Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 March 18

= March 18 =

More questions about Parliamentary privilege
1. If an MP makes a threat in parliament (be it to harm someone, or their property), they would no doubt face impeachment. But can they be prosecuted?

2. Diplomatic immunity protects diplomats from being compelled to testify in court, even as a witness. (I never quite understood the reason for this), although they have sometimes received "invitations". What about MPs and the things they say in parliament? If an MP, speaking in Parliament, makes an allegation of a serious crime, can that be used as a basis for subpoenaing him or her to testify (as a witness) about the matter in court? (Would the judge be allowed to use the MP's speech in parliament as a basis for issuing such a subpoena, assuming the MP contested it?)

3. Does Parliamentary privilege cover things said in "the house / chamber" by non-MPs invited to address or testify before parliament? 58.111.224.202 (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I assume you're referring to the British system or something deriving from it. The law of Parliamentary privilege is contained in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 which says, in its original language, "That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament." On 1), impeachment, while it remains in theory part of the constitution, has fallen into disuse and is not actually going to be used. Assuming the threat was made as part of a 'proceeding in Parliament' (a meeting of one of the Houses of Parliament or of a committee of the same) then no criminal proceedings could be taken over it; however the Houses have the power to sanction their members. On 2), a summons to testify in a court as to a matter communicated in a proceeding in Parliament constitutes a clear case of a court questioning that proceeding. Erskine May (various editions) states "It may be regarded as established that a Member is not amenable to the ordinary courts for anything said in debate, however criminal in its nature". 3) Parliamentary privilege (freedom from arrest and molestation) does extend to witnesses summoned to attend before either House of Parliament. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As the case of Eric Joyce has recently shown, if an MP physically harms someone in the Houses of Parliament then that MP will be tried in a court of law. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Eric Joyce harmed someone in the Westminster bar, not the actual room where debates take place. --140.180.5.239 (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * True, but I think the same would apply if it had happened in the chamber. Parliamentary Privilege is about protecting debate. Crimes that have nothing to do with debate don't fall under it. This was tested in court recently in relation to the expenses scandal. A few MPs that were charged with false accounting tried to claim parliamentary privilege and failed. See R v Chaytor for some details. Basically, your expense claims aren't part of parliamentary debate, so aren't covered by parliamentary privilege. I would assume the same would be true of your fists. --Tango (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note also that per Parliamentary immunity, even in countries where member are protected from criminal prosecutions (whether only those committed in parliament or in general) there is usually a mechanism for the legislature to remove that protection for individual members Nil Einne (talk) 07:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * With regard to Eric Joyce, it is not unprecedented for MPs to get involved in fights in Parliament. In December 1947, Phil Piratin (Communist MP for Mile End) got into a fight with a journalist, Thomas Lucy, in the cafeteria, and then when they accidentally met up an hour and a half later, had another fight with the same person. The Committee on Privileges found both of them guilty of contempt of the House, but did not impose any further punishment. There have also been fights in the Chamber during debates: some are chronicled in List of incidents of grave disorder in the British House of Commons, in particular on 22 November 1920 and 2 July 1931. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Im trying to figure out what this is
I am trying to figure out what this is all i know is that it is from the late 1800's http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/Krazy006/IMAG0129.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.252.191 (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we can assume the white zip tie isn't an original part. BTW, I removed your double posting of this Q on the Misc Desk. StuRat (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Is that the only photo you have? Dismas |(talk) 02:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like some sort of squeezing device, possibly to extract liquids, with a part missing. The set screw on the left locks in some sort of 'die' and the part with the holes filters out the larger bits after the die. Having a removeable die could be for cleaning it, or different squeezing aplications.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

