Miscellaneous desk
< March 27	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	Current desk >

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

March 28

who is Lion P.S. Rees?

A quote attributed to this curiously named individual has proliferated all over the internet, “Gratitude: that quality which the Canine Mongrel seldom lacks; which the Human Mongrel seldom possesses!” - but who is Lion Rees? Googling his name only returns the quote - I tried googling Lionel Rees, with no joy. Can anyone find him/her?

Ta Adambrowne666 (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, can't find anything either here. Perhaps just some person who was credited with a quote that spread? Calabe 1992 01:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was used by Richard Jesse in his book Knight. You could ask him if he knows any more about the quote. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was an odd enough name to be an acronym, so I fed it into a couple of web based acronym generators, and found nothing sensible, so that guess was wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you perhaps mean an anagram? --ColinFine (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you assume that "Lion" is a mistake, or a title (was he a member of the Lions Club?), googling "P. S. Rees" gives a lot of references to Paul Stromberg Rees, such as this - a Christian writer of the mid-20th century. A possibility, perhaps? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another remote possibility is from this New Scientist article referring to 'P.S. Rees [...] of the Sokoto State College of Education'. A little searching leads me to believe this is the same person as P.A. Rees, now of Salford University. He at least is involved in the study of animals, although his speciality seems to be elephants rather than dogs. My suspicion is that someone in the dark history of the internet copied-and-pasted something incorrectly, and that has spread. Even the rather odd positioning of the dash ("-Lion PS Rees) seems to appear in more than 50% of the citations. But I still would have expected someone somewhere to have recorded the correct author of the quotation. Seems not, though. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I suspect you're right, Cucumber Mike; thanks, all, for the ingenious suggestions. I was asking on behalf of a friend who wanted to know for copyright purposes; I think that Lion Rees is untraceable will itself be useful info to her. Adambrowne666 (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carded - drinking age enforcement in the USA

