Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 July 20

= July 20 =

United States regulations on non-English content?
Hi there, I have a question regarding the regulatory situation in the United States (well, any country really, but I'm talking specifically about the US). I bought this package of noodles at a Japanese-American grocery store that advertises its health benefits on the package. In English it says it's "all natural" and "vegan," which is pretty generalized and I don't believe either of those terms are regulated by the FDA. But in Japanese it says "organic" (オーガニック, that is). I am almost positive the product did not receive FDA organic certification, or else they would have labelled it as organic in English.

So my question is, do federal regulations of content (such as truth in advertising, FTC radio broadcast regulations, etc.) apply only to English content? My intuition is that these regulations technically apply to content in all languages (since we have no official national language), but that in cases like these there is little outcry because the number of people who can speak Japanese in the United States is so small. Have there been any similar cases in the past, such as lawsuits for profanities uttered on Chinese or Spanish radio? Thanks in advance for your help. CaseyPenk (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be surprised if basic false advertising regulations only applied to English. Regulations about specific words, such as "organic", could easily be language specific, though. The word "organic" doesn't have a very precise definition in every day usage, so it's only because of the specific FDA regulations that they can't use the word (it is made up of carbon chains, which is the definition in organic chemistry, for instance). If those regulations don't say anything about other languages, then using words that would generally be translated to "organic" isn't really the same as saying "organic". --Tango (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a precise Japanese term for either "all natural" or "vegan"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about native terms, but "all natural" and "vegan" could be transliterated into Japanese quite easily. So if the product maker wanted to use one of those terms, they could certainly have done so. CaseyPenk (talk) 06:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The thing about this particular word is that it is a transliterated loanword. The English is organic while the Japanese is オーガニック (pronounced but not written as ooganikku). So there is absolutely no doubt as to which English word オーガニック refers - if you know how to read オーガニック, that is. I suppose the issue at hand is the fact that Japanese (including the word オーガニック on this package) uses a non-Latin script, so most courts or regulatory agencies would require outside experts to "decipher" the text. As an example, any educated attorney/judge would find the French "organique" one in the same as "organic." But when confronted with something they are unable to read they might hesitate. That leaves an opening for products like these to be sold until an agency catches on and intervenes. Does anyone have other thoughts on the matter? CaseyPenk (talk) 06:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, the French for "organic" (food) is biologique, often abbreviated bio. The regulation of this term would apply across the EU, no idea about North America sorry. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears likely you will not receive a definite answer for your question on RefDesk. Most likely you will have to search for an internet forum where people are insanely familiar with government regulations in the food industry, and ask there. Or somehow find a lawyer who specializes in the issue. Or in fact find the text of the regulation itself (by all means share it with us if you do). My guess is that it's a small company and that most people who speak Japanese are not good enough in English to raise a fuss about the issue, so, even if they're treading a fine legal line, the financial upside is greater than the legal downside. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This may be the regulation. I find this statement in it: "If a foreign language is used anywhere on the label, all required label statements must appear both in English and in the foreign language."184.147.121.192 (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So I guess that answers the question: your noodles are illegally packaged. Maybe they could claim a poor English translation? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Your noodles are illegally packaged - what a cool phrase. I must remember to use it to counter the next absurd argument I come across.  :)  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  22:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Remember the Noodle Incident! —Tamfang (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A budding religious schism among Pastafarians? -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  07:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * But, is a producer required to write that a product is al vegan, all natural or organic? Surely, it would be possible to produce completely organic apples, and not label them as such? (Obvisouly, there'd be little point in doing that, as, when you produce organic foods, you want to reach a certain market segment that wants organic food.) I have heard that this is a problem with fair-trade label goods: The Western market for fair-trade products is smaller than what is actually produced. Using cocoa as an example: after a certain quota of fair-trade produced cocoa has been purchased at the fair-trade price, the rest will be purchased at the non-fair-trade price, simply because chocolatiers know that there aren't enough customers willing to purchase all the fair-trade chocolate they could otherwise produce. V85 (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Same sex couple's rights in the U.S.
Hello, I have two questions for academic work. A. Does a partner of U.S. citizen in a same sex relationship, either by marriage or by regular relationship can get green card and later citizenship? B. Are the parents of a child born on U.S. soil, during the process of surrogacy, and therefore is eligible for U.S. citizenship, can get Green Card and later Citizenship? Please refer heterosexual couples and same sex couples. Thanks a lot!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.197.68.114 (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * See Permanent residence (United States). It lists the eligibility requirements (and is explicit about same sex and opposite sex spouses). As far as I'm aware, having a child that is a US citizen doesn't entitle the parents to anything (that would be far too open to abuse), regardless of whether the couple is same sex or opposite sex and regardless of whether a surrogate is used. --Tango (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's an article that might be useful in answering your question A. From the opening page of the paper published in the William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law:
 * Despite such advances, U.S. immigration law does not recognize gay partnerships between United States citizens and foreign nationals. If a United States citizen and a foreign national of the opposite sex get married, that foreign national immediately becomes eligible to apply for a green card, or legal permanent resident status. Same sex partners, however, "are viewed as 'strangers' before the law no matter how many years they have dedicated to building a home and life together."' Congress has repeatedly indicated that family unification is one of the most important goals of United States immigration law, and approximately 75 percent of green cards are issued on family unity grounds. But none of these goes to gay partners of United States citizens, leaving the relationships of these individuals, and the foreign nationals themselves, unrecognized by United States law
 * Bielle (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The federal government won't be able to recognize gay unions or marriages until the Defense of Marriage Act is repealed or ruled unconstitutional... AnonMoos (talk) 06:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Until section 3 of DOMA is repealed or ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Why Did George W. Bush Invade Iraq Before the U.N. Inspectors There Finished Their Work?