St. Aloysius' queen
From Aloysius Gonzaga:"Purity was his notable virtue; he never looked even upon his mother's face and never looked at his queen so that he could only recognize the queen by her voice."He appears to have lived most of his life in the Papal States, and of the other states mentioned in his biography, I get the impression that he didn't spend any time (aside from travelling) in countries with queens, other than a couple of years in Spain. Is this perhaps a reference to Mary, Queen of Heaven? The section in question (along with most of the rest of the article) is completely unsourced. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I would take it to be a loose reference to Maria of Austria, Holy Roman Empress, in whose household he is described, earlier in the article, as being a page: its context and phrasing doesn't seem consistent with visions of a divine entity, and refusal to look at the face of The Blessed Virgin (for fear of feeling sexual attraction) doesn't sound like a conventional Christian attitude (though refusing to look at one's own mother's face for the same reason also sounds pretty weird). I suspect from the prose style that much of this article has been copied or paraphrased from (out-of-copyright?) Catholic reference works, but the edit history is too long and complicated for me to want to work out just where this sentence was introduced. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.22 (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It was added in May of 2008, by an editor who worked on various Catholic articles for a couple of months around then, and then disappeared. Perhaps his other edits should be scrutinized for similar types of comments, as that one is not only an unsourced editorial, it also sounds like it was lifted directly from somewhere. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Great Lakes battlefleets
What are the names of the U.S. Navy and Canadian Navy fleets operating in the Great Lakes? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 02:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you sure there are any? The Great Lakes would seem to be more in the realm of the U.S. Coast Guard. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Now if you mean way back, there were fleets around the time of the American Revolution and War of 1812. StuRat (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See Canada–United States relations — between the fact that no other countries have access to the Great Lakes and the fact that there have been excellent relations between the two countries for the last century, there's no real need for either country to maintain military fleets in the Great Lakes. I suppose that Canada might have some sort of naval facilities along the lakes, but I know nothing about them.  As far as I know, the only American naval facilities along the lakes are (1) the Naval Station Great Lakes, where new sailors are trained, and (2) Niagara, a museum ship that was part of American fleet during the War of 1812; it's definitely not a warship anymore, and its governing agency (which isn't naval at all) doesn't even have the money to maintain it.  Nyttend (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Canadian Coast Guard also operates on the Great Lakes. There are Royal Canadian Navy stations there too (HMCS York in Toronto for example) but I don't think navy ships actually patrol the lakes or anything. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The U.S. doesn't currently have navy ships in the Great Lakes (Naval Station Great Lakes had an aircraft carrier in WWII, though). In fact, there was a "healthly debate" when the U.S. Coast Guard wanted to start live fire training exercises on the Lakes after 9/11. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The USS Wolverine (IX-64) was the training aircraft carrier. It was a high speed steam powered sidewheeler ship which trained 10,000 naval aviators a year while leaving the real aircraft carriers available for war operations. It was not quite a real aircraft carrier (lacked an airplane elevator), used for WW2 pilot training on Lake Michigan. Videos of her in operation:, . I could not find my favorite video of the Wolverine, in which a biplane is landing as the big paddlewheels churn, while a waterspout is seen in the background. See also . Edison (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Is Flight of the Bumblebee bravura?
I was surprised to not see that word in its article. I'm not a classical geek though so it's more than possible it shouldn't be there. I'm just wondering. Flight is one of those pieces everyone plays to show off, so... no? Equazcion  ( talk ) 05:39, 18 Mar 2012 (UTC)


 * Despite what Bravura says, I must say that in half a century of serious involvement in classical music, I have never, ever heard a piece of music described as "a bravura". I've only heard that word used as an attributive adjective (never as a predicate, as in your header), and then only to describe sections of works, such as "The finale of Rachmaninoff's 2nd Piano Concerto opens with a magnificent bravura cadenza".  It's often found where "virtuosic" is also found.
 * The Flight of the Bumblebee could validly be described as "a bravura showpiece", or something like that, but not just "a bravura". Even "The piece is bravura" would sound quite odd.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  08:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just one problem, Jack: you're the first editor to put an article in front of bravura. The question was "Is Flight of the Bumblebee bravura?" as in "Are apples green?" [or "is my face red?" ;-) ] —— Shakescene (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC) Let me soften that by saying that I think that I, too, saw a non-existent "a" in front of bravura perhaps because we're used to seeing "Is The X a Y?", but then I looked again and like the man who wasn't there, it wasn't there. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Allow me to quote from Bravura: In classical music, a bravura is a virtuosic passage intended to show off the skill of a performer .... That's what I was commenting on. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  09:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually did mean it as Jack describes, despite my wording that could go either way; so that was a valid answer, as it turns out :) I'm basing this on what I learned in my college Music 101 class, which seemed to put bravura in the list of piece classifications, like cantata, chorus, etc. If it's not used in practice that way I understand though. Thanks for the answers :) Equazcion  ( talk ) 14:55, 18 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * I have never encountered "bravura" used in that way (sc. like cantata, chorus, etc). The OED does however list as meaning 2 "A passage or piece of music requiring great skill and spirit in its execution, written to task the artist's powers.", with examples using "a/the bravura", though the most recent quotation of this use is 1846, while it has more recent examples of the attributive (i.e. adjectival) use. --ColinFine (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Dragon King temple in Oregon
Where is there a Dragon King temple in Oregon as stated in that article? Also is there any other non-Judeo-Christian-Islamic places of worship in Oregon?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Rajneeshpuram (infamous but defunct)... AnonMoos (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Baha'i in Oregon, for intance. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 19:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Newspaper "LA Times"
Hi! Can anyone say me please, how many pages the LA Times issues have? I need this information for a library order. I have to know only the average number of pages, not exactly. Thanks a lot, -- Doc Taxon (talk) 08:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you didn't get an answer last time you asked, it is likely no one here knows the answer. Try calling the LA Times office and asking them. RudolfRed (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Or just buy a copy and count them... --Tango (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't live in (northern) California any more, so I don't regularly see copies of the printed Los Angeles Times, but my memory is that like many newspapers, but perhaps more than most, its page count is highly variable, both within a week and from week to week. This is especially true of the Sunday L.A. Times. When advertising for holidays, travel, grocery stores (Wednesday), entertainment (Thursday through Sunday) or cars (usually Saturday & Sunday) goes up, so does the available "newshole" for editorial matter. When advertising and readership are low (Saturday), then there's scant space for news, even if three or four very major, complex stories break out at the same time. You also have to take into account different editions for Orange County, San Diego and other markets. There might be a statistic somewhere for the total annual number of pages printed, which you can then divide by 52 or 365 for a rather arbitrary and somewhat artificial mean average number of pages (when a median or mode might be closer to what you're seeking). Have you tried searching on Google or another engine for such a number? —— Shakescene (talk) 08:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