Some years ago, on a business trip to the USA, I was asked to provide id so I could get a drink with my food in a bar. Since I was more then twice the legal drinking age and showing some grey in my hair, I questioned whether that was really necessary. The barman said yes and refused to accept my UK drivers license as id (because it didn't have a photo). My passport was safely locked away in the hotel safe and I asked again if this was really, really necessary. The barman suggested I could be a law enforcment official trying to catch him out. I eventually did get my beer but it got me thinking, to what extent does law enforcment in the US try to catch out barstaff selling to underage drinkers? Would they really go as far as finding an officer who can do a british accent and provide him with a photo-less foreign driving license? Astronaut (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reasonableness of your scenario is not a deciding factor in the decision making of the bartender. As a matter of risk/reward: You represent one customer, who may buy a meal or a drink or two. Violations of the local drinking age statutes can cause an establishment to lose their liquor liscence, which effectively makes them lose all of their customers. You represent a small reward, the risk of losing ones entire business over the matter may look irrational to the customer, but from the big picture, the buisness owner (who has probably instructed his employees in this matter) stands to lose very little from pissing you off by not serving you, but stands to lose a lot by violating liquor laws. Furthermore, at the individual employee level, you don't want individual employees making judgements. Ideally, the employee would make no independent decisions at all, and would always apply the strict letter of the law (card everyone, no matter what) because that minimizes risk: as soon as the employee starts to think for themselves, they increase the opportunity to make a disasterously wrong judgement. This has nothing to do with you, you're unique characteristics, such as your actual age and appearence, has nothing to do with it. You want to drink, you need a valid photo ID. There is no room for individual assessements and variations to the procedure. You can think this is stupid and not patronize business that behave in this manner, that is your prerogative. The business can also choose to behave this way, that is their prerogative. --Jayron32 14:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I am an American whom nobody would guess is under 30 (much less under 21), and I am usually asked for identification when buying alcohol. It is a standard procedure to safeguard the business. Incidentally, my brother-in-law is a policeman, and places selling liquor are frequent targets of police investigation for possible underage sales. It is an easy way for the police to justify their existence. Mothers Against Drunk Driving has created a strong constituency for enforcement of these laws, and many nearby residents dislike establishments that sell liquor because of the noise and traffic that they generate, so police may be looking for excuses to shut them down. Marco polo (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be that guy, but enforcement varies wildly across the country. Not just from state to state but also from municipality to municipality. Granted, if you were on a business trip, you were probably in a larger city where they might be more stringent (of course, it could've just been the bar you went to). Hot Stop^UTC 15:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, but this one incident is the only time, in 20 years of visiting the USA, that I've been asked to provide id to get a beer. Obviously, many establishments are quite willing to make a judgement (based on appearence). I just felt in this case that that particular barman's assertion that I could be trying to catch him out, was particularly ludicrous and wondered if anyone had any facts to back up such a devious scheme. Astronaut (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, Astronaut, my assessment wasn't meant to be judgementative nor normative, merely esplanatory. That is, I was not saying that the bartender in question should have carded you, nor was I saying that other bartenders in other establishments should behave like that, nor should their motivations be as I describe. There are various ways to run one's business, and they all have their justifications. That the bartender carded an obviously of-age patron has a rationale which has its own logic, as would an establishment where the bartender did not card you and made his own judgement that you were obviously of age. The fact that different establishments and individuals have different approaches doesn't make either one wrong, and both practices can be explained in ways that don't pass quality judgements saying one method is objectively better. In summation, I was merely providing a possible justification for why this one bar insisted on carding you, not passing judgement on this, or any, particular practice. It seems quite unusual that you were treated differently in different experiences, and neither experience is wrong. --Jayron32 16:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a source handy, but I've heard stories about police using "older looking" teenagers in stings. Hot Stop^UTC 15:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A trivial Google search for alcohol to minors sting or similar keywords turns up a plethora of sources and news reports: [1], [2], [3], [4].... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My response was accidentally deleted by the next poster. I basically echo what Jayron said. I will point out that it isn't unique to the U.S.: There was recently a story in the UK about a 92-year-old woman who was refused alcohol because she didn't have an ID [5]. Again, the risks of serving alcohol to those underage are large, and business owners typically try to be quite careful about it. Buddy431 (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or, to put it another way, they don't trust their employees to exercise anything like common sense or reasonable judgment. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you read the linked article. The shop in question had previously had its license to sell alcohol revoked; the town council reinstated the license on the condition that the store adhere to a strict "no ID, no sale" policy. Had they had sold the booze to the 92-year-old, their license to sell alcohol would have been at risk not because they might have mistakenly sold alcohol to an underage individual, but because they would have been violating a condition of their license. (It's quite possible that there's some local politics going on there that we don't know about—anything from an irate neighbor looking to shut them down, to a grandstanding town councillor with too much time on his hands.) While the outcome – a 92-year-old getting carded – is silly, it's dangerous to jump to the conclusion that all responsibility for that silliness lies with the store's owner. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to acknowledge the silliness can trickle down from higher places as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Australian alcohol outlets often have signs to the effect of "If you look young, we WILL ask for proof of age. Please don't be offended." But, a story. Some years ago someone I know well went to the USA to work in a ski resort. Her birthday is December 11. She arrived in mid-November, around four weeks before her 21st birthday. Her passport, following the convention used in most of the world outside the USA, showed her date of birth as 11-12-19xx. She used this as ID from the day she arrived when needing proof of age to purchase alcohol (An activity not uncommon in ski resorts.) Her new American friends with whom she had been drinking were stunned when she announced in early December that she was planning a small 21st birthday celebration for December 11. HiLo48 (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My passport spells out the month. I am fairly startled that this would not be the universal practice. --Trovatore (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think HiLo is saying any American who saw "11-12-19xx" would assume their birthday was 12 November rather than 11 December. We all refer to "9/11", but if it had happened almost anywhere outside the USA, we'd probably be calling it "11/9". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if Trovatore is questioning that. Personally while I agree almost anywhere outside the US XX-XX-XXXX would be interpreted DD-MM-YYYY, I'm not so sure about the 9/11 part as some places do use YYYY-MM-DD. But anyway to the main point, I also do find it a bit odd the passport has the birthday in that format as dates in that format have the potential of confusion which is not desirable with passports. I checked both old and new New Zealand and Malaysia passports (all the way back to Federation of Malaya) and all I see spell out the month for the date of birth (and other dates) to some extent (generally 3 letters). Ditto for a New Zealand returning resident's visa. Seems to be the same for the dates on all immigration stamps. Some of those which are written instead of using stamps don't spell it out and instead just use DD-MM-YYYY, including cancellation dates (but not those odd occasions where DOB was written). Theoretically this could be problematic for those who don't use English but I would guess that's unlikely. Other documents like drivers licenses or citizen IDs don't spell it out but they're primarily intended for local use. Another alternative is in the ISO date format YYYY-MM-DD which has the advantage no one uses YYYY-DD-MM. Nil Einne (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong about the passport being the identification document in question. It may have been some other document. But I've heard versions of the story from more than one Australian who was there. And the "trick" with the dates worked for a few weeks. Then it didn't matter. HiLo48 (talk) 07:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, it's a damn shame she turned out not to have her birthday on 12 November, because some truly memorable, fantastic, wonderful, marvellous, charismatic, awe-inspiring, brilliant, outstanding, superb and generally excellent people were born on that day. One in particular, but modesty prevents me from mentioning his name. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