Was it because he wanted to remove Saddam for personal reasons (revenge against Saddam's assassination attempt on Bush's father in 1993) and was afraid that if the U.N. inspectors successfully finish their work and announce that Iraq no longer has any WMDs, then he wouldn't be able to invade Iraq anymore? Or was there another reason? Futurist110 (talk) 07:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He didn't. The Coalition (in which the US was a prominent member) attacked Iraq. For discussion of the possible reasons, see Iraq War. The specific reasons that actuated George W. Bush, Tony Blair or anybody else can be known only insofar as they made them public (and are believed). Anything else is speculation and does not belong on this reference desk (though references to speculations in reliable published sources might). --ColinFine (talk) 09:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Part of the reason was military: they couldn't invade in summer because it would be too hot, so they had to either invade in winter/early spring, or wait 6 months till the following autumn. They wouldn't want to have soldiers waiting around for 6 months, when they thought they could get in and out quickly. Also, postponing the invasion till the winter of 2003-2004 would bring it close to an election year, which could have negative political implications, as well as the risk of public opinion souring, the desire to avoid a stalemate, and a reluctance to back down and show weakness. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * They also had faulty intelligence stating that whatever weapons of mass destruction might be available, were very well hidden (mainly being mobile), and therefore impossible to find without an invasion. 188.76.169.66 (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Bingo. It's worth pointing out that Iraq did have quite a bit of nerve gas, which qualifies as a WMD under the operative international law used to invade, but it was not mobilized and there is considerable evidence that it had been misplaced, possibly intentionally by military commanders less than loyal to Saddam. It was only discovered after a weapons depot was demolished in a way which strongly indicated the US invaders had no idea it was there, either. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Didn't Saddam allow the UN inspectors to visit any location in Iraq if they wanted to whenever they wanted to? If so, it would have been rather tedious and hard to consistently keep hiding all those WMDs that he allegedly had. Also, wasn't the main worry that Bush presented in regards to pre-invasion Iraq the belief that Iraq was very close to successfully building nuclear weapons? If so, then it would have been rather hard for Iraq to make progress on its alleged nuclear program if UN inspectors are constantly in all your alleged nuclear sites and if satellites/intelligence can always discover new alleged nuclear sites and demand that the UN inspectors be allowed to immediately view them. Futurist110 (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes and yes, which is probably the reason for the political disagreement such as shown below after a million deaths and trillions of dollars spent on the questionable endeavor. Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei have spoken and written extensively on the topic. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 07:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case, it was extremely stupid for Bush to invade Iraq when he did if he was worrying about American security and national interests. Also, there is the open question of whether Bush actually believed the faulty intelligence that was given in regards to Iraq--I've heard that his administration purposely changed the broad picture of the intelligence in regards to Iraq so that they would have a better case for invading. If this is true, then Bush must have known that the situation with Iraq wasn't nearly as bad as he presented it to the American public and Congress. Futurist110 (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hussein was in material violation of the armistice ending the Gulf War within a month of the agreement when he started firing on coalition forces. That alone was sufficient cause for the resumption of hostilities--no further justification was needed so far as the laws of war. The fact that neither neither Bush père nor Monica's squeeze prosecuted the war nor Bush fils until seeking a UN resolution was a matter of domestic US politics, not of international law. μηδείς (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Our article on the Legality of the Iraq War indicates considerable disagreement with that opinion. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hah! I think your use of both the words "our" and "article" are dubious, and I have never seen a better violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV.  I note you also fail to note whose those opinions are. μηδείς (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't see anything glaring, material violations, though there is some fat to cut. IMHO the clear majority of legal opinion, like the International Commission of Jurists', was that such arguments for the war's legality were not good ones, that the war was not legal. The OP's question is difficult, because as Martin van Creveld said, this was a war for no reason at all, as many said then, it was like attacking Mexico after Pearl Harbor. His suspicion about the timing was voiced by many and IMHO accurate; you can't fool all the people all the time.John Z (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's a separate but related question--why didn't the U.S. ever consider asking Israel to bomb Iraq's alleged nuclear/WMD sites (like they did with Operation Opera in 1981), either in the Clinton Administration or the George W. Bush Administration? Futurist110 (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would it do this? The war was planned, and then a pretext (WMD) was searched for and agreed on. Not vice versa. Plenty of sources show that was the sequence, the causation. The US knew that there were no WMD to speak of, no sites to target, after Hussein Kamel al-Majid's 1995 "I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons—biological, chemical, missile, nuclear—were destroyed."John Z (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "Cymru am byth"
"Cymru am byth", meaning "Wales forever", is a widely used motto or slogan in Wales. It was inscribed on the Washington Monument (as "Cymry am byth", "Welsh people forever") in the 1850s - here - and became the motto of the Welsh Guards in 1915. My question is, what are the origins of the phrase? I have found no sources prior to the Washington Monument inscription, and no reliable citations for its use prior to then. For example, was it a mediaeval Welsh battle cry, or was it devised as a slogan by nationalists in the 18th or 19th centuries? Any help welcome - this is under active discussion at Talk:Wales. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Searching the "Gathering the Jewels" digital archive for the phrase "Cymru am byth" brings up some pre-WW1 artifacts/mementos inscribed with the motto, though they don't seem as early as the monument.184.147.121.192 (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And a search of the National Archives only finds one postcard; undated except within the range 1903-1917. NOt sure which of these links will work: try |ARCHON|BOOKSHOP|CABPAPERS|DOCUMENTSONLINE|EROL3|MOVINGHERE|NRA|NRALISTS|PREM19|RESEARCHGUIDES|E179|CATALOGUE|WEBSITE|TRAFALGAR this and/or this.184.147.121.192 (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Finally, tried finding the phrase in books. Got you back to 1834.
 * * 1915 - Angela Brazil described "Cymru am byth" carved on a decorative shield in "For the Sake of the School."
 * c. 1904-1914 - Lt. Paul Jones (b. 1896) wrote the phrase in his schoolbooks as a child.
 * 1834 - A footnote in Scenes in Ireland by George Newenham Wright, (page 96) says "the ancient Britons... still exclaim 'Cymru am Byth,' i.e. Bob amser, Cambria for ever."184.147.121.192 (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but that last link doesn't work for me - it seems to go to a different book with no access to the text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here174.88.8.149 (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Young Earth creationism and Gnosticism
