Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 May 20

= May 20 =

Dog Training Equipment
What are the laws/rules/regulations about dog training equipment in Victoria, Australia? including:


 * Prong/Pinch collars and Correction collars- who can use them, when can they use them and why can they use them (including institutions such as boarding kennels and day care centres).


 * What guidelines/regulations are there for vets or trainers recommending dog training eguipment?


 * What does the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 say about dog training equipment?

Thank you.

140.159.2.32 (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, for a start, here is the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 for your perusal. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

John Doe
According to the John Doe article, it says that the name is used for male corpses or emergency room patients when the identity is not known. It then says, Jane Doe would be used for females, and Baby Doe for babies. It then goes on to say that additional members of the family would be known as 'Judy Doe', etc. How can they tell if they are members of the same family if they have no idea who they are?--ChokinBako (talk) 04:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * They might have done DNA tests. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 05:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Or there could be an undeniable family resemblance, especially in case of twins. Or they could just make an assumption that two unidentified adults and an unidentified child who died in a car crash were two parents and their child. It's not as if they are giving them new and final names, after all, they're just using them to identify them and differentiate between them internally. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 06:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Speaking as an ER registration clerk, I'd say the article needs a little correction. While there may be assumptions that patient X and patient Y are related, if we cannot verify their identity, it doesn't really matter. "John Doe" is a placeholder until we can find out who this person is, no other assumptions made. It's basically a way to refer to the patient, and allow us to register them in computers for lab work, X-rays and the like. Luckily, we've not had any situations with multiple John Does at my hospital, because we don't really have a set policy on the subject. Speaking personally, I'd just use similar names (patient 1 is John Doe, patient 2 is James Doe, patient 3 is Jimmy Joe, etc.) to make it clear that this is an unknown patient, but differentiate from the other unknown patients. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There are people really called 'Doe' (see, for instance, William Doe and Samuel Doe), so I can't help pondering on this: In the US, how would one register the bodies of a family of real Does? Xn4  02:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Some more rampant speculation: when they're filling out the form, they probably just put in "(real name)" after the name or come up with something else along those lines. (Hell, the form probably has fields for information like "date of birth" or "social security number" or whatever, things that immediately make it clear that this person's identity is known.) The Hand That Feeds You above tells us that their hospital doesn't really have a set policy beyond "men are John Doe and women are Jane Doe", so they do the most sensible thing they can think of as the situation changes. This is common sense, really; it's not about following some kind of a strict ruleset, but about coming up with a simple way to distinguish bodies from one another. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Right. At our hospital, we require at least two out of three "patient identifiers" to register someone: name, date of birth & social security number. With at least two of those, we're reasonably sure that this is the correct patient. For a John/Jane Doe, we don't have that information so I put DoB as 01/01/1950 and SSN is just 999-99-9999. I also inform the nursing staff that this is a John/Jane Doe, so it's clear to them that this is not a proper patient account, it's just a placeholder until we can identify the victim (who may not be dead, just incapacitated). In the case of an actual "Sam Doe born 11/21/1973 with SSN 505-50-5050" it would be clear that this is a real person, but I'd also make sure the nursing staff was informed that I had verified the patient information. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 02:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the USA a "State Sponsor of Terrorism"?
With this news that the US representative in Havana has been providing funds to Cuban "counter revolutionaries", could the USA be considered a State Sponsor of Terrorism, in the same way the the USA appies that label to the likes of Cuba, Iran, Syria, etc? Astronaut (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm... One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 10:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) This is not news. The US was, for example, conducting a campaign of sabotage against Cuba in '59. In general, "Washington is the center of global state terrorism and has been for years." (Chomsky) See Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. Algebraist 10:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The absolutely HUGE diff is that the Cuban dissidents aren't terrorists who are going to send suicide bombers against the Cuban government, they will maybe use the money for democracy rallies (protests) and such. StuRat (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Remembering Chile, and Nicaragua, and one or two other places, that is scant comfort and probably wishful thinking, Stu. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you never heard of Luis Posada Carriles, StuRat? 