Miscellaneous desk
< July 21	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 23 >

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.

July 22

What is a "silent cheer"?

This story has been making the rounds recently - an Australian school has banned applause in its assemblies: instead, the ~~pupils~~ ~~students~~ ~~service users~~ recipients of education must perform a "silent cheer". But what does this involve? A preliminary Google search is only coming up with this news story, and metaphorical uses of the term. Tevildo (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's described right there in the article you linked. "If you've been to a school assembly recently, you may have noticed our students doing silent cheers," it said. "Instead of clapping, the students are free to punch the air, pull excited faces and wriggle about on the spot.

Deaf people often 'clap' by putting their hands in the air, with fingers stretched out, and rotating their wrist back and forth, and/or wiggling fingers. (short example) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.193.222 (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't immediately make the connection. Do we know if it's something this school has devised independently, or does it have a separate origin? Tevildo (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does the "excited face" you "pull" have to be your own? Edison (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is article 50 of the Lisbon treaty reversible?

The Independent newspaper makes a claim that Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty is reversible:

10. Triggering Article 50 is reversible! Not many people know this. But the UK can formally trigger its Article 50 request and then withdraw the request before Brexit actually takes place, if the country wants to.

I find this rather dubious. Unless there is some other rule or regulation that controls this it seems quite clear that there are three possible outcomes of invoking the article; ; extension, leaving with a deal or leaving by default after two years. I would argue that deciding to stay would be a negotiated agreement, requiring a qualified majority vote. However I can see an argument that it would be a change to articles and procedures, requiring a unanimous vote (I suppose if this was the case a country could always make an agreement that is almost the same as remaining to get a majority rather than unanimous vote). Is there some other way that a country could withdraw invocation of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q Chris (talk • contribs) 07:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

REad this - http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-how-does-article-50-work-2016-7 - and decide if you still think it is doubtful. The House of Lords got legal opinion about this, which agreed that it could be reversed as long as the final agreement, or the two year deadline, has not passed. Wymspen (talk) 07:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know whether that reflects consensus? This is what the actual report says:

"Can a Member State’s decision to withdraw be reversed? 10. We asked our witnesses whether it was possible to reverse a decision to withdraw. Both agreed that a Member State could legally reverse a decision to withdraw from the EU at any point before the date on which the withdrawal agreement took effect. Once the withdrawal agreement had taken effect, however, withdrawal was final. Sir David told us: “It is absolutely clear that you cannot be forced to go through with it if you do not want to: for example, if there is a change of Government.”10 Professor Wyatt supported this view with the following legal analysis: “There is nothing in the wording to say that you cannot. It is in accord with the general aims of the Treaties that people stay in rather than rush out of the exit door. There is also the specific provision in Article 50 to the effect that, if a State withdraws, it has to apply to rejoin de novo. That only applies once you have left. If you could not change your mind after a year of thinking about it, but before you had withdrawn, you would then have to wait another year, withdraw and then apply to join again. That just does not make sense. Analysis of the text suggests that you are entitled to change your mind.”11 11. Professor Wyatt clarified that “a Member State remains a member of the European Union until the withdrawal agreement takes effect”, so would continue its membership on the same legal terms as before the decision to withdraw.12 12. Both witnesses drew a distinction, however, between the law and the politics of such a scenario. While the law was clear, “the politics of it would be completely different”, according to Professor Wyatt.13 Likewise, Sir David did not think that the politics “were as easy as saying, ‘The negotiations are over and we are back to where we started’”.14 13. We note in this context that the Conclusions of the 18–19 February 2016 European Council, at which the terms of the ‘New Settlement for the United Kingdom within the European Union’ were agreed, stated that “should the result of the referendum in the United Kingdom be for it to leave the European Union, the set of arrangements referred to [regarding the ‘New Settlement’] will cease to exist”.15 In other words, the outcome of the recent renegotiation of the UK’s membership terms will, in the event of a vote to leave the EU, fall the moment the result of the referendum is known." --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that at this level of international law, things get pretty flexible. Realpolitik takes over, and treaties get bent - see Anarchy (international relations) for the various effects of this. If the UK decides it wants to stay, and the EU wants it to stay, then it will stay regardless of what lawyers say (or better put, lawyers will be found who agree the UK can stay). Smurrayinchester 10:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even beyond that. Absolutely anything in the treaties can be rewritten with unanimous consent of the countries. Even if something isn't in any way in the treaties now, it could still be added. Dragons flight (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-categories of pedophiles

Do pedophiles fall into sub categories in terms of their preference, such as little boys or little girls? Does that make them straight or gay?

Are pedophiles more likely to take a seme sex preference, or are interests evenly distributed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.207.186.185 (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Pedophilia discusses this a bit, you might find more relevant statistics in the references. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unable to login

i am trying to login to my account. i have forgotten my password. the prompt is asking for my email. i am entering it but you are not sending me a link to reset my password. richard davies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.231.229 (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard. First, it is not any of us specifically that would send you a link, that is handled by an automated script. As for the email, I'm not sure what the problem might be, but you could try checking your email's "junk" or "spam" folders, sometimes password reset messages get caught there by accident. Also you may have signed up with a different/older email account, so make sure you check all email addresses you can. Finally, it might be easiest to just make a new account. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the account User:Richardlilijon? If you do manager to reset the password, do you need to declare a WP:conflict of interest in your editing? Dbfirs 14:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]