Wouldn't a trickster deity who would plant all the obvious clues about the supposed 13+ billion year old Universe in her Young Earth creationism be the Demiurge of Gnosticism by definition? While I would never support a law banning the worship of an evil god, I would certainty point out the error to anybody I found doing so. Hcobb (talk) 09:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No. --Dweller (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To be civil, you ought to say why not. (I guess there could be a deist Demiurge, who merely created the big bang and didn't fake any evidence of the age of the universe, and yet was still considered malevolent, just because the material world is so awful or whatever it is Gnosticism says. In classical times there'd be no scientific research about the age of the world, anyway, so the planting of clues to fool scientists couldn't feature in the original definition of the Demiurge.) Card Zero  (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't much like the tone of the question, which seems to be looking for an argument or to poke fun, rather than to elicit information. But the answer is simply "no" by dint of the fact that there are people who hold young earth views who are no by definition worshippers of that deity. I'd also add that there are other inherent flaws in the question, such as the loaded and insulting statement that young earth creationists believe in a "trickster" deity, as well as the contention, which seems to me to be insulting to Gnostics, that their deity, which our article specifically describes as "benevolent" is "evil". So, "no" will do. --Dweller (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see a believer not liking the tone, but that's the believer's problem. It's an illogical position, ignoring obvious evidence, with the reason being that their god is testing their faith, i.e. trying to trick them. HiLo48 (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Right. But that in no way equates the YEC's beliefs about their version of God with those of Gnostics about the Demiurge/Sammael/etc. Gnosticism is a complex thing, and you can't just say "these people have a rather weird belief about God, therefore they're Gnostics". AlexTiefling (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that people's religious beliefs should be ridiculed at the ref desks, no matter how illogical the mocker may find them. "That's the believer's problem" is not the attitude we encourage here. --Dweller (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a place for rational thought. If that makes some religious beliefs look ridiculous, that's just too bad. Run off to Conservapedia for the fairytales and niceness you seek. HiLo48 (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem is a logical fallacy and has been recognized as such since before gnosticism existed. Gx872op (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your assumption about my personal beliefs is ridiculous. Users insulting people on the basis of their religion on these pages will find themselves tangling with admins. --Dweller (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Insulting people is never a good idea. On the other hand, if people chose to be offended by a rational discussion conflicting with their beliefs, that's too bad. "You stupid creationist" is not ok, but "the theory of evolution is incontrovertible as geometry to any enlightened community of minds" is fully acceptable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's in the Platonism section. Further down in the Gnosticism section, the Demiurge is described as malevolent. Regarding the one word "no" reply: I know it expresses suspicion and hostility toward an OP who is possibly trolling, and I can't expect everybody to be Pollyannaish all the time, but in my ideal world we would be. Just saying "no" seems like a waste of an opportunity to provide an explanation; it seems so, well, negative. Compare with blocking (improv), often a reflexive, uncreative action that prevents fun. Card Zero  (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There is both an error of logic and an error of assumption here. First, you infer that because the "trickster deity" and the "demiurge" share the property of malevolent misinformation, they would therefore be the same. But even if they share one attribute, they can differ in many more. As an example, both Loki and Satan are malevolent tricksters, but neither is identical with the gnostic demiurge. Secondly, you assume that that the demiurge is an evil trickster deity, when that is definitely not central to Gnosticism, nor even typical. The gnostic demiurge is a bumbling deity who is unable to create a world of Platonic ideals, not somebody who intentionally deceives. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * People who believe in Young Earth Creationism don't think the clues are obvious. They generally think that scientists are forcing their own interpretation on the data and willfully ignoring evidence that disagrees with them. Looie496 (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, from the point of view of the Gnostics. Not because he supposedly planted fossils and whatnot to trick humans, but because of more obvious reasons like why a benevolent deity would deny knowledge from Adam and Eve, why the devil exists, why evil and hell themselves exist. Gnosticism already considers the Abrahamic "god" as the Demiurge, a knowable being who created the material world but itself is no more but an imperfect illusion/reflection of the true unknowable Good God. It's an answer to the problem of evil. And yes, the Demiurge is usually not seen as intentionally evil as reflected by one of his names, "the blind god". Quite understandably, this view is held dimly by most Christians, including the YEC. So from their point of view, in contrast, no.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  17:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Later Gnostics held Lucifer in high regard. In mediaeval times the Cathars were seen as a heretical threat to European Christianity, and the paranoia was one of the causes of witch hunts. The concept of the Devil as an important, influential character, which emerged around the same time, corresponds to the dualism of Gnosticism; we rejected their heresy so firmly that we accidentally incorporated their idea into our religion, only with the roles inverted. (I got this from Robert W. Thurston's Witch, Wicce, Mother Goose). Card Zero  (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thailand's king and Lèse majesté
Apparently, a few years ago, Thailand's king stated that he was rather unhappy with the lèse majesté laws and said that he would allow criticism of his reign. If this is the case, then why is lèse majesté still a major issue in Thailand? Why are people still being arrested because of it? I would have expected that the lèse majesté laws would be repealed or amended per the king's wishes. Do they love the king so much that they would not adhere to his wishes? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think our Lèse majesté and particularly Lèse majesté in Thailand explain this well enough. The later for example notes
 * Calls to reform the lese majeste laws have themselves resulted in charges with lèse majesté.[19] Political scientist Giles Ungpakorn noted that "the lèse majesté laws are not really designed to protect the institution of the monarchy. In the past the laws have been used to protect governments, to protect military coups. This whole [royal] image is created to bolster a conservative elite well beyond the walls of the palace."
 * Note that while not all the cases may necessarily have much to do with the government, the nature of the law means thay you'll probably get cases which don't really matter to you.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Nil Einne's comment is right: Other people see the law as rather useful for their own purposes. You could have a look at this programme by Al Jazeera or this somewhat humorous opinion piece by Bangkok Post's Voranai Vanijaka. This last one is based on the last weeks' debate over PPT's attempt to amend the Constitution. As for the politicians not heeding the King's call, I guess it is due to no politician being the one who changed the law, since that would indicate that they are opposed to the King and the monarchy. V85 (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I would also ask you to look at the dates: The King's statement dates from 2005, while the coup occured 2006. And according to Lèse majesté in Thailand, the number of lèse-majesté cases soared after the coup. V85 (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Norway
Before 1972, when the city of Bergen was in its own separate county, what was the administrative centre of Hordaland? Has Oslo always been the administrative centre of Akershus? Thanx! --151.41.170.71 (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For the second question, I believe so, but Oslo used to be known as Christiania. Akershus is named after Akershus Castle which was the primary residence of the Norweigian Kings.  Since the county was named after the castle, which was built in Oslo.  As a county, it wasn't founded until the 16th centurt, the city and castle are both much older than that.  For the first question, I suspect that Bergan was also the administrative seat for Hordaland, which is not an impossibility even if it was independent of it.  Oslo is currently its own county, but it also serves as the seat of Akershus county.  -- Jayron  32  19:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Re the first question: This page (1972-01-01 entry under "Change history") supports Jayron's suspicion that Bergen was the capital of both its own county and Hordaland prior to 1972. Deor (talk)


