We quit"? It's one thing for the occasional monarch to abdicate or get decapitated. But what if the whole lot of them had some kind of epiphany and said, "We've had enough. We're boarding up the palaces and moving to a commune in the Outback. So long, and thanks for all the fish 'n chips." What would happen then? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are almost 2,000 people in the line of succession, and it seems unlikely that all of them (including the Kings of Norway and Sweden and the Queens of Denmark and the Netherlands) would suddenly decide they didn't like monarchy. If only some of them decided that, the Crown would simply pass to the next in line. But if they all did, I suppose we'd find another heir - the Jacobite heir (Franz, Duke of Bavaria), for instance. Proteus (Talk) 22:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) What do you mean by "the monarchy itself quit"? That is a nonsense notion, Buggsy. A building cannot decide to repaint itself purple. A monarchy or a presidency may be various things, but one thing it's definitely not is a sentient being that can think for itself. Maybe what you're getting at is what happens if the entire Royal Family says, en masse, "We're outta here, you lot can sort it out yourselves". In that case, the Queen remains queen until she formally abdicates, which is not even her decision in the end but the Parliament's, but if she made it very clear she wasn't playing the game anymore, the parliament would no doubt oblige her by passing a law deeming her to have abdicated (which she would be required to sign into law - funny if she changed her mind in the meantime). The law says that her heir Prince Charles succeeds. He would then have to abdicate if he didn't want to be king. Then Prince William would succeed. He would have to abdicate. Then Prince Harry succeeds ......... and so on right down the Line of succession to the British throne, to its bitter and obsessively compulsive end if necessary. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, Mr. Nitpicky, I meant "the royal family". You're talking about a formal process. But supposing some low-level royal discretely bought a large, private island, and the royals all went there on vacation, and once they got there, they said, "Screw your legalistic processes, we're not coming back." And suppose it did come down to the King of Sweden or some such. Would the British people accept that idea? Or would Parliament more likely take an emergency vote on whether to abolish the monarchy in one shot? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There is historical precedent (King James II and VII) for a monarch's flight from the country being taken by Parliament as an act of abdication. I'd imagine something similar would happen in your scenario. I doubt Parliament would dare to abolish the monarchy without a referendum. And if there was public opposition to a foreigner becoming monarch, I think it's more likely that we'd choose someone else (either from further down the line of succession or someone new entirely - a senior peer, perhaps) than that we'd abolish the monarchy altogether. Proteus (Talk) 23:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

But Elizabeth does, I think, have a goal. To outlive Charles. PhGustaf (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

So far so good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

While I understand the benefits of the current setup, I do think it is terribly cruel the way we sacrifice a family to keep the country running. All of the objections on the basis of privilege miss the point: who in their right mind, who isn't struggling daily to feed themselves and their family, would want to be in the Royal family? Why do people think Kate and William took so long, with an apparent break-up in the middle, before committing her to this life-long trial? 86.163.4.134 (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Theoretically, it's voluntary participating. If someone really, really doesn't want to, they can abdicate (if they're the monarch) or just get out of Dodge (if they're not). But one thing the British Royals adhere to is a quaint principle: A sense of duty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Canada can't abolish the monarchy. The British monarchy is a British institution and only the British parliament can abolish the monarchy. Canada could, however, cut all ties from the British monarchy and the Commonwealth. I hope that makes sense. If not, here's an example. Lets say a nation decided to use the US dollar as their currency (and had agreement from the US). That country couldn't abolish or disolve the US dollar. They could stop using it; but only the US could scrap the US dollar. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC).

