Humanities desk
< May 28	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 30 >

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.

May 29

Four temperaments

Where can I find more detailed descriptions of the four temperaments and determine which one I am? --108.222.4.112 (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on Four temperaments and Humorism, but something based on obsolete ancient medical theories may not be the last word in personality classification... AnonMoos (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People who have "recanted" after coming out

Have there been people who have come out as LGBT but later "recanted" and reverted to a straight orientation? 98.116.65.50 (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean famous people? David Bowie might be an example, though he hasn't been entirely clear about it. See David Bowie#Sexual orientation. Staecker (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Heche seems like a pretty good example. She tried the same-sex lifestyle, and apparently didn't like it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is possibly not quite what you're asking for, but there are some people listed in our article on ex-gay movement, and yet more under ex-ex-gay who recanted the recantation. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is Chaz Bono although he didn't exactly 'recant' or 'revert', at least not in a simple way Nil Einne (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Once you've spilled the beans, it's very difficult to get the cat bag into the closet". StuRat (talk) 06:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Not recanted, but Tom Robinson who had a hit with "Glad to be Gay" is now married with children. He describes himself as "a gay man who just happens to be in love with a woman". --TammyMoet (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth pointing out that a gay person who ends up with a member of the opposite sex hasn't necessarily discovered themselves to be straight after all. They may have discovered themselves to have been bisexual all along. Marnanel (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of gay men have married women, had kids, the whole disaster - usually because of their need to conform to societal expectations. Just because they're able to perform sexually with a woman does not make them straight, or even bisexual. If in their heart they always imagine being with another male, they're gay. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 10:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed so, but that doesn't invalidate my point. Marnanel (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to imagine how someone of "totally" one persuasion could get sufficiently aroused by the "wrong" sex to be able to do something about it. If there's an explanation for that, I'd like to read it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You see, being homosexual is not totally about the sexual activity side of life; or even much at all in some cases; or even nothing at all in other cases. But since we're talking sex, lots of things can arouse men sexually: sitting at the back of a bus does it for a lot of guys; or having someone of any age or sex give them a shoulder massage; or having someone of any age or sex play with their ear lobes or their hair or their kneecaps or their hands; all sorts of stuff. A lot of fathers carry guilt because they sometimes get a hard-on when their kids sit on their lap - girls, boys, it's all the same; it doesn't mean they're suddenly pedophiles, it's just the way the plumbing works. Touch plays rather an important part in sexual arousal, and it doesn't matter much who's doing the touching, particularly if it's in the dark. A woman can easily arouse a gay man - it's basic science, and he will usually find it very pleasurable and "carry through" if the circumstances are right. It doesn't say anything about the overriding orientation of the man, which is an internal psychological state. You can eat meat occasionally, and enjoy it tremendously, and still remain a vegetarian. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 13:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bus gives you a hard-on with books in your lap - Jim Morrison, from An American Prayer.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A very perceptive guy, was old Jim. But he didn't need to go on any wild drug trip to know what he was talking about in this matter. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the same thing happened to a very good friend of mine in Dublin. He was returning home from school (run by the Christian Brothers) and as he later recounted to me, he was sitting on the bus with books in his lap and the rocking movements of the bus gave him a fierce hard-on. Hmm, wonder if that why the Irish use the word ride as another slang word for screwing?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this kind of thing is particularly unusual. Sexuality is complicated and confusing, particularly with all the taboos and societal expectations surrounding it. If you look around some LGBT-related forums, you will find lots of people questioning their sexual orientation - for example, some people find themselves attracted to both men and women, but in different ways, and repeatedly change their minds about whether they are gay, bi, or straight. If you are also unsure about your gender identity, that makes things even more complicated (am I a gay woman, a straight man, or something else?). Some friendly advice - some words in your OP come across as a little insensitive. Using the word "revert" makes it sound as though everybody starts off straight and cisgender, which obviously isn't the case, while suggesting that a "straight orientation" is an alternative to being transgender tends to annoy trans people - gender identity isn't the same thing as sexual orientation, and trans people can be straight or gay, just like anyone else. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cisgender is a new word for me (seems confusing though, since a "cissy" is straight). Perhaps a better contrast with transgender would be orthogender, both because it sticks with chemistry prefixes and since it could also be taken to mean "orthodox". StuRat (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Ortho means "straight" or "correct", cis means "on the same side", and trans means "on the opposite side". So cisgender makes more sense as an antonym of transgender than orthogender does. In chemistry, there is cis-trans isomerism. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

The "straight" meaning of "ortho" seems to fit here. StuRat (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

"Straight" in this context means "heterosexual", i.e., "attracted to people of the same gender". It says nothing about whether your gender identity matches your sex. Lots of transgender people identify as straight because they are attracted to people of the opposite gender, and of course lots of cisgender people are not straight. Also, going back to what you said before, sissy is just a pejorative term for a man who is perceived to be feminine. A man can have a strong male gender identity and still be seen by others as feminine. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mistakenly trans-defined heterosexuality. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Theoretically, will piracy be eliminated or lessened if...