 * According to the website 'The Librarian answers' (Biblioteksvar), yes, Hordaland had its administration in Bergen. The two counties also shared their fylkesmann, while Lars Sponheim today is fylkesmann i Hordland, his predecessors, prior to 1972 were fylkesmann i Bergen og Hordland. Similarly, Valgerd Svartstad Haugland is fylkesmannen i Oslo og Akershus.
 * As for Oslo being the administrative centre of Akershus, I have the impression that 'always' was the case. It was only in 1842, that Christiania became a separate amt from Akershus amt, but both were still part of the larger administrative unit Akershus stiftamt. And the way it is formulated, it's always that Christiania amt was separated from Akershus, i.e. Akershus remained as it was, while Christiania was created new. V85 (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ladinia/Ladiner/etc.
What is the English word for de:Ladiner a.k.a. it:Ladinia. I would like to create a stub in English language Wikipedia. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The subject is covered in Ladin language. I seem to recall either this or a closely related language/cultural area was the subject of a redirect/deletion mess. Rmhermen (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Alfalfa Club's membership
Is the membership open to both Democrats and Republicans? Is any one of both sides overrepresented? Persominus (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The article mentions both Democrats and Republicans as members. Rmhermen (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

how do I keep my dog from p!$$ing in front of my door when I leave for 5 minutes after taking him for a walk?
My dog, who is 7 months old, insists on p!$$ing in front of the door (from the inside) within 7 minutes of my leaving the house even to just grab something from the corner store; this is immediately after a long walk in which he urinated all he needed to.