194.171.56.13 (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The US has long sponsored reactionary movements in countries it felt were politically unpalatable. Like most insurrectionist movements they have been, at times, violent—including bombings, assassinations, atrocities. To pretend that the US has just been sponsoring rallies with leaflets is, well, naive, given the history of US involvement in, say, Cuba, Chile, Nicaragua, Panama, Afghanistan, Iran, Vietnam, and so on and so on over the past 40-50 years. It's one of the reasons that trying to draw a firm line in the sand between the "terrorists" and the more "legitimate" violent opposition becomes a bit tough. This is not an exclusively anti-US comment—it's more on the nature of violence in the modern world. Very little has been accomplished with leaflets and democracy rallies. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, "leaflets and democracy rallies" freed Eastern Europe, Spain, Portugal, Greece, the Philippines, ex-Soviet Georgia, etc. As for the USA being a "sponsor of terrorism," I think the key here is the use of the present tense. I know the CIA hasn't folded up shop, but they don't fund Contras or Mujahideen anymore. The Posada example is telling, since the U.S. has hardly welcomed him. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Dare I ask how you would even know if we funded contras or mujahideen anymore? I find it extremely unlikely that the CIA is not still funding people who would be considered quite dubious. I'm fine with saying that you (and I) don't know. But saying that you know, well, I have to play the radical agnostic on that one—I don't know, and you don't either! And given the "gloves are off" approach post-9/11, mixed with the history of funding said peoples, it seems to me that the assumption should be that they are doing it, not that they aren't.
 * And no, I don't think leaflets and democracy rallies were what freed the places you mention. Economics, global geopolitics, etc., had more to do with it in all cases. Eastern Europe was freed because the USSR got to a place where it couldn't afford—for a number of reasons—to enforce the order it once had. The rallies and leaflets were a symptom of that situation, not the cause of it. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one, there are no Cold War bad guys outside of Cuba and North Korea anymore. There are governments we don't like such as those of Venezuela and Iran, but there are no rebel movements of any legitimate threat, terrorist or non-terrorist, in those countries, like Nicaragua's Contras. It's no secret the US funds anti-democratic governments in places like Egypt that engage in oppression, but you asked about terrorism, which is different. I'm sure we also fund pro-US groups in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan, but those groups are not working against their respective governments, so I don't think they can be called terrorists. As for your assertion that leaflets and rallies didn't free all those countries, tell that to the hundreds of thousands who marched in the street for change. Social history can only get you so far -- it's people who actually make change. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems every time I mention the Iran-Contra affair, 80% of people give me blank stares.  bibliomaniac 1  5  04:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that whole black mark on the Reagan administration is neatly swept under the rug nowadays. I was just a kid when it came out, so most folks under the age of 30 probably have no idea what it was. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Origin of this quote
Does anyone know who coined the phrase, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." 71.236.23.111 (talk) 11:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried to google it http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22One+man%27s+terrorist+is+another+man%27s+freedom+fighter%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta= but there are several names showing up. I think several people have said it many times, like the saying too many cooks spoil the food or something. Bed - Head - Hair User:BedHeadHairGirl12:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your effort, I had tried that and couldn't find an original source either. I guess I'll have to stick with "old saying". :-(  The cooks were the one's with the broth (least ways they used to be).--71.236.23.111 (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That phrase seems simple enough that many people may have independently said it, like "it's cold outside". StuRat (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I see the phrase attributed to Yasser Arafat, this is probably based on a 13 November, 1974 address to the UN:"The difference between the revolutionary and the terrorist lies in the reason for which he fights. For whoever stands by a just cause and fights for freedom and liberation of his land from the invaders, the settlers and the colonialists, cannot possibly be called terrorists..."In this this thread from the forums at quoteland.com, Fred R. Shapiro, the editor of Yale Book of Quotations states the first edition attributes the phrase to Gerald Seymour in Harry's Game (1975)&mdash;mentioned in our article on the author&mdash;but that the second edition will include an earlier citation: Winnipeg Free Press, 1 Feb. 1971.&mdash;eric 16:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It sounds as though it might be a paraphrase of a quotation by Benjamin Franklin: “Rebellion is only treason in the third person — ‘their rebellion’ — never in the first person — ‘our rebellion.’” — Michael J  06:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Self-identification
Here's a funny thing. I was thinking just now about the concept of self-identification, so I looked "self-identify" up on Google. The first hit that came up was Category:Deletionist Wikipedians. There is nothing about self-identification on that page, so I can only assume someone has done a Google bomb to make the page come up. But why? I can't see a humorous connection between the concepts of self-identification and deletionism. But then again, I'm an inclusionist :)