Electronic media was freely available, for free? If songs could be legally downloaded anywhere for free without any restrictions, or if TV series and movies were made available for streaming legally online for free without any restrictions, then will piracy be eliminated, or at least not become as prevalent as it is now? If foreign shows such as anime or Korean drama were more readily available worldwide, especially on the internet legally for free, will fansubs no longer be needed? Sure the companies will most definitely lose a lot of money to the point of bankruptcy, but will it at least stop piracy? I hope this isn't considered as asking for legal advice though, as I'm only asking for ways how piracy can be stopped in such a way that it will benefit both the producers of the media and the consumers. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If songs could be downloaded for free, how would composers and musicians, as well as the technical people, get paid? → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 0Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)2:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising? Ads on websites? Donations? I already mentioned above that the main problem will be they won't be paid by the regular means. Perhaps they could try an alternative source of income? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that musicians have been paid enough to live on for their art in recent history does not function as a guarantee that they always will, still less that they always should. Consider other forms of art: poets rarely get paid, and where they do get paid it's almost never enough to live on. It doesn't seem to have killed poetry. Marnanel (talk) 10:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, you can't steal that which is given away for free. However, if you force people to watch ads, they may make an illegal copy with the ads stripped out. A revenue model which might work better is to give away the songs for free, then charge, as usual, to attend concerts. If the free music makes them popular, they should be able to make millions on tour. StuRat (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tours are basically advertising for the music: by themselves, not taking the value as advertising into question, most tours are money-losing propositions. The bigger the star, the more it costs for the star to go on tour, the more money is lost. Unless you think fans will pay $1,500 or more for a ticket. --NellieBly (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any links to support that ? If they can put 20,000 people in a stadium at $50 each, that's a million dollars per performance. Do 100 such appearances and that's $100 million. I have a hard time imagining that it costs them more than that to put on the show. StuRat (talk) 06:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just google "cost of putting on a rock concert", there's plenty of info. I can easily imagine $1 million per show being largely eaten up by venue costs, insurance, promotion, management, road crew, lights and sound (probably rented), skilled lights and sound technicians to set up and operate it all, hotels and food for all these people, transportation for people and equipment, and so on. And that's assuming 20,000 people buy tickets. A lot of these costs must be paid in advance no matter how many people buy tickets. Pfly (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Norwegian study ([1]) has showed that a Norwegian musician's income has increased by 66% between 1999 and 2009, despite the drop in record sales by 50%. The increase is mainly due to income from concerts. This shows of course that most muscicians are not dependent on record sales at all. - Lindert (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the kind of logic that says we could stop bank robberies by allowing anyone to come behind the counter and take whatever they want. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a silly argument. First of all, as the OP states: he is talking about digital consumption of music/video, even literature. One person listening or watching digital content doesn't impede on any one else's ability to enjoy that same content. On the other hand, if I have a bank note and somebody takes it from me, I cannot use that bank note any more. V85 (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you're taking money from a bank or taking an artist's source of income away, it's theft either way. If you think stealing an artist's source of income is OK, then don't be calling others silly. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong in principle with taking away someone's source of income. For example, if I open a store with lower prices, better service than my competitor, I may 'steal' his customers, and source of income. Nevertheless, that is not wrong, nor is it theft. All judicial systems that I know of distinguish between theft and copyright infringement. They are separate offenses and should not be equated. Widespread copyright laws are even a relatively recent phenomenon. People could get along fine without them for centuries. For example, Bach used many of Vivaldi's compositions and modified them for his own personal profit. Mozart did the same with Handel's stuff. Noone complained about that, it was just understood that if you publish something, others may copy it. - Lindert (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't "stolen" the customers, you've provided them a choice. You might be engaged in a fair business practice or you might not be. That's why we have anti-trust laws and the like. Meanwhile, I'm supposing that you work for a living. Further suppose that your boss comes to you one day and says, "We love your work, but we're not going to pay you for it anymore. But you can keep working here as long as you want." So you shop around at other companies and discover they all have the same policy towards your skill set. You're expected to give it away for nothing in return. I'm guessing you wouldn't much like that. Yet that's exactly what you're advocating in regard to recording artists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I would like it or not has nothing to do with whether it's right or wrong. If I went bankrupt because my competitor works more efficiently than I do, I wouldn't like that either. If employers decided not to hire people for jobs like I do anymore, then that is simply their right. If I specialized in designing CRT monitors, I would lose my job sooner or later as there is no longer any demand for that kind of work. Where I live, copying/downloading music or movies for personal use is perfectly legal, and I'd like it to stay that way. - Lindert (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about an obsolete skill. I'm talking about an in-demand skill where you're told that you can do it but you won't get paid. Do you think that's "right"? Did the artists give you permission to download their stuff? If so, fine. If not, the fact that you are somehow getting away with it doesn't make it "right". If you're getting something for free that you should be paying for, then it's theft. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If no people are willing to pay for a particular skill, then that skill is, by definiton, not an in-demand skill. That's how economy works. However, since artists make most of their money from performances, not record sales, it's not really an issue. As I posted above, a Norwegian study found that the average Norwegian musician's income has increased by 66% between 1999 and 2009 despite record sales dropping by 50%. It is your opinion that 'intellectual property' is something that must always be paid for, and you're free to believe that. It's not the opinon of the democratically elected lawmakers in my country. Also, the US supreme court and basically any judicial system in the world hold that copyright infringement is not theft. - Lindert (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand the connection between 'foreign shows' 'readily available worldwide' and 'fansubs no longer be needed'. AFAIK, fansubs are needed because a subtitled version of the show isn't available at the time (many shows never official become available in other languages including English and even when they do it can take months or years which is too long for some) or because people aren't pleased with the quality of the existing subtitles or occasionally if there is a subtitled version (e.g. on TV) but extracting the subtitles is too difficult. You don't need to bother with fansubbing if authorised commercial subtitles are available and of sufficiently quality for people, just use the official ones. I don't quite understand what you're proposing (are you suggesting that the copyright holders make the work readily available for free for anyone to view, or that they release the work under a free licence or similar and allow it to be modified and restributed?)