this happens pretty much every time i leave the house; i think it has separation anxiety or some shift but what i would like is reference to concrete steps i can take. I already tell it it's been bad whilst shewing it the problem. 14:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.3.160.86 (talk)


 * The time-honoured method (now frowned upon by modern dog behaviorists) is, upon your return IF WITHIN MINUTES, is to forcibly put your dog's nose right on the urine, and say "Bad Dog!" ONCE ONLY in a very harsh voice, then carry him to where you want him to pee. Virtually all dogs will get the message.  You also need to teach the dog "Stay" or "Back".  When you are leaving on a short errand only, look your dog in the eye and say "Back" or "Stay".  For the more stupid breeds you may have to do several trips in one day for the concept to penetrate.  After a while the dog will realise that the word, whichever you choose, does indeed mean that you will be back shortly, and he won't fret.  Once it works, over a period of time, you can use the words for longer and longer journeys.   Don't use "Bye", "See you", and similar human words - they don't seem to work with dogs.  My dog when young howled when I was absent, but using "Back" initially stopped him from howling with short trips, (while still howling on longer trips) and then I was able to extend the time to a whole day.  Dogs are more deed oriented than sound oriented.  It is much easier to teach them sign language than vocal commands.  You may find it better to do something (bang twice on the door, say), before going on short errands, so that he learns that 2 knocks when you are going out the front door means you WILL be back within minutes.  Some people have the habit of closing the curtains or lowering their blinds when going out.  Dogs quickly learn what closing the curtains means.  When you return, and he hasn't peed on the door, then at the door, give him a good pat and say "Good Dog" in a warm loving voice.  He may not link it together, but it can't hurt.  Don't ever loose sight of the fact that dogs have a body clock and sense of time far superior to ours, and very good memories for places and events, but they are totally hopeless of remembering how far back in time an event occurred.  They remember lots of things but its all jumbled up. Wickwack124.178.56.252 (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What are the "modern" methods that are not frowned on? 84.3.160.86 (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The evolution in ideas for training & rasing a dog parallel the evolution in ideas for training and rasing children. When I was a child (1950's), when children did something wrong, they got punished - at home, spanked, at school, caned.  Back then, dogs got punished when they did something bad - eg hit with rolled-up newspaper, just pushed sideways.  So long as the punishment is not cruel on unjust, it works - but not in all situations.  Modern ideas in raising children are that reward & praise for doing something good is a better approach.  That works too, but not in all situations.  Same with dogs - modern methods emphasise reward for good behavior.  You get better results, especially with dogs, if you treat them with respect.  Don't ask them to perform tricks for visitors - the more intelligent dogs especially soon figure out there is no purpose and become disobedient.  Some owners see their dog as some sort of live teddy and keep cuddling, petting & stroking them.  This just makes the dog think you're just there to cuddle, pet & stroke, and you get no respect.  By all means return any affection the dog gives you, but don't ruin it.  Assuming you have an intelligent dog, part of the modern method is to teach it a fundamental vocabulary - Come, Sit, Stay/Back, GoodDog, BadDog, Hess (Yes), No, and DropIt.  Once your older puppy understands those fundametal words, which cover a myriad of situations, you and he will enjoy communicating, the sky's the limit, and you may be able to add more words.  Wickwack124.182.175.150 (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Try and get rid of the smell, and it won't trigger a response. You can get stuff from a vet, or you can make a solution of bio washing powder which will remove the residue. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Tammy, I didn't even think about this - you're quite good for mentioning it. I'm quite certain I've just witnessed this with the dog going on the balcony, smelling a mop I used earlier and proceeding to pee in the living room front of me.--84.3.160.86 (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * For an inventive solution, you could put a moisture sensor on the floor there, hooked up to an air horn, and scare the piss out of him the next time he does it. I believe they make such a device for bedwetting children, although it doesn't use an air horn. StuRat (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Is he neutered ? That may be a bit young yet, but older unneutered dogs will scent mark.