As a postscript, I am slightly troubled by the concept of self-identification. You often read about people who "self-identify" as black, gay, etc. The implication seems to be that one is deemed to belong to a particular group only because one considers oneself to be part of that group. One could argue, however, that there are societal norms and conventions which can be used to determine objectively whether one belongs to a group or not. --Richardrj talkemail 15:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It need not be a deliberate Google bomb: it's possible it occurred naturally via 'User X self-identifies as a Deletionist' or somesuch. Can't find any evidence of this, though. On your postscript: of course one can argue that we shouldn't always agree with people's self-identifications. That's why the term exists in the first place, so we can (e.g.) say 'X self-identifies as black' without committing ourselves on the question of whether X is black or not. Algebraist 15:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There are different issues and questions that come up in differnt people's lives. Just to give an example: I've never had to agonize over whether to buy a Ferrari or a Hummer.  But growing up in a family where I could go to friends' houses to play where my brother wasn't welcome because he looked more like one side of the ancestry whereas I look more like the other, self-identification is something that I have dealt with.  People get sorted into drawers.  We all do that subconsciously.  Rather than constantly running afoul of people's expectations, it's nice to be able to say: "This is the drawer I feel comfortable in. I don't have to try to fit into the one you'd like to objectively put me in." 71.236.23.111 (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See also: postmodernism. User:Krator (t c) 09:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See also ethnogenesis.--Wetman (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

International Wire Transfert exchange rate
For an international wire transfert of xxx euros between a french account to an american account by SWIFT system, who apply the exchage rate? the french bank or the american one? Thank you in advance for your answer--FrancoisD (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Since you mention SWIFT, I assume you are asking about the interbank wholesale foreign exchange markets, and not about retail currency transactions. If there is only one transfer of euros then there is no foreign exchange involved, so no exchange rate is required. To settle a foreign exchange trade where the French bank is, say, selling euros for dollars, there must be two transfers - the French bank will transfer euros to the American bank's agent bank in Europe, and the American bank will transfer dollars to the French bank's agent bank in the US. The exchange rate will have been previously negotiated, agreed and confirmed between the banks - for spot FX trades the settlement payments take place two working days after the trade has been agreed. Gandalf61 (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was actually talking about retail currency transaction. I mentionned SWIFT because they define the way to do such a transfert (through SWIFT code), but I m not an expert and I may be wrong.--FrancoisD (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * When I last made such a transfer, which was more than a year ago, it was from an account with Sogenal, and the bank was able to tell me the likely exchange rate before I signed a form to confirm the transfer, so the amount in dollars appeared on the form. But I believe the actual exchange occurred at an intermediary bank. It's worth mentioning that there was a flat-rate charge for the transfer at the French end. The destination bank in the US (which claims to provide free banking) used to make no charge for receiving such international transfers, so long as the money arrived in US dollars, but it does now charge $10. Xn4  00:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed - alhtough there won't be any room for negotiation in a retail transaction, the bank that is arranging the transfer for you should be able to tell you up-front what exchange rate they will give you and what commission or other charges you will be paying. So you should know exactly how many dollars you will get for your euros, or vice versa. Between one end and the other your transfer will get bundled up and netted off with a whole lot of other transfers, internal payments and funding movements between the two banks concerned - but you don't need to worry about this. Just ask how many dollars/euros will be credited to the account at the other end. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your answers. I want to add that on the french end they claim to provide a free transfert but I suspect them to take a hidden commission on the exchange rate. The french bank pretends that it just sends euros and so doesn't apply any exchange between euros and dollars. They tell me that it's the american part that convert euro into dollars and so takes a commission. I what to know whether or not it is possible in the international wire transfert system and how I can be sure of what they say.--FrancoisD (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, so it sounds like the French bank is just making a euros payment to the US bank (or, more likely, to the US bank's agent bank in France) and is then leaving it up to the US bank to convert the euros into dollars. So the French bank is only providing half of the service that you want. If they can't or won't tell you exactly how many dollars you will get for your euros, I suggest you think about using a different bank or bureau de change. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yukio Mishima's grandfather
The author Yukio Mishima's grandfather was 平岡定太郎, former Governor of Fukushima and Governor-General of Karafuto. But what is the reading of his first name (定太郎)? Our English article and several biographies (of Mishima) give it as Jōtarō, the Japanese article on the man himself as Sadatarō, and some sites, like this info page on his grave (that the Japanese article links to), as Teitarō. All of these are possible readings, of course, but what is the right one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akmoilan (talk • contribs) 22:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You could try asking at the Language desk; at least one native speaker hangs out there and I'm not sure whether any do here (I know native fluency isn't much help when it comes to Japanese names, but growing up in Japan might be). You could also inquire on the Japanese Wikipedia about this edit. They have an English-language help page (ja:Wikipedia:Chatsubo for Non-Japanese Speakers). -- BenRG (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)