Presuming you mean the later, the difference would be people can fansub and release the work openly since they would not be violating copyright. If anything, fabsubbing would probably increase since commercial parties would have less incentive to bother with official subtitled versions as they would be more directly competing with fansubs although the definitions are also blurred. (Presuming the original work is under a copyleft licence, they could always release the fansub work commercially.)

If you mean the former, then the copyright holder could provide a method for people to add subtitles so people could view fansubs on the official site while the copyright holder is still the source for the content. If they don't I'm not sure how much difference it will make, except perhaps some people may visit the site (presuming it has ads or whatever) so that they can 'see' the ads even if they watch a fansubbed version. (Theoretically you could develop something to overlay subtitles while visiting the official site, but it's likely to be too complicated to be common.) Note that because plenty of people still don't have ubiqitious reliable internet access, the ability to download the work will also likely make a difference to how many people use the official site, as well as the reliability and quality of the site (and other things like ads StuRat mentioned)

Nil Einne (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne, what I'm thinking of is the former, where the copyright owner is the one distributing the work. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, abolishing the bourgeois property form in information would abolish piracy of bourgeois property. The more interesting questions revolve around whether intellectual property is enforceable in consumer goods, whether states should tolerate companies enclosing information produced by academics working for hire, whether systematic networks of proletarian property expropriation will prove resistant to state persecution, whether workers working for hire will tolerate others enclosing their own works, and what companies will do about "value adding" fan-subs or dojinshi. Some artists, such as Zun, actively encourage freeware copying of their work, and oppose commercialisation. Given that this is an active front in the class war, the situation will be resolved both by the technical and social limitations on action, and by the application of power. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how that Zun guy is able to afford food and rent if he gives his work away. But there's nothing stopping him or anyone from giving away their work for nothing if they choose to do so. However, the US Constitution authorizes Congress to protect the rights of authors and inventors. This is not about "class warfare", it's about lazy people wanting something for nothing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One can picture using the same model as exists for basic research (e.g. the National Institutes of Health), with grants being given to artists. Or, to avoid the ugly consequences of central state control, you could say everyone has to put in X% of their income tax, but can choose to direct it to any organization they wish to disburse funds to whatever genres of creative expression they prefer. I think you'd save a lot on copy-protection and piracy, but spend more on grant-writing; the advertising and middlemen wouldn't be eliminated but might be chastened a little. The main advantage of course is that everyone would have access to everything, while still paying -on average - roughly the same amount to producers as before. Wnt (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest historical event

Hi, does anyone have any ideas about what is the oldest historical event whose year is exactly known? By "exactly known", I mean known relative to the present year, independently of any convention for numbering the years, such that we could say it happened x years ago, for some precisely known value of x. 81.159.106.15 (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that would have to be a solar eclipse. To the best of my knowledge the earliest that has been precisely dated is an eclipse that took place in Syria on 5 March 1223 BC. Looie496 (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except eclipses by themselves lack historicity, they aren't "historical" events, they're astronomical events. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it was recorded in writing, then it's a historic event, like that one. StuRat (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be possible to find something older than that. Recorded history has been on the go since the invention of writing (see Cuneiform) around the 4th millennium BC, about 34th century BC. I would be surprised if there wasn't something in there. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not usually to an exact year, however... AnonMoos (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article the Battle of Kadesh "is generally dated to 1274 BC". The Battle of Megiddo (15th century BC) is sometimes claimed to be the oldest exactly dated event, on April 16, 1457 BC, although there is some argument about the year (it is dated by pharoah's reigns). The oldest event we can be really certain of the date is probably the Battle of Halys, on May 28, 585 BC, which coincided with a solar eclipse. Scientists have also dated the felling of the trees used to make Seahenge in England to precisely 2050BC[2]. (Ideas from[3][4][5].) --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the "dated by pharoah's reigns" style of dating is more the kind of thing I was looking for, being purely historical. Dating by eclipses or tree-rings is not quite in the spirit of the question that I had in mind, since they are modern retrospective dating methods. 109.153.233.152 (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should however realize that dates from Egyptian chronology are not always absolute. Scholars often disagree as to the exact dates, especially for the earlier dynasties. One problem is that the reigns of kings (including pharaohs) sometimes overlapped, making it difficult to construct an absolute timescale. - Lindert (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, if pharoahs' reigns are uncertain, to return to my original question, does anyone have any idea of the oldest event whose year we know with complete certainty purely through the hostorical record, i.e. that does not depend on modern restrospective scientific methods like calculating eclipse dates? Would it even be BC or AD? 109.153.233.152 (talk) 03:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ptolemy's Canon started with Nabonassar in 747 B.C., which is also near the start time of ab urbe condita dating and the First Olympiad. That was about as far back as people in Greco-Roman times could go with semi-reliable exact year dating... AnonMoos (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picture interpretation

What is the black color represents? Thanks!Pendragon5 (talk) 05:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the black countries, I suspect it means something like "no data available". ---Sluzzelin talk 06:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the author to comment. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that the only almost evenly-balanced country visible on the map seems to be South Korea (with Malaysia and Guyana also having significant populations of both)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mauritius is also almost evenly balanced between the two traditions. Marco polo (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judged for two things simultaneously ...

I have a question , about elections and the law .

Can a member of the election commission , answer to the law , for the offences of misusing his job for his own benefit and also counterfeiting the results of the elections ?