You are undoubtedly speaking of your twin brother, Paddy O'Oz. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This might've happened to me in reverse! I went to buy a ticket at a Spanish train station and was asked for ID. I only had a U.S. state ID which was expired, but perhaps the person interpreted the MM-DD-YY expiration date as DD-MM-YY (e.g. January 12 read as December 1) and thought it was still valid... or else just didn't bother to check the expiration date, which I admit often happens anyway (I still haven't gotten around to renewing the ID). TresÁrboles (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is it varies a lot. It depends on the State, the town, even the establishment. I've been carded even in Europe so it's not just an American phenomenon. If I had to just guess, if you look over 30 you probably will get carded maybe 25% of the time. If you look over 40 probably almost never. The exception is some bars and clubs where they just card everybody who goes through the door; even George Burns would get carded there. Obviously local enforcement is going to determine this mostly, but in my experience the more experienced a waiter is the better they are about determining age and thus whether or not to card someone. Shadowjams (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of identity in around the world

In a question above, I made the bold claim that "most Western democracies where you never have to prove who you are, regardless of your citizenship status". After a little digging it seems I was very much wrong about that. Here are a few arbitrary categories to help the classification process:

1) No requirement for all denizens (police can still temporarily detain you on reasonable suspicion until positive identification is established)

2) Foreign tourists require ID at all times

3) Non-citizens require ID at all times

3a) Non-citizen residents require ID at all time

4) All denizens require ID at all times

~~(I've omitted the category where non-citizen residents require IDs but tourists don't because I'm guessing it's a null set.)~~

Here's what I found so far with data easily available:

1) Brazil [6], Canada [7], HongKong[8], Kenya[9], Pakistan[10], Russia[11], Italy[12], Sweden[13], Ireland[14], Denmark[15], Germany[16], Greece[17],Hungary[18]

2)

3) Japan[19], RoC[20]

3a) United States[21]

4) Singapore[22], Zimbabwe[23], PRC[24], Israel[25], Sri Lanka[26], Belgium[27], Botswana[28], Cyprus[29], Luxembourg[30], Panama[31], Spain[32], Bulgaria[33],Iceland[34], Gibraltar[35], Netherlands[36], Slovenia[37], Serbia[38], Costa Rica[39], Chile[40]

Notably the second category is empty because I'm not familiar with the laws of most countries and there isn't a lot of easily accessible information in English out there regarding this fringe topic. I suspect many of the countries listed in the first category should in fact belong in the second one. Can you guys spot any such cases? Also feel free to add more countries to the list.