Canada can abolish the Canadian monarchy, just not the British monarchy. Your dollar example fails to take the Statute of Westminster into account. Marnanel (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it does, but it was given as an example to explain the finer details to those that didn;t understand my original point. It's sad that you try to attack the analogy because you can't beat the main point. — Fly by Night (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no Queen of England. Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You're just being pedantic now. You know exactly what I mean. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Fly by Night, you wrote "Canada could, however, cut all ties from the British monarchy and the Commonwealth." That's true, but the one does not imply the other. Canada could become a republic and still remain part of the Commonwealth. —Angr (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That is true, I did not claim otherwise. Maybe you should read our logic articles. — Fly by Night (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Fly by Night. the Canadian Crown and the British Crown are separate but related institutions. So true, we can do nothing about the British royal family. It's just forces of history that make them the same physical beings that happen to also be the Canadian Royal Family. So yes, we can abolish them in the context of Canadian Monarchy. Aaronite (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ermm, no. Who is the Queen of England? Who is the Queen of Canada? They are not separate but related people, are they? I find it cute that the Canadians have the Queen of England as their Queen, but then they try to say that their monarchy if different to the British monarchy. I admire the charade of independence. Bless. — Fly by Night (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Only republicans who like to create self-beneficial confusion and people ignorant of both history and Canada's present constitutional structure would claim the Queen of England is Canada's queen. Otherwise, it's pretty well recognised that, while Elizabeth II is both Queen of the UK and Queen of Canada, the two offices are not the same. Hence, the majority of Canadians could indeed abolish the Canadian monarchy (and the position of monarch of Canada along with it), which would have zero effect on the British monarch (and vice versa). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree: it would have an effect on the British monarchy. I'm sure it'd make the Queen very sad if she got sacked by the Canadians. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Constitution of Canada#Amending formula provides a mechanism for amendments to the Canadian Constitution affecting the Office of the Queen of Canada, including, I would say, its abolition. Monarchy of Canada#Succession and regency is also very pertinent. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

My political science prof used to joke that it would be easier for the UK to abolish their monarchy than it was for Canada to abolish theirs. This is due to the aforementioned amending formula which requires assent from the House of Commons, the Senate and each provincial legislature. That sort of consensus would be difficult to get even on non-controversial subjects. Famously the Meech Lake Accord was prevented when the (relatively) small provinces of Manitoba and Newfoundland failed to sign on despite the accord having passed all the other requirements. For the OP's question, the Monarch has never had a problem allowing power to be dissolved to Canada before: Canadian Confederation, Statute of Westminster and Constitution Act, 1982. Though I think the Queen's quote re Australia provided by Jack of Oz is the best answer to your question. i.m.canadian (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It saddens me to say this, but an abolishment isn't foreseeable in the distant future. If ya asked most of the people in my area, what they thought about the monarchy - they'd respond "What's a monarchy?". GoodDay (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Canadian Crown

Just for the sake of clarity, since it comes up pretty frequently:

The Monarchy of Canada is not the same as the British Royal Family, even though they are the same physical human beings. The institutions are related by history, but they are not the same thing. Queen Elizabeth II is queen of England, but also and separately Queen of Canada, Australia, etc.

Think of it like someone serving on the board of governors for different companies. It doesn't make the companies the same. Disney and Apple are different, but Steve Jobs is involved with both. Aaronite (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

