Miscellaneous desk
< September 14	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 16 >

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.

September 15

Telegram invitation

Please write a telegram invitation link here, I wanna join a group.86.57.30.151 (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I was about to say that telegrams are almost extinct. But according to Telegraphy#Worldwide_status_of_telegram_services, they are still providing Telex service in Iran, through Telecommunication_Infrastructure_Company_of_I.R.Iran. Since your IP geolocates to Iran, you can probably contact the organization to learn how to send and receive telex messages. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are probably referring to Telegram (software) so the information they need could possibly be found at Telegram.org. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're partially right, but I don't think the OP will find info at the website. It sounds like the OP probably wants an invitation to a Telegram group. I'm not sure what group, but I suspect you won't find invitations on the website. Even their blog seems to lack comments, so that probably won't help.

To the IP, I'm not sure what group you're looking for but you're at the wrong place. There are no Telegram groups for wikipedia in general, or the reference desk. Perhaps there are some groups on wikipedia who use Telegram, but it's definitely not something that is encouraged. Private invite only groups that coordinate stuff relating to wikipedia are controversial except in very select cases (like arbcom). If you were looking for some group unrelated to wikipedia, it's unlikely we can help you, you will need to find the website or something else suitable for whatever group you're looking for.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prison Cell

Is it possible to be happy in if one was locked in a 7ft by 12ft prison cell 23 hours a day? Can a prisoner locked in this cell be as happy as a millionaire in a mansion , if one was to put their mind to it? --Kåskkœk (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like a question, please ignore it. Others may interpret this response as WP:BITEY and not very WP:CIVIL. Perhaps you are merely being brief and don't intend to be rude. If so, please provide references to one-word replies, that will help the reference desk run better, and make it clear that you are participating here in order to help, rather than participating here to pass judgment and snark. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So why is being locked in a cell a punishment if one can be as happy as a millionaire? --Kåskkœk (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happiness is an internal mental state. It is not possible to guarantee that every single person in response to any given situation would be happy or not. Thus, while some people would be happy under the situation you describe, others may not be. Bugs answers your question as completely and totally as could be answered, which is to say, when you ask if it is possible "to be happy", then as long as one person could experience that emotion in the situation you describe, it is completely sufficient to answer "yes". --Jayron 32 19:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Penal system and incarceration have some relevant info. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some interesting reading on the topic from scholarly journals [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. All of these mention confinement to small cells, and some talk about differential effects of cell size, in addition to other treatments. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of them say it's not possible to be happy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, but they detail the many detrimental effects of long-term incarceration that occur. They do collectively assert that there are strong negative effects of incarceration and confinement to small spaces. You could find that out if you at least skimmed the links. But if you want to smugly play word games, that's fine too. Sure, it is conceivably possible to be happy in the situation the OP describes. But masses of research shows that tends to not be the case, not by a long shot. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OP asked if it was possible, not if it was likely. The answer remains "Yes". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs is correct, "O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams." I suggest also the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, the Discourses of Epictetus and the life of Diogenes of Sinope. μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we're citing tangentially related literature, then I'll let Lebowski speak for me [6] :) SemanticMantis (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume since you smalled this you're being sarcastic, SM, but Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus can hardly be called "tangential" to the topic at hand. One was a slave, the other an emperor, both famed Stoics, and each agrees with Bugs. As for Shakespeare, you really won't find a more educated writer. He wasn't pulling that line out his bottom. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Epictetus could be happy in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day. The Hamlet quote is actually saying the opposite - he can't be happy as king of a nutshell. Anyway, I never said anyone was wrong, I just thought maybe OP would like some context and references, and I do think a one-word answer without context, refs, or explanation is unhelpful. Also, saying that something is possible because you can imagine it isn't very good evidence. It's possible that the pope will show up at your house tonight, along with George W. Bush and a bunch of cocaine and strippers, but I don't think that tells us much about what a pope is. I wonder if anyone can find any evidence of a prisoner being happy in solitary. The personal experience reported by the IP below is very interesting, but of course that's not WP:RS. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happiness is relative. When I was in prison, I hated being around the other prisoners. I spent my time doing what I could to be put in solitary. When I was in solitary, I was very happy to be out of the main prison. I wanted to spend my entire seven years there, but state rules limit solitary to 30 days. So, every 30 days, I got kicked back to the block and I had to get in trouble again so I could get back to solitary. Of note, solitary is 8x8 feet. The block cells are 8x12 feet for 2-man cells and 8x16 for 4-man cells. So, in this case, solitary was smaller and better. 209.149.113.66 (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, because I had the same thought, that if I was ever in prison, I would very much WANT to be in solitary. And I also think every prisoner should be in solitary all the time. After all, they don't allow prisoners to associate with other felons while on parole, for fear they will "fall in with a bad crowd" and return to old behaviors, so why on Earth do they think that's OK while in prison ? Of course, you have to keep people from going insane, so they should be able to talk with people, like their family, counselors, teachers, etc., and have things to read when alone. StuRat (talk) 03:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prison is not meant to put you in a small cell. The small cell is only a means to suppress your freedom. Prison is about losing your freedom. You cannot go where you want when you want. You are obliged to stay here. The small cell is only the way to force you to stay here. Prison is meant to be a punishment. The small cell is only "the tool they use to fullfill the punishment contract they owe you", I would say. Akseli9 (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that prison is punishment, but many people disagree. They state that prison is for educating and training so the prisoners will be a supportive part of society when they exit prison. In that case, prison is not punishment. It is an education/training system. That is why prisoners are offered training and education at no cost (we called it an "east side" scholarship growing up because the east side of our town is where the projects were). Another point is that punishment is meant as a deterrent. Does anyone actually think, "I'd love to break that law, but I'm worried that I'll go do jail." If anything, I assume that the threat of anal sex is the only deterrent - not living in a small room and getting free food, free cable TV, free computers, free education, etc... 75.139.70.50 (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classically, there are four reasons for imprisoning criminals:

As some kind of "revenge" - on behalf of the state and/or the victims.
As a way to reform the criminal - hoping that their time in jail improves them in some way.
As a way to physically prevent them from committing further crimes for the period of time that they are imprisoned.
As a deterrent for the criminal AND OTHERS to reduce the likelyhood of them committing crimes.

It not clear that all of those are worthy goals - and clearly they don't all work for all criminals. (1) seems to make the victims happier - so it has some value. (2) sometimes backfires because being in close proximity to a bunch of other criminals provides opportunity to come to believe that crime is OK - or to learn new techniques - but does sometimes help. (3) does work...and in the case of offenders under the age of 25, there is a strong argument that their still immature brains are less able to understand risk and consequences - and that keeping them from committing crimes until that part of the brain matures has a solid benefit. (4) works in some cases - but not in others. SteveBaker (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your "classically" is not fact, it is just opinion. Opinion can be widespread, but not necessarily right. "Revenge" especially, is very much NOT the aim of prison nor the aim of punishment. Whether it is common misunderstanding that prison should serve archaic, barbaric and counterproductive aims such as revenge, doesn't mean revenge was the meaning of those who invented and created a justice system with a police, a court, prisons, etc, you know, this stuff that belongs to civilization. Akseli9 (talk) 11:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge can very often be the reason. If someone commits some crime, which they neither could nor would ever commit again, and for which punishment would not be a deterrent - we still throw them in jail. SteveBaker (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boethius and his The Consolation of Philosophy, written while in jail, also come to mind.--88.2.8.193 (talk) 10:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A few other references, one of which I just happened to have on hold at the library, Happiness is a Serious Problem by Dennis Prager. He talks about such things as the difference between the pleasure of the moment and the decision whether to allow dissatisfactions make you unhappy, as well as the fact that happiness comes from an intellectual disposition, not from blindly following one's emotions.