Anonymous.translator (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Sweden the police can't detain you only because they want to establish your identity, as far as I know, unless you have been stopped for a traffic violation or is a suspect of a crime, but maybe that's what you mean by reasonable suspicion. I haven't found anything that says that foreigners have to carry passports or IDs at all times.Sjö (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made a reply above pointing out your earlier comment was flawed before noticing this. It may be useful here as some of your categories seem limited. As I mentioned there, from what I can tell and also based on our article, in some countries including some of the ones you included in 1, you may be required to prove your identification to the police or similar authorities at any time (i.e. they don't need a specific reason) even though you're not required to carry an ID on you. If you don't have one on you, they may either detain you or give you time to present one. As I understand it, this different is from the point you were trying to make and the US, where the police can only require you to prove your ID in certain circumstances like if they believe you've commited a crime or you're driving. You may or may not want to also make a distinction between the cases when the ID you have to show if you're a citizen is a compulsory national ID, or you just need to prove it to the satisfaction of the police in some way.

In other countries, there is some form of compulsory national ID which all citizens have to get at a certain age although it's possible you're not required to show it to the police without good reason. You may also want to consider cases like France where while the police need a reason, it appears to be intepreted broadly enough that from a personal POV you might as well consider it that you can be required to prove your identification at any time.

There are obviously often nuances that depend on public policy and how the law is enforced which may vary from government to government or from area to area. Just because police or other authorities can require you to identify yourself doesn't necessarily mean they always do so, they could even do so less then say the US. Or similarly in a country where you're required to carry ID it may be so rare that they ask and rare they they penalise you if you don't, that fewer people bother then in an other country where you're not required but it happens so often that people do so just to avoid the inconvenience. And of course in some countries the police may not always follow the law and the ability for most citizens do to something when they break it is limited. To use a specific example, in Malaysia there was a lot of debate over carrying the MyKad due to the problems if it is stolen. I believe at one stage it was stated by the government that carrying a copy of your MyKad is sufficient for initial identification by the police but if it's only a copy you may be required to present the real thing to a police station within 24 hours. However while some police officers may still accept that, legally you are still required to carry the original thing meaning you may be penalised if you don't [41]. (Since corruption is so rife, it's possible if they find you without your MyKad even if they don't believe you've done anything wrong or are anything other then a citizen, they may threaten to arrest or fine you to fish for a bribe, it happens with traffic offences.)

Nil Einne (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've misunderstood the US law. 8 USC 1304 obligates permanent residents to carry their Permanent Resident Card (which was formerly called an Alien Registration Card). Non-immigrant aliens (e.g. tourists, business travellers, guest workers, and students) don't receive such cards, and so obviously can't be compelled to carry them; I don't know of any Federal law that obligates such people to carry the immigration documents they do get. States may try to impose additional restrictions; e.g. Arizona SB 1070 (which is currently in abeyance) would put that state into your 3) category. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I just read the first part of the sentence: "Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him..." and assumed "every alien" included the tourists as well. Seems like the "non-citizen residents require IDs but tourists do" category wasn't a null set after all. Now I'm wondering whether there is a new category where all residents (both citizen and non-citizen) require ID but tourists don't. Maybe some oppressive regime that relies heavily on tourism income? Anonymous.translator (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sceptical as to the utility of categories for complex subject like laws. I'm confident you'll never find another country with a restriction just like this (it's rather bonkers). But instead you'll find plenty of other countries that almost fit into your scheme, but have their own rather bonkers variations. It's hard enough to capture all this weirdness in tables (where you can have asterisks and footnotes and daggers and colour coding) but raw categories are fraught. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe (though no one should rely on this) that the requirement in the US for resident aliens to carry their green cards is a technicality and is not really observed. In fact, I think most of them do not carry it, because it's too easy to lose and too much trouble if you do. --Trovatore (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but we can only document and classify what's on the books. In actuality most of the countries in category 4 are de facto category 1s.Anonymous.translator (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education about a year ago (Far From Border, U.S. Detains Foreign Students, non-immigrant aliens (i.e., those in the US on temporary visas) are also supposed to carry a passport or some other evidence of one's immigration status, at least when in border areas (as in, within 100 miles or so from any border). They don't cite chapter and verse of the CFR, but do mention occasions when people were fined or temporarily detained. See also United States Border Patrol Interior Checkpoints. -- Vmenkov (talk) 06:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]