She's not Queen of England, but rather Queen of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 05:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Except that, unlike the entirely (except for Steve Jobs involvement) historically unrelated Apple and Disney didn't start out historically descended from each other. It's not like Apple used to be part of Disney and then later became an independent corporation. Part of the confusion with Canada (and Australia, New Zealand, et. al.) and their relationship with the U.K. is the historical connections between the countries and the gradual and organic way in which they became independent from one another. Canada (unlike the U.S.) didn't have a violent war or other single event where they became an independent nation overnight. Instead, Canadian independence came about gradually over time, and indeed only reached its current state in 1982, see Canada Act 1982. There's lots of little, minute events that occured over a span of about 150 years that turned Canada from a fully dependent and integral part of the United Kingdom to a fully independent nation in its own right. There was a time, not that long ago, when the Monarch of the United Kingdom ruled (reigned, whatever, pick your pedantic term) over Canada As the monarch of the United Kingdom and not as the monarch of Canada; furthermore, the person to hold the two distinct posts has never been different, even for one minute. So, calling her the Queen of Canada sounds, to outsiders, like semantic gameplaying, since she's the same person. Yes, it is correct, and I know and fully understand all the implications of her being the Queen of Canada as distinct and seperate from her role as the Queen of the United Kingdom; but the historical implications of the connections between Canada and the U.K., coupled with the reality that the two offices have never been held by different people (indeed, the distinction between the offices is a comparatively recent innovation, and not one that had much of a practical, day-to-day effect on the operation of those countries) is why it can be confusing. --Jayron32 19:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Jayron, I’m quite surprised you go to the trouble of creating confusion by tarring the distinction between reigning and ruling as "pedantry". Robert Mugabe, Adolf Hitler, Henry VIII and others of their ilk rule/d. Their word is or was law, effectively. Modern constitutional monarchs do not even pretend to do any such thing. They reign because they are sovereigns, but they certainly do not rule. If you wanted to nominate the ruler of the UK, a far closer bet would be the UK Prime Minister. He gets to propose amendments to existing laws and creation of new laws, in the knowledge that there’s a very good chance of them passing the parliament, because the PM is by definition the leader of the majority party in the lower house. The upper house can sometimes be problematical, but there are approaches that one can take. Once a bill has gone through the parliament, the monarch has no option but to sign it into law. To refuse to sign a bill would create a constitutional crisis, and the monarch would come out the loser. King Baudouin of Belgium had to “abdicate for a day” to give him the option of not signing a bill that was repugnant to his conscience. Edward VIII had to abdicate permanently because he was unable to have his own way – marry the woman of his choice and remain on the throne - so he had to choose, and he chose the woman. That shows you how much monarchs rule these days. Zero. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I read somewhere (or was it a documentary), that Edward VIII was actually pushed into abdicating, due to his supposed nazi sympathies (the Wallis thing being a cover-up excuse by the Baldwin cabinet). Anyways, Jack's correct, in practicle terms, what the prime minister wants - the prime minister gets. GoodDay (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless we are dealing with a Minority government. Gotta love our parliamentary system. Aaronite (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Follow up question... in the (highly unlikely) event that the UK goes to a Republic and the Queen is kicked out of England, wouldn't she remain Queen of Canada? Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ya mean kicked out of the Republic of Great Britain & Northern Ireland. Anyways, she'd remain Queen of Canada & the other 14 realms AFAIK. It's more difficult for Canada to become a republic, then it is for the UK. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?!! Well, I must give you a paper star for creativity, GoodDay. Choose your colour. Sorry GD, I couldn't resist replying to your comment.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If she's kicked out of England, she'd probably go to Scotland. Her favourite place to get away from it all is Balmoral. But it's highly unlikely she'd be kicked out of the UK at all; and almost impossible to believe that England would require her to leave England - after all, who is the spokesman for England? From whom would she take her marching orders? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No-one's every going to try and throw the Queen out of England. She's a nice little old lady. However, I do wish someone would kick that horse-faced wife of her eldest son out of the country. Even if the Queen did have to leave England, I doubt Alex Salmond would let her go to live in Scotland. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems an extraordinarily uncharitable and unnecessary comment. We're not here to make passing shots at off-topic people, and particularly about their facial appearance, about which they had no say and have no control. Grow up, mate. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Copying public domain images from copyrighted material

Hello everyone. This is a hypothetical that I was wondering about, but I guess it could have some applications on Wikipedia. Let's say that a book published a public domain image. Could you scan the image from that book and publish it legally? Is the image itself still public domain or does it become copyrighted once it is published in a copyrighted work? Thanks. BurtAlert (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright applies to a specific expression. So if there is any aspect of the scan that identifies it as coming from that particular book, you would be violating copyright. The original version would still be in the public domain and can never be brought under copyright merely by inclusion in a larger work. Looie496 (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I brought that case up with File:Harrison Football Political Cartoon.jpg. I didn't get any substantial answers on the question. The original is a line sketch. The image used here is has been colored. So, it is not the original, but looks much better. -- kainaw™ 19:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

For a US context only:

Once something is in the "public domain", it remains so, indefinitely. That's part of the definition of "public domain." So if I take a public domain drawing, and scan it, I have not create a new copyright — the underlying content is in the public domain. If I take it and include it in a book of my own personal poetry, the arrangement, and my poetry, are copyrighted. The image, removed from its context, would be in the public domain. You cannot just write "copyrighted" on a public domain image and change its copyright status.

But! If you modify the image in a "creative" way (and the bar is very low for "creativity", but not indefinitely low), your modifications are copyrighted! You have just created a derivative work that is itself copyrightable. ("Creativity" is not how legal people talk about it — the term they use is "originality," but I feel "creativity" covers the meaning better for a non-legal crowd. But a lawyer I ain't!)

So in the case of Kainaw's image, if the coloration was done recently, it probably is copyright protected, even if the underlying image is public domain. (An "artist" had to make the decisions as to what color to make it, how to do the coloration, etc. — these are all well "creative" enough for copyright law.) One way to put it is that the lady would be public domain, but the moustache would be a derivative work.