Then there is Stoic ethics in general (most of the above mentioned thinkers were stoics if not Stoics) and their distinction between things which are actually good or evil (virtues or vices that are under our voluntary control) and things which are merely preferable, such as wealth and freedom, versus unpreferable, such as poverty and imprisonment. For a very basic introduction read the Stanford Encyclopedia. For an in depth coverage of Stoic ethics, read Giovanni Reale's masterful Systems of the Hellenistic Age. μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

School detentions in the UK.

I was given an after school detention for next week by a teacher. I go to a state school in the UK, can I refuse to go to a detention on legal grounds? Can I not say "Hey Teacher, legally speaking I am not obliged to go to this detention because you do not represent a public body of authority such as the police"? --Spoœekspaar (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Wikipedia editors may not provide any legal advice in response to questions such as this. Edison (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)You could try saying that, but the resulting actions by the school might be worse than the detention. Your parents or guardians may have implicitly or explicitly agreed that you are subject to school discipline. Ask them what they think. They will be involved in subsequent discussions if you refuse to attend detention. The school has no legal duty to allow you to continue be educated there if you refuse to accept their discipline, but your local education authority has a duty to find you another school if you get expelled from your present school. Apologies for the "legal advice": you should consult a solicitor if you need to know the detail of the law. Dbfirs 20:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get the idea that school is not "a public body of authority "? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Law is Education and Inspections Act 2006 as per page 10 of this document.[7] Nanonic (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And Section 92 deals with detentions: [8] MChesterMC (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could just take what's coming to you, like a man. We have articles on Dignity, Courage and Honour, which are three qualities you appear to lack.--Ykraps (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See In loco parentis, a concept well established in English common law. That means, by sending you to school, your parents grant the right of the school to treat you as one of their children; to take the role of the parent. Just as your parent has the absolutely legal right to institute reasonable (non-harmful/non-violent) punishments to train you to behave correctly, the school has the same right to do so. And since you're a legal minor, you are required to obey (lawful and reasonable) requests from both your parents, and the school acting in loco parentis. When you become of the age of majority, you're quite allowed to ruin your own life in any way you see fit. Until that age, the state, the schools and your arents will take actions to train you and stop you from doing so. --Jayron 32 14:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - in loco parentis definitely applies here - the only issue is when your actual parents disagree with the school when it is acting in a parental role. So your parents might argue that you have something else that's more important to do when detention is happening...and they and the school would have to come to some arrangement. But I agree with Ykraps...take the detention...it's done for a reason. If you get the idea into your head that you can ignore the rules, blow off the punishment and waltz away without consequences, you're going to become an exceedingly nasty person. Nobody wants that. SteveBaker (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's some variance on what happens when schools and parents disagree on an issue like this. For small issues, the school may accede to the parents wishes, for example, if a parent wished a student to not serve after school detention, but by negotiating with the school, an alternate discipline was determined (serving detention at lunch time, so they miss out on time with their friends, for example). On major issues, the school and parents may reach an impasse whereby it may be impossible for the school to accommodate the parent's wishes, or where the parent may have a fundamental disagreement with the school system on it's basic philosophy or method of conducting its business, homeschooling exists for that reason. --Jayron 32 20:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In England though, the school must supply the parents with a copy of their discipline policy, before they accept a place for their child at that school. Alansplodge (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that access to state schools in England required an application process to get in. I was under the impression that they ran like U.S. public schools, where it is provided to all students with no-questions-asked. Can you explain how the application and acceptance policy works? --Jayron 32 11:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's normally much of an application process but rather that the child isn't automatically enrolled. The school offers the child a place, and the parent either accepts or doesn't. The parent is provided with relevent information like the discipline policy, which I guess would include uniform requirements. However I don't think it's always a case of no questions asked. If the school has more applications than it has places available, the school would have a published system of deciding who gets the limited number of places. This will normally depend on whether the child lives in the catchment area for the school, whether they have any siblings attending the school etc. There are also a small number of state grammar schools#England who require an admission test. See for some more info: [9] [10] I presume it's normally assumed if the parent is likely to have any requirements, they would check the policy before they choose a preferred school, but if the parent later realises there is something in the policy they don't like, they would probably be free to look for a place at another school which is still open. Nil Einne (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the school does not accept a student because it does not have places available, where does the child go to school then? --Jayron 32 14:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One more source. [11]