According to the laws in European Countries , can he be judged for those two things , in the same trial (simultaneously) ? Thank you in advance . 79.106.109.6 (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It will depend on the jurisdiction (the country), the nature of the crimes, and their circumstances. Most jurisdictions allow joinder (indictment on the same charge for multiple offenses) if you either (a) have a single course of action or a common scheme or plan that involves breaches of multiple laws (e.g. if robbers fleeing the scene shoot someone they can be tried together for robbery and murder and firearms offenses), or (b) the offender performs a number of similar criminal actions (e.g. multiple robberies).[6][7] In your hypothetical example the charges don't seem sufficiently closely connected, but if someone committed electoral fraud for the purpose of being able to misuse office, or if they e.g. committed electoral fraud to get a friendly judge elected so they wouldn't be convicted of misuse of office, that might be close enough. In practice, cases are sometimes only joined if it's convenient for the court, and if it's really complicated they may prefer to try different parts separately. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Impersonating a priest

In the books on which the TV programme Bless Me Father was based, there is a scene where the two priests attempt to report something to a policeman. When they fail to convince him not only of the crime they are reporting but also of their clerical status, they are arrested for "impersonating men of the cloth".

Now, I've heard it's illegal to impersonate a policeman and a Chelsea Pensioner, but was it illegal in England to impersonate a priest, as such rather than in order to gain money by fraud, in the 1970s or now? Is it so anywhere? And this is not a request for legal advice: I am not intending to do so myself. Marnanel (talk) 10:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the last question, a simple search for 'impersonating priest' finds [8] which appears to involve additional problems like performing a baptisim and [9] with limited details. From the NYT article, an obvious search term is 'criminal impersonation priest' which finds [10], which seems to answer the last question. Meanwhile considering the NNDB source, Lenny Bruce suggests additional considerations were at play (and the charge wasn't succesful) and Don Novello too, altho it sounds more minor (and the charge was dropped). Nil Einne (talk) 12:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

USS Peacock

Where did she sink? Thank you - 10:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Is the answer of Cartagena, Colombia given in the article not sufficient for your needs? Marnanel (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must be blind. Thank you. 12:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I wonder why it was decommissioned less than a year after it's launch, apparently never having been used. Did the US Navy decide they had too many minesweepers ? StuRat (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably. Buddy431 (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do fossils?

Why do fossils not exist in matemorphic or igneous rocks?
How do you make a poster on rocks?--Deathlaser : Chat 15:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as both metamorphic and igneous rocks use intense heat and pressure in the forming process, any organic matter gets destroyed so no fossils are possible. As for making a poster on rocks, we don't do people's homework here. Ask your teacher for some suggestions. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For igneous rocks, they were completely melted into magma, so nothing of the original structure would survive. However, fossils do exist in metamorphic rocks, although they are less common, flattened, and often stretched out: [11]. StuRat (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for making a poster, here are some ideas:

1) Just list which rocks fall into each of those 3 categories. This is a bare minimum effort.

2) Add arrows to show which metamorphic rocks form from which other types, along with the time, temperature, and pressure it takes.

3) Add pictures of each, or even a small sample taped to the poster.

4) Add info on where each rock is found.

5) Add info on the uses for each.

If you want to do all 5 steps, this will end up being a wall-sized poster. You could tape and/or staple together many smaller posters to make the big one. You might want to hold off on the taping/stapling until it's at the destination site, however, as it will be far more portable before joining it all into one huge poster. You could number the backs to show you how to assemble it. Be sure to leave sufficient margins on the edges for taping/stapling. StuRat (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"How do you make a poster on rocks?" Easy. Paint a rectangle on a rock, and fill it in with some interesting artwork or political slogans or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A simple poster on rocks would just have a giant diagram of the rock cycle, and then you'd annotate it with information. 109.155.32.126 (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's far too complicated for a "simple" poster on rocks. A simple poster on rocks should just have the word "Rocks" and then drawings of various grey-coloured blobs around it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is 'Death cross' some kind of commonplace jargon in finance/investing?

A Yahoo! article on gold prices treats this term as though at least the article's likely readers should already be familiar with this term. Is this a subject for a potential article, or did Yahoo! screw up by treating the term so casually when it may only be a term within a small domain or even a particular company?144.26.117.20 (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article from Reuters, written last year, suggests it has become more widely familiar: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/19/us-markets-volatility-technical-idUSTRE77I2SO20110819

109.155.32.126 (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For some background on this, this is a chart pattern used in technical analysis. Marco polo (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the info. [I am the OP here]Julzes (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign countries that advocate for change in the United States

The United States, whether it be its government or its non-governmental organizations, criticize(s) other coutries for human rights violations or campaign(s) for economic liberalization, more democratic elections, or freer trade. Are there any countries that have done the same with respect to the US on things that do not have to do with calls for America to leave said countries alone (so instead of Russia or China asking America to leave Iran alone think Britain advocating for more gun control in the US or Norway calling for universal health care)? Examples include the head of the OCSE expressing concern about FEC v. Citizens United (here), China's Human Rights Record of the United States, a comment by some UN official saying Mt. Rushmore should be given back to Native Americans, and some things having to do with network neutrality. All this is interesting. --Melab±1 ☎ 21:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The USA gets plenty of criticism, and our usual response is along the lines of, "Thank you for your valuable input." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for what other countries say America should do. While the Human Rights Record of the United States was a retaliatory publication it offered opinions on America's domestic policies. --Melab±1 ☎ 22:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the recent brouhaha over the blind Chinese dissident, China said we should stop meddling in their internal affairs. That kind of thing carries a lot more political weight than what some foreign yahoo thinks about how we should spend our own tax dollars. I would have thought the link you cite would have been a good starting point. Whether someone has actually compile such a list as you're wanting, might take some digging. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