Does that clarify? The question is, in the end, whether the reproduction is a derivative work. If it introduces "creative" aspects, it usually is. If it does not, it is usually not. The exact definitions of what makes it derivative can vary by jurisdiction — e.g., in the United States, retouching a photograph of an artwork to make it look more like the original artwork is not a derivative work (and does not create a new copyright), in the U.K., this is less clear. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, the U.S. has a very low threshold of originality (though not indefinitely low, as Mr. 98 points out). In some places, the standard is significantly higher. Switzerland, in particular, has a fairly high threshold of originality: see Swiss copyright law. In the U.S. essentially any photographic work is protected (with the exception of when the photograph is a slavish reproduction of another copyrighted or public domain piece). In Switzerland, on the other hand, photos must be deemed to be "creations of the mind, literary or artistic, that have an individual character". In practice, it often appears that the aesthetic appeal of a photo plays a role in whether Swiss courts consider it original and creative enough. I think Swiss copyright law is stupid, but that's how it works. The point is that pretty much every jurisdiction has different copyright law. Afghanistan doesn't even have any copyright law! Intellectual property is a veritable mess even in any one jurisdiction, let alone worrying about every jurisdiction. Buddy431 (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

See Commons:Commons:PD-art. Wnt (talk) 08:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I like Swiss copyright law — it's in the original spirit of copyright, which was to protect true works of art, "genius," etc. I feel that we've devolved it significantly — it's become just a way in which big businesses commercialize and monopolize culture. I think all would be better served with a slightly higher bar for defining "originality" than we have, say, in the United States, although I realize that in practice, it would probably only increase litigation unless it were really quite better defined. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Child pornography laws

In Canada, child pornography laws were designed to protect children (where "children" is defined as anyone under the age of 18). However, the age group most interested in viewing/distributing child pornography, and most capable of obtaining it, should be teenagers, not middle-aged pedophiles. How do the courts deal with cases where teenagers watch porn of other teenagers around the same age? Is it considered child pornography for practical purposes?

Disclaimer: This is not legal advice; I'm simply curious. --99.237.234.245 (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It's still legally child porn no matter who is looking at it. I can't find references to it right now but I'm sure that one of the recent busts of a child porn ring included teenagers. A few months ago there was also an uproar about "sexting" where a 14-year-old sent naked pics of herself to an 18-year-old, who then sent them to other people; there was some debate about whether that guy, if he could be found, would be guilty of distributing child porn. Here is an article about the incident. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There have been stories like that, where the underage kids producing their own porn have been prosecuted for it, or at least threatened with prosecution. Speaking somewhat to the OP's question, I think the difference is that the kids don't think so much about it, it's just being daring or whatever, and they might not take it altogether seriously. It's the adults, ranging from the aghast parents and the legal authorities, to the proverbial "middle-aged pedophiles", who take it seriously. That's why we have an age of consent - because the kids are assumed to be incompetent, or at least too naive, to be giving consent in some way or another. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've heard of prosecuted cases like that in the US, Child pornography#Sexting and sexting also mention these as well as cases in Australia although it's not clear whether the involve people sending photos of themselves. I've never heard of cases in Canada although Canadian news is not something I pay attention to. Nil Einne (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In Canada, and in many US states, the age of consent does not apply to teenagers having sex with other teenagers. For example, the Canadian age of consent is 16. 14- and 15-year-olds can have intercourse with someone less than 5 years older. 13- and 14-year-olds can have intercourse with partners less than 2 years older. For all practical purposes, then, Canadian law permits teenage sex; few teenagers find 30-year-olds attractive. I was wondering if an exception like this applies to pornography as well. --99.237.234.245 (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Porn is a different situation from underage teens just fooling around under the covers. Production and distribution of child porn is illegal and severely punished, no matter who produces it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that? Adam's example doesn't apply because a 18-year-old is significantly older than a 14-year-old, and because the distribution of porn was done maliciously. --99.237.234.245 (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

A reference for what? That child porn is illegal??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That it's "severely punished no matter who produces it". --99.237.234.245 (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What happened to the underage kid who distributed self-porn? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The ref given doesn't suggest the distribution was malicious. It suggests one of the common reasons for the images to be sent on is for malicious reasons and I think it's very likely the 14 year old didn't expect or want the image is sent on, but none of that means the 18 year old had malicious intent when sending the image on. Note that even though the 18 year old may have known the 14 year old didn't want the image sent on that doesn't mean the sending was malicious. Nil Einne (talk) 04:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There was even a reference to this meme on last week's episode of Glee. Two of the teenaged characters were going to make videos of themselves having sex, and a teacher pointed out that they could be arrested for producing child porn. Corvus cornix_talk 22:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Anecdotally (although I imagine someone can find some statistics), the majority of people convicted of "child porn" offences in Western countries are under the age of 21.

Note that in the UK and some other countries, the terminology is strictly "child abuse images", not "child pornography images". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's probably easier to define "abuse" than to define "porn". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not the reasoning given, no. The reasoning is provided at the end of this page, amongst many other places. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)