Anyway I'm pretty sure the answer is to the nearest school with places, or whatever their preference is. If I understand the earlier sources correctly, the Local education authorities is required to ensure there are sufficient places for all students in schools in their area. I don't want to speak too much since I don't know that much about the system in any part of the UK (although it has similarities in some areas with that in NZ, and perhaps also with that in Malaysia) but I think there are also requirements or expectations that the school needs to be a resonable distance. Also, except perhaps for grammar or competitive entry schools, I'm fairly sure place limits are normally only a problem in sururban or urban areas with several schools in the vicinity.

I would agree that the parents options are always going to be limited by the policies of schools that are nearby, unless they are willing to move (and even then there will be limits on what they can find, and probably where they can afford to move) but I won't speak any more about what happens when the child is offered a place but the parent belatedly realises they aren't happy with the discipline policy and so may have difficulty finding a school able to accept their child as I don't know enough to comment. Parents and students as a group would however normally have some ability to influence the discipline policy of the school over time.

One thing which does seem the same in the UK as in NZ is that instead of disagreement over the discipline policy, parents are far more likely to be worried about getting their child in to the right school based on the school's edit:student academic performance history, including try to move to place which will give them the best (or guaranteed?) chance of getting in to a school they feel is suitable, or simply cheating/lying about where they live [12]

Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. One more comment is that the earlier guides and I'm sure others often recommend a visit. And there are also requirements for what should be on the website etc, and other ways to find out more about the school. The general implication is you're supposed to do all this before chosing a school. So yeah, once the child has been offered a place, it's really a bit late to realise there's something you don't like about the discipline policy. You're supposed to familiarise yourself with it before choosing a school. If there's a real risk, this would probably include a contigency plan on your options if you fail to get a place at the preferred school. Nil Einne (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Sands breakfast

Has anybody heard of the term "Bobby Sands breakfast"? The only Bobby Sands I have heard of, and the only one on Wikipedia, is the one that died while on a hunger strike. While I assume the meaning is that the person had nothing to eat I have never heard the term before. I tried looking for it but all I really found was the fast food place in Iran. I rather not hear anything about the rights and wrongs of either side in this. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you hear or see the expression, CBW? Sounds like a Duke Humphrey picnic. Deor (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where else but on that most impeccable of sources, Facebook. I think the full line was "We had a real Bobby Sands breakfast." And then probably something about golf. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Substituting "breakfast" with "meal" or "lunch" or "supper" gives (very few) examples, with the same meaning you suggested, but these aren't from published media outlets either. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it sounds like it may be used in some context but not really by any reputable source. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe something like it can be found in a movie or book dialogue (in order to have inappropriate humor coming out of the mouth of characters rather than being the writer's own voice), or in a standup comedian's routine? I did find a football chant apparently sung by fans of Celtic F.C. adversaries at the time going "Could you go a chicken supper, Bobby Sands?/Could you go a chicken supper, Bobby Sands?/Could you go a chicken supper, you dirty Fenian fucker/Could you go a chicken supper Bobby Sands." (sung to the tune of "She'll Be Coming 'Round the Mountain"), see this article by Alex Massie, for example. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that song is sung by fans of Glasgow Rangers, who are traditionally Protestant and pro-union, rather than Glasgow Celtic, who are a mainly Catholic crew and who would be more sympathetic.--Ykraps (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah he put adversaries of Celtic, meaning that it could be sung by fans of any team playing against Celtic. --Viennese Waltz 09:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Massie says it was sung by "fans at Glasgow Rangers and Heart of Midlothian, among, I think, other clubs" ---Sluzzelin talk 09:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I was confused by the missing commas and consequently mis-read your comment.--Ykraps (talk) 09:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then I apologize for being stingy with my commas (normally, I, am, the, opposite, and, over,do, it) ---Sluzzelin talk 10:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comma, comma, comma, comma, comma, comelian.....

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

11:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgot about this but I understood what Sluzzelin meant about Celtic adversaries. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]