During the Cold War, the Soviet bloc readily criticized the US for its poor human rights record, and used the extreme violence and disenfranchisement during the Civil Rights movement as a way of deflecting away criticism from the Soviet's own human rights violations. This was one of the reasons that US federal policy shifted on this issue — it presented a huge target and undermined the US's own arguments about the contrast between their way of life and that in the USSR. Between the 1940s and the 1960s, international criticism of US Civil Rights issues did lead to a number of tangible results. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, right-wing extremists here said that the civil rights leaders were commies. But I'd like to see some evidence for the claim that we gave a hoot in Hades about what that national prison called the USSR thought about our own imperfections. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John David Skrentny "The effect of the Cold War on African-American civil rights: America and the world audience, 1945–1968" Theory and Society Volume 27, Number 2 (1998), 237-285, DOI: 10.1023/A:1006875732319 Fifelfoo (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) The giving-a-hoot was a bit more indirect and more concerned about what third countries, the cold war's audience, if you like, might think. The effectiveness of the Soviet Union's critical propaganda has been analyzed and discussed, for example also in Cold War Civil Rights: Race and the Image of American Democracy by Mary L. Dudziak, Princeton University Press, 2011, ISBN 9780691152431, briefly brushed in our article on Critical race theory. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is what I meant. The US didn't care what the USSR thought, but it did care what the many of the other states of the world thought. The US was heavily reliant on the goodwill of states like Italy, West Germany, France, Turkey, Greece, Japan, and so on for its various international goals (e.g. supporting military bases overseas, passing UN resolutions, contributing to NATO). Any notion that the US could afford to be stubbornly isolationist and unapologetic during the Cold War is naive. I also think that referring to the segregation and horrific violence of the Civil Rights period and before as an "imperfection" is something of an understatement. It is like calling apartheid an "imperfection" of South Africa. Acknowledging that the US has done (and does do) awful things does not in any way imply moral equivalency with the USSR. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The alleged influence of the USSR on our civil rights laws sounds like somebody's wishful thinking. The folks who were the most critical of the USSR in those days were also the most adamantly opposed to civil rights legislation. The great civil rights acts of the 1960s were led by LBJ and his monolithic government, which also got us into a ground war against communism in southeast Asia. Because the fact is that both Republicans and Democrats considered the USSR to be a brutal enemy who held their entire population in metaphoric shackles and threatened the entire world with their aggressions. So their opinion of our civil rights record was considered a joke, at best. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any non-USSR examples? --Melab±1 ☎ 23:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Britain's anti-slavery actions in the 19th century. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting one. It may have influenced Lincoln to make the Emancipation Proclamation, which practically ensured that the south would get no help from Britain in the Civil War. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure the USA has been criticised by a lot of countries for Guantanamo Bay. HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not do this here. Maybe take it to your talk pages. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Very likely. Maybe those critics would like to take those folks off our hands and bring them into their own homelands? (Non-Islamic countries, of course.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, is there a reason you seem to be adamantly soapboxing in this particular thread? I'm not seeing any actual Reference-Desk worthy contributions here; you've supplied all gumption and no facts. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is the one who raised the soapbox. And you're on it too, so clean up your own act instead of worrying about me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about extraordinary rendition? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting bit of propaganda. I guess the problem is that America wants to be an example to the world, and when we fall short, we get raked over the coals for it. But when unspeakably worse brutality happens at the hands of another country (Syria, for example), it's like, "Oh, well, what do you expect - it's who they are." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, that is so NOT the attitude that's been taken. See Syrian diplomats expelled around the world. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 07:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I see the kind of international support for anti-Assad forces that matches what the anti-Kadaffi forces got, then I'll take the critics seriously. Even so, I'm sure Assad is devastated over countries getting a little huffy over his various massacres. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC

The point is that your assertion that the Syrian government's brutalities have just been dismissed by the international community with a wave of the hand, is completely, utterly, absolutely, totally and 100% false, wrong, incorrect and inaccurate. When you acknowledge this, we can move on. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when the critics of Syria stop tut-tutting and start invading. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again you make an uncited statement that is completely contrary to the facts, and when challenged you go off on some other tangent without ever accepting that your original statement was wrong. It is actually OK to say "Yes, I was wrong". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 07:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow, you mean they are invading and not just making symbolic but empty gestures? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 10:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What has your attaché got to do with anything? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trivialising important issues in an attempt (unsuccessful on this occasion) to deflect attention from one's errors is not the way to learn from one's mistakes. All children learn this, eventually, otherwise they never grow up. Some just take (a lot) longer than others. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't get where you're coming from. What we're seeing regarding Syria is lots of talk and very little action. There are a few UN observers there, and they're getting shot at. Maybe there are preparations behind the scenes to take out this Assad character, but out in the open there doesn't seem to be much going on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an editorial opinion from USAToday that kind of says what I've been saying here.[12] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're either uncontrollably (due to reasons I can only guess at) or deliberately ignoring my point. You have never acknowledged that "Oh, well, what do you expect - it's who they are" was completely off-track in describing the response of the world community, nor have you withdrawn it. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure why it's the responsibility of other countries to take people detained and moved around the world by the US off their hands so they get humane treatment. Even more so considering some of these people don't seem to have been any real threat but were simply in the wrong place in the wrong time or were detained based on misleading information provided for financial or other reasons (what they're likely after they've been so treated it anyones guess). But perhaps it is unrealistic for the rest of the world to expect the US to take responsibility for their actions, even if the US seems to expect other countries to do so. Perhaps it is fair 'you caused the mess, you fix it' applies to every other country other then the US. Nil Einne (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ones who "caused the mess" were the ones who destroyed the World Trade Center. The GTMO issue remains unresolved, and there seems little energy from either political party to do anything about it, which leads me to suspect that there is a lot we, the public, think we know but really don't, about the true nature of these characters at GTMO. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? What it makes me think is that neither of the large parties thinks that the political payoff is worth the political risk. There are probably politicians in both large parties who are troubled by the situation on the merits, as opposed to just calculating what will get them votes, but you know, those guys don't tend to be in charge. --Trovatore (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're claiming the US is some sort of automated computer and its people have no free will, the ones who caused the mess are indeed the US. No one forced the US to inhumanely detain and torture the wrong people, they made the choice by themselves. Otherwise, you might as well bring it back to the US and other countries and say they are the ones who caused the WTC attacks in the first place, it's unquestionable that the attackers were influenced by US and other country policy. But for most of the world, two wrongs don't make a right and you can't defend wrong doing by saying it's okay to do wrong because someone else did more wrong. I always thought the US understood this as well, but perhaps I'm mistaken. Nil Einne (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By what inside info do you know that the GTMO folks are the "wrong" ones? And as far as choice goes, they also chose to make war on the US. Here's a thought, though. Maybe they should open the gates and give those guys to the Cubans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question can be turned around, Bugs: By what inside info do you know that they're the right ones? They haven't had trials; nothing has been proven to the standards that we normally expect. And of course, if they're not the right ones, then they didn't make war on the US. --Trovatore (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What, they were just walking down the street in Kabul, unarmed, minding their own business, and were kidnapped randomly and taken to Cuba? That's funny. Tell me another one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not just walking down the street, but honestly, I don't know; maybe. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was rousted out of his house by ISI, in the middle of the night I think; he probably did make war on America, but he wasn't doing it at that moment. Who's to say the same didn't happen to some people who were entirely uninvolved? Do you have any actual information about the evidence against the inmates in Guantanamo, or are you just trusting the government? --Trovatore (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two consecutive Presidents, one I voted against and one I voted for, seem to think that GTMO is serving a useful purpose. So who should I pay heed to - an ordinary citizen? Or someone whose job it is to deal with our nation's security? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two consecutive presidents are both in government. Are you really just going to trust government on this? Would you, if the people imprisoned looked and talked more like your neighbors? --Trovatore (talk) 09:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm certainly not saying you should trust me (I suppose I'm the "ordinary citizen" you're referring to?). I'll happily say I don't know what these people have done. But our tradition is that whatever we punish them for has to be proved. So far I have not seen this proof, not only not in a legal sense, but not even in the sense of something they could point to that would be reasonably convincing. I've seen vague claims that the people still there are "the worst of the worst", but not much in the way of evidence. I've seen vague allusions to them being "taken on the battlefield", but KSM was certainly not, and it makes me wonder how many of the others weren't either. --Trovatore (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obama pledged to close GTMO. So far, he hasn't. Maybe he's been too busy. Or maybe he's come to the conclusion that it's needed after all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or just maybe, he's a politician, running for office? --Trovatore (talk) 08:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I googled [what other countries think of america] (which the OP obviously could have done) and many possibly interesting sites came up, such as this one.