 * If nothing gets him to stop peeing, you can also restrict him to a place where pee won't be a problem. An unfinished basement might work, as long as there's nothing in storage you don't mind being peed on.  Hopefully any pee can just be rinsed down the drain.  And, weather permitting, you could leave him outside in a dog run (a fenced-in area). StuRat (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * FYI, puppies can get neutered as early as 6 months. Dismas |(talk) 01:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Polynesian adoption
I know that the Hawaiian term for the custom of adopting children and giving away their children is called Hānai but what is the custom called in other parts of Polynesia. I know Tahiti practices this but I am not sure about the other islands or even if it actually is a custom practiced by all people of Oceania.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The references to Cultural_variations_in_adoption confirm the practice in the Solomon Islands, French Polynesia including Tahiti and New Zealand as well (and give you the names/terms), and refer to it as a characteristic of Polynesian culture. If you google with the term fosterage (not a good article – it's limited to the UK and I know fosterage is practiced in West Africa too as well as Oceania) instead of/as well as adoption, you'll find many more academic studies. This paper in particular says it's a phenomenon across Oceania, not just in Polynesian cultures.184.147.121.192 (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Divorce after abandomnent?
My question is about France in the 1730s. If a wife left her husband, ran away from home and disappeared, could he then get a divorce and remarry? I know the Catholic church did not allow for a divorces, only separation and annulment, but was she perhaps declared dead after having been gone for several years? After all, no one would know whether she was alive or dead. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I seem to remember that missing persons were presumed dead after seven years in that era, even if they were known to have run away. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Were you reading about the transit of Venus? Guillaume Le Gentil left France in 1760 to observe it from the Pacific, but missed it and decided to wait out there for the next one, eight years away. He eventually returned to France after an 11 year absence and found he had been declared legally dead and his wife had remarried. 184.147.121.192 (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you! It is certain that it was seven years? Can you give me a link or something to were this is mentioned? Thanks. --Aciram (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the article on Le Gentil (click on his name above) cites a book by Bill Bryson that you can request at the library. Looking online turned up two English biographies  but unfortunately neither mentions the wife's remarriage. Le Gentil's own book is available online too (in French) but searching it for the word "wife" didn't bring up anything either. It's known that he was gone for 11 years but I don't see a source for at what point he was declared legally dead.
 * French law before Napoleon recodified it was very nonstandard and regional. The only compilation made before 1730 would have been Jean Domat's in 1689 – it's online but you'll have to page through it yourself. I suspect your best bet is going to be to find an expert in French legal history to ask. Also, it's possible the remarriage bit was Church law entirely. I really don't know enough to guide you well there. Hope this gets you started, though. Best of luck. 174.88.8.149 (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * One slight clarification to the above: No-fault divorce laws were instituted on the national level under the Assemblée nationale constituante in 1790 and codified in the Constitution of 1791, nearly a decade before Napoleon began his legal reforms. eldamorie (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Infantry Squares in the ACW
Did American infantry on either side in the American Civil War use squares as a defence against cavalry? I am an avid wargamer, but have never seen any rules for them in tabletop games for the ACW, nor have I seen the option in computer games. If they indeed did not use squares, why would this be? Could it be because they had no opportunity to oversee battles in Europe and therefore more modern tactics (even though squares were in fact used in the 18th Century)? Or is there another reason? KägeTorä - (影虎) ( TALK )  20:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Infantry_square says the square really only played a part in one Civil War battle. Reasons are given in that article for its decline in general (no longer useful to concentrate soldiers once more powerful guns came along, and decline in use of cavalry) but not specifically re the Civil War. Does this answer or do you need more detail?184.147.121.192 (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This forum gives almost 20 seperate examples of squares being formed in American Civil War battles, so maybe not as rare as is generally thought. Unreferenced, but shouldn't be too difficult to confirm. I also found a photo of a Union Regiment formed in square against Cavalry in training. Alansplodge (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. So, essentially it did happen, just not so much as in earlier European Wars. I know that cavalry was being used less on both sides of the Atlantic in this period, but they were still a major contribution to battle. Also, I suppose the advent of the Gattling gun made tight formations essentially illogical. OK, cheers to both. KägeTorä - (影虎) ( TALK )  07:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See our article Cavalry charge - actually cavalry charges continued well into the 20th century; the last by British forces was in 1942! The ACW was something of an exception in this respect, the linked forum above suggests that it was because many battlefields were heavily wooded or strewn with large rocks making them unsuitable for large cavalry manoeuvres. I recall reading an Civil War report by a British journalist who was surprised that American cavalry would tend to stand off and shoot with pistols and carbines rather than charge. He put this down to poor discipline (most ACW cavalry were volunteers or conscripts rather than professionals), but a lack of understanding of local conditions by the journalist is equally possible. I'll see if I can find the source. Alansplodge (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Take a look at Hardee's Tactics, the US manual used by both sides in the US Civil War. The soldiers were drilled in forming a square to defend against cavalry attack. How often they used it after the 90 days or so of instructional camp is another question. It was taught in the US Military Academy before the Civil War.  Edison (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Caucasian Americans
Is there any solid prove or historical consensus that other people besides Native American arrived in North America and South America during the Ice Age? It seems modern media like the History Channel and other documentaries are supporting theories that Windover bog bodies were Caucasians, the Clovis people were Caucasians and the Solutrean hypothesis. Is there any credibility in these theories? Why are so few people in support that the Native American were here first?--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure, but I saw a program on the History Channel that offered evidence that there were other possible groups that arrived in North America before Columbus (not during Ice Age though). -- Activism  1234  21:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's well established that Vikings arrived hundreds of years before Columbus, but that's not what this question is about. StuRat (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The Native Americans in the high latitudes are genetically dissimilar to those in low latitudes, but the times of migration don't seem to be particularly fixed in the scholarly literature. Try PubMed for the most recent reviews. Last time I looked there wasn't a clear consensus. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The History Channel are not in the business of presenting balanced analyses of serious research; anything which appears to overturn accepted wisdom may be put up to draw in audiences. There's a big difference between "not the same as the main body of east Asian settlers who became Native Americans" and "Caucasian". I'd be very surprised if there were Caucasians in the Americas prior to the Viking arrivals around 1000 CE. I'm aware of the controversy around cases like Kennewick Man. However, the most recent reporting I saw simply seemed to suggest that settlement from Asia had taken place in several waves, of which the earliest was significantly earlier than previously thought. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If anyone of any complexion arrived during the ice age, that would, by simple definition, make them native Americans. HiLo48 (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Er, excuse me: what part of my comment was that a response to? AlexTiefling (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Pretty strong evidence for precolumbian European contact in Greenland and Vinland (possibly Newfoundland) by the Norse (including possible skrælingjar genes among Icelanders). Precolumbian contact with Austronesian sailors in South America is also a possibility, as evidenced by the precolumbian introduction of biota originally native to the Americas to Asia (and vice versa in the case of the chicken), though they may have also floated in driftwood for all we know.


