Miscellaneous desk
< March 23	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 24

Cold War

When did the Cold War begin? Some say that it began with Churchill's Iron Curtain speech in 1946, others that it began with the Berlin blockade in 1948. So which is it -- or was there yet another event which started it? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "Historians do not fully agree on the dates." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12 April 1945 - because while Roosevelt felt that it was possible to do a deal with Stalin, Truman didn't trust him. So Truman becoming president was the moment at which the course of East-West relations changed. Wymspen (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another Platonic Ideal question that assumes words have meanings in the way that bodies have mass. A term has a meaning in a context, and it is up to the user to define his term (on some reasonable basis) and use it consistently. We cannot give such REAL DEFINITIONS here, just refer to how people use such terms. μηδείς (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wymspen, that date you quoted would be, like, your personal opinion, no? Unless it overrides the statement from our article quoted by Baseball Bugs. In which case, of course, you would have a reference to that effect, wouldn't you? So, don't be shy, let's have it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do they prove when people are faking mental illness for welfare payments

How does the disability benefits agency prove when people are faking mental illness? It's easy when people claim to have a bad back or a lost leg and then they are caught working cash in hand on a building site. But how can faked mental illness be proved? For example anxiety, depression and schizophrenia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.10.85.15 (talk) 09:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I do not know why this keeps being deleted. Welfare fraud / Disability fraud is a very real thing and a big issue for the economies of many countries. This is a valid question and very reasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.10.85.15 (talk) 09:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are criteria for diagnosing mental disorders just as much as for other illnesses, e.g. the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It's not easier to fake, say, a depression than to fake an unspecified back pain. In legal situations, illnesses are diagnosed using standard criteria by suitable experts - normally a qualified physician. If there is reason to doubt one diagnosis, a second or third expert can be consulted. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OP, you are providing us with the answers (you've linked to the relevant articles) and you are asking us to conduct a broad discussion of the topic, not any specific case,law, disease, or jurisdiction. Per the guidelines at the top of the page, that is why someone has previously deleted your question, and we can't answer it. Specific requests for articles or links on specific topics are much better. μηδείς (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing disputes over Nader El-Bizri

disputes over articles do not belong at the ref desks; see admin warning below

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

Dear Administrators, please help with professional edits in checking whether tags added and/or restored in connection with the entry "Nader El-Bizri" are justified, and kindly assist in directing this query to administrators or professional editors who can help improve it. Apologies if this query is not directed to the right administrators but perhaps you can kindly help with this matter. Thanks2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:3DE7:5B4A:4EE8:E3CB (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When referencing an article here please wikilink it, so that we can easily go to it ourselves: Nader El-Bizri.

I only looked at the first few references, but:

Ref 1 doesn't work

Ref 2 is not independent of the subject

Ref 3 isn't a reference at all, but a footnote, as are several others.

Refs 4 and 5 are both by the subject.

We need multiple substantial independent references from reliable sources to show that Dr El-Bizri is notable and qualifies for an article. There are no "professional editors" who can help you with this, nor is this within the remit of those volunteers who have been granted administrator powers. The tags currently on the article seem to me to be completely justified. Rojomoke (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:3DE7:5B4A:4EE8:E3CB. Since you're editing from many fluctuating IPs in the 2A02:C7D:36C6:8300::/64 range, I'll speak to you here rather than on one of your many user talkpages, which you're less likely to see. If you continue to remove the tags, I will block the entire range you have access to. Bishonen | talk 15:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Bills in the UK parliament

When a bill is voted on in the House of Commons (or Lords), is there a minimum number of votes that have to be cast in order for the bill to pass? 2A02:C7D:5DC6:3F00:E59B:1141:7F95:B5DE (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having found the answer in the relevant public business Standing Orders (Commons #41 and Lords #57, if anyone cares), there is indeed a minimum number of votes. Forty in the Commons (counting the Speaker or his deputy) and thirty in the Lords. As far as I can see, however, this only applies if the question is pressed to a division (vote). If the person in the chair just says "I think the ayes have it" and no one says to the contrary, then since there is no procedure for counting there can't be a minimum number. 128.232.236.110 (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you very much! 2A02:C7D:5DC6:3F00:E59B:1141:7F95:B5DE (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, because these things are generally the same in Canada, but this one isn't. See Canada Day#History, the paragraph about how it was renamed by private member's bill. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant article is Quorum. Alansplodge (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah no, I think that is the minimum number of members present in the chamber for a division to be held. But that said, as long as the minimum number of members is present, they can conduct business and debate legislation. A majority of those present is what's required to pass any motion, including a bill. If all 650 members are present (a rare event), then 326 votes would be required. If only the bare quorum of 40 members are present, a bill can pass with only 21 votes. That's if there's a division. But if it's just on the ayes, as 128.232.236.110 says above, it could be as few as 1 aye vs. zero nos. So there is an actual minimum number, 1. But that's unlikely. The most likely minimum is a majority of 40, or 21. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd note that if I'm understanding Standing Order 37, a debate can't be closed (or a question decided) without at least 100 members voting in support if there is a division, so actually getting to passing legislation could potentially be problematic if there is opposition even with 40.

Also does the House of Commons in the UK actually require a majority of those present to vote in favour? I was under the impression it was like most parliaments and only required a majority to vote in favour, and a person could abstain/not vote despite being present. (I'm sure it's somewhere in the Standing Orders but I couldn't work out where.) This generally means unless there is a minimum number required (as there is but only when it comes to divisions), you can actually pass legislation with only 1 vote if all other members even if present simply don't vote. This sort of situation may be unlikely, but abstaining/not voting isn't completely irrelevant since in very close votes it can be the difference between something passing.

I'd also note that the article linked above and its source suggests the Canadian House of Commons also has a quorom but for general business and it requires someone to call attention to the lack of it except during the beginning of the sitting where the speaker may take the initiative. This includes if it becomes clear during a division. Also since the Canadian one is only for conduction business, it's still possible for a bill to pass with only one vote even if someone objects to the lack of quorom etc if only one person votes. If 20 are present and vote you'd need 11 but by comparison in the UK case 40 need to take part in the division which means 21 in support however many are present (but again there needs to be a division).

Nil Einne (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: "a debate can't be closed (or a question decided) without at least 100 members voting in support if there is a division" -- that refers to closure, which is to say aborting the debate when there are members who still want to speak on it. If everybody who wants to speak has done so, there is no need for a cloture motion or an adjournment motion; the question can be put straight away. jnestorius^(talk) 14:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But a member can Filibuster#United Kingdom right? So I stick by my point, the rules seem to make it difficult getting to pass legislation with only 40 members, if there is sufficient smart opposition, assuming the 40 members thing isn't fairly long term. You would probably need more than 1 person opposing, since the 100 only comes up when there is a division and it seems likely the speaker would decide the division was unnecessary claimed if it was only one person. But definitely with something like 21-19, there seems to me to be a fair chance the speaker would proceed to a division if one is claimed. So while 21-19 would be enough to pass a bill even with division, actually getting to pass may be problematic. Nil Einne (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the convention in answering questions like the original one is that, for the purposes of getting the number as low as possible, we may make whatever additional assumptions suit us best; in this case, assuming there are no opponents. I see nothing in the original question requiring us to assume "there is sufficient smart opposition". Your answer of 100 votes may be valid for any number of opponents between 1 and 99, but it is not valid for larger numbers or for none at all. The smallest number guaranteed to suffice against any number of opponents is 325. jnestorius^(talk) 14:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]