[13] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I meant, Bugs. Those are not from foreign governments. What other countries think of the United States is not the same as asking for change in America's domestic policies. --Melab±1 ☎ 19:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For searching, maybe you're taking it from the wrong direction, as I was when I tried to look for it. Instead of the broad perspective, maybe you should focus on something specific. A pretty obvious one could be, [norwegian government's position on capital punishment in usa]. Or something along those lines. Try that with various issues and various countries, and maybe a pattern for locating this kind of info will start to emerge. That's what I would do, if I were searching for that info. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russia Today, as broadcast in the UK, seems to make up around 50% of its programming with criticism of various policies in the USA (as much about economic policies as human rights), with an occasional swipe at the UK. It does this to the extent that I suspect what they're broadcasting in the UK is actually intended for USA audiences. Interestingly, it also hosted a Greenpeace spokesperson to support a documentary about environmental abuses in the USA and other parts of the world, which actually ended up very pro-Obama (in that it attacked lots of opponents of the current U.S. administration). I'm sure Greenpeace doesn't think much of Russian policy either, but in this case it seemed to meet their requirements. Having said all this, Russia Today isn't exactly a government agency, arguably slightly less so than the BBC World Service is. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As our article mentions, Helen Clark famously said she didn't think the Iraq War would have happened if Gore was the president. While from her politics, it was obvious she thought this was a good thing this was never said outright AFAIK. However despite the fact Bush liked to promote how much better he was at homeland security then his opponents, and the fact he always maintained the Iraq war was the right thing to do; so it would actually seem to be a positive thing even if not meant that way, this caused sufficient offense to merit an apology of sorts. I think it's clear from this (and the commentary surrounding it) and other cases that the US is generally not enthuasitic about other governments criticising them, even when they're quite happy to do it about other governments who are generally just supposed to accept it. For a larger country like China or Russia, there's little the US can do, similarly a country which isn't particularly friendly to the US or who the US need it doesn't really matter, but for a country which isn't imporant to the US but (considers) the US important to them, you criticise the US at your peril. Nil Einne (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Mexican President's critique of Arizona SB 1070 received some media attention at the time. (See subsection Arizona_SB_1070#Mexico). ---Sluzzelin talk 02:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe he's afraid he'll have to take all the illegals back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - C'mon, Bugs. We're trying to give examples for "Are there any countries that have done the same with respect to the US [i.e. criticize the US "for human rights violations or campaign(s) for economic liberalization, more democratic elections, or freer trade"] on things that do not have to do with calls for America to leave said countries alone". We're trying to do this without giving our personal comments or quips on the legitimacy of said criticisms. This could easily be an interesting question for someone studying American or international politics. The thread should neither be a debate nor a court room trial; just a list of examples that meet the OP's criteria. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is actually a good example of what I am looking for, Sluzzelin. Although, Felipe Calderón's statements have to do with protecting the citizens of Mexico from perceived persecution (probably the wrong word to use). I once had this conversation with a visitor from Australia about America's laws, constitution, and such. I was interested when they said that they were surprised to see a man walking around with a firearm in plain sight. This was not expected but it was not surprising to me because most countries have restrictions on guns that Republicans would be quick to criticize here in America. --Melab±1 ☎ 02:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't "persecute" Mexican citizens, although we do send them back if they're here illegally and we find out about it. A succession of Mexican presidents have groused about this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that you —random unimportant Internet person and most likely a member of the working class— play any part in the act of "sending illegal Mexican citizens back"? --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"We" refers to the USA. And, yes, I admit that I'm part of "the 99%". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hum, well many MNCs and states lobby the US gov as seen in this article. Though that is mostly in self-interest I suppose, and it seems you want cases where other nations are trying to push the US to develop for the American's own good. I'm sure throguh google you could find plently more cases of non US organizations publishing papers critical of various US policy. Topics include, capital punishment, economic inequality, lack of access to healthcare for many, massive prison populations, their drug war, their massive military and the associated warmongering, support for Israel, the toppling of democratically elected governments, the toppling of governments which objectively have severly hurt the nation/people, topfreedom, freedom of the press, internet censorship, landmine manufacturing, high murder and rape rates, pollution/climate change, lack of banking regulation, extraordinary rendition, police brutality, weak democracy, low access to higher education for many, high national debt with no plans to pay off or even lower deficit - risk to world economy, lack of equal rights, gay rights, condiderable levels of islamophobia, relatively low levels of social/economic mobility, use of veto at UN, veto power at world bank, IMF, attempted bullying of UN by withholding payments if the UN disagrees with the US, use of drones, alleged militarization of space, continuous massive funding for projects with the sole purpose of creating greater tools for killing humans...these are all issues which you should be able to find organizations criticizing the US on. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that many countries criticise the human rights abuses of other countries, but the question is, how vocal they are about it. Some countries can afford to be very vocal in their opposition to the US, such as China, or North Korea, North Korea took a jab at the US, when it arrested two American journalists, stating that, unlike the foreigners that the US had arrested (and brought to Guantanamo), NK had given the detainees a trial.