 * Early arguments for precolumbian European migrations via the Atlantic on the other hand, were mostly based on craniometric characteristics of Paleoamerican human remains, which is not really that reliable in terms of determining geographic origin. The Kennewick Man and Spirit Cave Man had skull characteristics that "looked European", although it also looked Polynesian and Ainu. That's about it. Personally I'm more inclined to agree with the latter, as the Ainu, Ryukyuans, and related (mostly extinct) peoples were inhabitants of the Bering area and looked European (though they are genetically completely unrelated).


 * I think claims that the Windover mummies may have been European is based on the discovery of the fifth mtDNA lineage, haplogroup X, in one DNA sample of the mummies (though it might also have been a result of contamination). Haplogroup X occurs predominantly among Europeans but not among Asians. However, the European X mtDNA is only distantly related to Native American X mtDNA, and a trail of "intermediate" X mtDNA can be traced through European migrations eastward to the ancestors of the modern Altai peoples of Siberia. From there it probably crossed Beringia to reach North America along with the other mtDNA lineages of Native Americans (A, B, C, and D). See map at left. It did not originate from Europeans crossing the Atlantic ocean. This study and this study might help explain it further and details further discovery of haplogroup X among other Native American populations (thus it was not unique to the Windover mummies after all).


 * The connection between the Solutrean culture and the Clovis culture, which though indeed are remarkably similar, is similarly not supported by genetic or paleogeographic data. Besides there is a roughly 2000-year gap between the two.


 * The only other "evidence" of precolumbian contact through the Atlantic aside from the Norse really, are conjectural pseudoarcheology or outright hoaxes. Like mysterious carvings, myths like the bearded Quetzalcoatl or the lost tribes of the Mormons. It's probably featured simply because it is admittedly quite interesting and controversial. Kinda like those documentaries about UFO's or Atlantis which pop up every now and then.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  23:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind of course that the History Channel isn't much of a history channel anymore. I don't know what it is, but it's not very historical. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Landbrigdge versus Water
How does the Beringian landbrigde theory and the theory that Paleoindians followed the shorelines?--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That is not a complete sentence. How do those things do what?  Co-exist, maybe?  Square with each other?  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  21:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah. They are compatible with each other. If you follow the shoreline then you cross land bridges. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 22:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the general idea is that the ancestral Native Americans crossed the land bridge and hung out in Alaska for a few thousand years before the shoreline route to the south opened up. Looie496 (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't there sites and findings that show that they reached South America by a date that was earlier or too close to the time when a ice-free corridor would have allowed to walk south. --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly, there were more than two very distinct groups of migrants, as shown by the different colors on the map in the previous section. Secondly, there isn't a lot of firm agreement about those dates. I would give the genetic anthropologists another half decade to settle it out a little firmer. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

burial delay
Recently in the news there is a story about a guy who was charged with "burial delay" for failing to report his dead wife. If such a thing is against the law, how exactly do places like the Royal College of Surgeons of England Hunterian Museum get away with having rooms full of human bodies and bits of corpses on show for people to look at? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.3.12.130 (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Those are treated in some way to prevent decomposition and spreading of disease. StuRat (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not any sort of an answer to the question, which is about the law, not about decomposition. I believe that anatomical museums have to receive a legal dispensation in order to display their exhibits, which have generally been left to them specifically. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The UK Ministry of Justice seems to grant these licenses. It's touched upon in this document.184.147.121.192 (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Some info at [] MilborneOne (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The technical name of the offense is "preventing the lawful and decent burial of a body" (Wikipedia article here)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * An international legal angle on this question: museums hold remains of indigenous people. Some of their descendents are lobbying for their return. See e.g. Skidegate Repatriation & Cultural Committee, representing the Haida community of north-west Canada. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Duty to rescue
Why doesn't the US have duty to rescue laws like virtually every other developed country? Why do they insist on encouraging people to ignore others in danger? --146.7.96.200 (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, our article Duty to rescue states "In the common law of most anglosphere countries, there is no general duty to come to the rescue of another. Generally, a person cannot be held liable for doing nothing while another person is in peril."  Admittedly "anglosphere" is not necessarily synonymous with "developed", but are you sure the US is as isolated in this respect as you seem to think? -  Ka renjc 22:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe, in the US, they are called Good Samaritan laws. StuRat (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's by no means clear that 'they' encourage anyone to do anything of the sort. There's no law that says I have to eat chocolate, but that doesn't encourage me not to. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between the force of law and moral expectation. But if this is a matter of how Americans are judged by foreigners, perhaps the editor should read the article Why are Yanks such evil bastards?. μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly sure that there's no such legal requirement in England. Alansplodge (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Take care: there might be no general statutory requirement, that doesn't mean you can ignore anyone dying near you. 88.9.110.244 (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I think you probably can - see this case. But don't take that as legal advice. Alansplodge (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the 2nd part of the OP's question is fallacious, unless he can show us an information campaign where US citizens are actively discouraged from helping others. To merely fail to encourage someone to do something is not equivalent to discouraging them.  In some circumstances a person can be held to account for being aware of someone's evil plans and doing nothing to discourage them, which can be taken as tacit approval.  But it's not possible to conclude that a nation discourages people from helping others, much less "insists on discouraging" them, merely because there is no law requiring them to do so. --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  23:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In my part of Ontario (Canada), even volunteer fire fighters are not required to go to the assistance of someone if there is a reasonable likelihood that their own life will be endangered as a result. I think that may even be true (looking for a cite) of paid emergency personnel.(Obviously such professionals are trained to take levels of risk not appropriate for most of the rest of us, but even they have limits.) Bielle (talk)


 * In the US there is no GENERAL duty to rescue. That means: if you don't know anything about CPR, you also are not protected if you perform it wrongly (since you were not forced to do it). You also don't have to risk your life to save anyone (but this point is like everywhere else). There are specific circumstances under which a person has a duty to rescue: you caused the injuries, you are an employer, you are a supervisor or caretaker of a child, you are into an economical relationship with the injured (a client). And doctors and nurses can also be accused of negligence by inaction. Furthermore, a last point: certain serious crimes also have to reported. So, take care when not doing anything. 88.9.110.244 (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Now for some reasons why not to have duty to rescue laws:


 * 1) Might clog the courts with rather trivial cases.


 * 2) Assuming an exception for when helping would endanger the person giving assistance, that makes it rather difficult to determine what constitutes danger. After all, any time you help a crime victim there is some possibility the criminal will return.


 * 3) Then there's the general conservative/libertarian concept that we should have minimal government interference in our lives. StuRat (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)