When it comes to Norway, as mentioned by the OP, whenever a Norwegian government minister (especially the PM or the Minister of Foreign Affairs) meets with the US President, there will usually be an article in the newspaper about what they discussed. (Keep in mind that the actual content of such meetings are confidential.) The government official will usually say something along the lines of 'I also mentioned to the President, Norway's concerns regarding the US's continued use of the death penalty'. The reason being that Norway is fundamentally opposed to the death penalty and would like to see it discontinued everywhere. However, the government does seem to be more vocal on the use of the death penalty in Iran than it is vis-à-vis the use of the death penalty in the US. And one can only speculate as to why that is...

As for the two specific issues mentioned by the OP, namely gun control and healthcare, those aren't topics that are discussed much. I think most Norwegians would hav ethe view that the way in which these are dealt with in the US probably isn't ideal, but these aren't something that the government addresses, at least not in a formal way. I recall the PM was asked about what he thought of health care reform in the US and he said that he was in favour of the public ofption, and later justified that by stating that he wasn't trying to push for anything - it was up to the Americans to decide - but that most Americans probably already knew what a socialist democrat from Norway would think on the matter. Unlike his comments on the death penalty, where he would like to influence domestic US policy, when it came to health care, his statement was the he didn't want to influence domestic policy in the US, but when people asked his opinion, he would state it. V85 (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you mentioned gun control, Australia's Prime Minister John Howard made a comment after the Virginia Tech massacre which at least implied criticism of US gun politics. "We had a terrible incident at Port Arthur, but it is the case that 11 years ago we took action to limit the availability of guns and we showed a national resolve that the gun culture that is such a negative in the United States would never become a negative in our country." [14]. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting/amusing/ironic/hypocritical/and ultimately not surprising that the two nations which regularly receive a lot of scathing international criticism - namely the US and the UK - just happen to be the very nations that the rest of the world immigrate to in large droves. Hmm must be the J.R Ewing-syndrome at work here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need for the paranoid defence Jeanne. Every country can be better, even the great ones. HiLo48 (talk) 08:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't being paranoid, HiLo just an ironic observer of human nature which never disappoints me for its sheer hypocrisy. Of course every country can and needs to be better.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the UK gets more criticism than other countries. China, Israel, Saudi Arabia seems to be in the spot line. And since Guantanamo, the US too. Take also into account that the US is unique, compared to other developed countries, regarding the death penalty and torture. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The UK and US don't have uniquely high numbers of immigrants. For example, look at List of countries by foreign-born population in 2005. Countries with higher numbers of immigrants relative to their population include Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, which are surely among the most-criticised countries in the world at the moment. I don't see how you would demonstrate that the US and UK are criticised more than other countries, either. Also bear in mind that criticism of human rights usually comes from governments and NGOs, while immigration is a decision made by individuals, so there isn't necessarily any hypocrisy. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a country as such, but Amnesty International has criticised the US (and other countries) in its campaigns to abolish the death penalty and the use of torture. It has also criticised the US over the treatment of individuals such as Troy Davis, Bradley Manning and Shaker Aamer. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After the recent terrorist attack here in Italy in which a teenaged schoolgirl horrifically lost her life there were calls by many Italians on various talk shows for the reinstatement of the death penalty.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's the kind of person you'll find on Talk shows everywhere. HiLo48 (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you've never been to Italy. The type of talk shows I was referring to was not of the Jerry Springer or Geraldo Rivera genre but rather those such as Porta a Porta hosted by Bruno Vespa of which the guests are notable personalities such as politicians, journalists, critics, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And this is relevant how? Does it change the fact that Amnesty International has criticized the US? Does it change the fact that Italy has criticized the US, if it indeed has? Does it offer any additional examples that the OP was seeking? If not, you're simply soapboxing. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that AI wants to keep alive characters like that guy in Norway is reason enough to ignore their opinions. Why shouldn't that guy slaughter the innocent, if he knows he won't be compelled to suffer their fate, but instead will get free room and board for the rest of his miserable life? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, please stop soapboxing. We already know what you think, but this is the Reference Desk not the Opinions Desk. The OP asked a reasonable and specific question and deserves objective and sourced answers (which most other editors on this thread have been trying to provide). Gandalf61 (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I gave him some ideas of where to search and of things I had found in google. If it can't be found, maybe there ain't anything. Furthermore, if you don't see the inherent baiting in his question, I don't know what to tell you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment: The question really isn't calling for personal discussions and qualifications of the examples it is seeking. Presumably, the OP isn't an idiot and will know how to interpret any instances we list here. The OP already offered their own example which could allow for all sorts of comments on hypocrisy. Yet the OP isn't looking for our perceptions and thoughts on who gets to criticize whom. While most leaders and governments will try to put a more positive spotlight on their own policies in comparison with those of other nations, it isn't that frequent either that a foreign government will officially or quasi-officially criticize the domestic affairs of other countries. I think the question is perfectly legitimate and in my opinion it was phrased in a manner that didn't constitute soapboxing at all. Nor invite it. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The OP should do his own research instead of lighting a fuse here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Search terms that I have used in the past have only given me links to the US criticizing other countries. I have tried phrasing my searches like sentences instead of a list of terms and that still doesn't work. --Melab±1 ☎ 02:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you missed where I googled [what other countries think of america] or something like that. Surely that would at least give you something to start with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right up at the top of this thread, Baseball Bugs said "The USA gets plenty of criticism, and our usual response is along the lines of, "Thank you for your valuable input." " Interestingly, the response has been considerably more than that. HiLo48 (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we get useful advice, we give it reasonable consideration. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved reader who was interested in this question and its potential answers, I have to say I'm really disappointed in Baseball Bugs's incredibly unhelpful contributions here which successfully derailed the entire discussion and overshadowed other users' attempts to provide useful and relevant input. This is a reference desk, not a discussion forum. If your input consists not only of not providing references yourself, but of making sniping, dismissive, soapboxy comments towards those provided by others that are clearly utterly unhelpful to the questioner, it's probably not welcome. Nor is saying things like "the OP should do his own research instead of lighting a fuse here" on a page whose very purpose is to help people with their research, and when the only person whose "fuse" seems to have been lit is you yourself. As a frequent RD reader but only occasional contributor, I would normally not comment on something like this, but unfortunately this fits a pattern I've noticed from this user that is so widespread that I honestly feel it has diminished the usefulness of the reference desks to both questioners and people like me, who read them in order to see interesting questions answered with, well, references and facts rather than political rants and witty one-liners. With absolutely no personal offense intended: Baseball Bugs, I really think you need to take a long look at your contributions here and reevaluate your approach to responding to questions. In particular, if you find a question to be distasteful or to be "lighting a fuse," consider just ignoring it, especially if others appear to be having no trouble responding to it in a helpful manner.

In order that my response isn't equally distractive and non-contributive: This article on "International Influence on the Death Penalty in the U.S." may be of interest. It posits that international pressure historically had very little effect on this issue, but that that has been changing in the last decade or so. -Elmer Clark (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I and many others on this board are appalled at Bugs' behaviour here. I also agree that his actions in this particular thread is not a lone occurrence of poor behaviour, but just a spike in his consistent soap-boxing/unhelpful comments. I ask that Bugs stop posting to these boards until he has changed his ways. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UU, as I recall, was involved in edit-warring over some issue about "gay-friendly" private colleges. That probably accounts for his out-of-left-field comments here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please apologize and strike your ridiculous claim that I ever edit warred, my list of contributions is short as I hate meeting with people like you, the admin who intervened had an equally low opinion of you. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Others have high opinions of me, and fortunately they're right. :) Anyway, refresh my memory... were you in favor of, or opposed to, labeling those private schools as "gay-unfriendly"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your ad hominem attack against UU does not discredit his argument that you've been soapboaxing all thread long while offering absolutely no helpful information. The only valid defense against "you violated WP:SOAP" is "I have not violated WP:SOAP". It doesn't matter if others have done the same thing. It doesn't matter if your accusers are the child-eating monsters. It doesn't matter if the OP is a troll. If you're violating Wikipedia policy, you need to stop, regardless of what other people are doing. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, you do tend to have insightful views on many topics... but every time I see you in a thread about the USA, you get extremely defensive and lash out at any criticism of our country. It might be best to step back from these threads for a while. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]