When I used to deliver papers, the first thing we looked at was the number of pages, because of the weight we had to pack. Monday were thinest, and friday were heaviest. Friday could have twice the pages of monday some weeks.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

PNG geographic name


What's the name of the large peninsula in PNG informally known as the "bird's tail"? — kwami (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to have any more offical name, it just seems to be refered to as the southeastern peninsula or Bird's Tail peninsula, at least in English. If it has a different name in the Dagan languages, I can't find it. Smurrayinchester 09:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess PNG stands for Papua-New Guinea? Dismas |(talk) 13:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * He's asking for the name of the peninsula, not what PNG means. PNG obviously means Papua New Guinea. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't so obvious to me. That's why I asked.  I'm sorry that I'm too dumb for you.  :\  Dismas |(talk) 13:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you supply some geographical coordinates, so we know which one you mean? Sample coordinate-providing page; it's my favorite.  Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * File:New guinea named.PNG shows the island New Guinea. Papua New Guinea is a country consisting of the Eastern half of the island and many smaller islands. The shape of New Guinea is compared to a bird. The southeastern peninsula is called the "bird's tail", or simply referred to as "the southeastern peninsula". I haven't found other names used in English. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Numerous sources call it the Papuan Peninsula. Looie496 (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks! Funny that's not normally on maps. — kwami (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Delegates?
Correct me if I am wrong, but if I can recall correctly, until sometime ago, Newt Gingrich had more delegates than Rick Santorum, despite having won only two states. Why was this the case? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If I understand rightly, the primaries aren't winner-take-all like the presidential election; I think the delegates are divvied up proportionally. If so, it's like points-based sporting leagues: if you come in second just about every time while some people either win or do rather badly, you can still come out first overall.  Nyttend (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked into the rules for those two states but it's often the case that if the winner of the primary doesn't get at least a certain percentage of the votes, then each candidate gets a portion of the delegates. In Vermont, for instance, if candidate A doesn't get at least 50% of the votes, then the delegates will be split up amongst the candidates.  Also, not every state has the same number of delegates.  See  Proportional representation.  Dismas |(talk) 13:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * States have different systems for assigning delegates. See Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries and South Carolina Republican primary, 2012. The South Carolina primary was early. Gingrich got 40.4% of the votes but 23 of 25 delegates. Santorum got 17.0% and 0 delegates. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The presidential election isn't entirely winner take-all either. See United_States_electoral_college. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Maine and Nebraska's approach is of shady constitutionality, and if the approach tips the scales of the election sometime, there is liable to be a political firestorm. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Though this has nothing to do with convention delegates, Baseball Bugs' constitutional understanding is a bit under the shade itself. Nothing requires all of a state's electors to vote the same way. New Jersey's electors were split 4-3 in the historic United States presidential election, 1860 and I'm pretty sure that the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly upheld Michigan's former practice of dividing her Electoral College delegation between the Congressional Districts on the Upper Peninsula and those on the Lower. In 1892, the new state of North Dakota split her three electors three ways: one each for ex-President Grover Cleveland (D), sitting President Benjamin Harrison (R) and Gen. James B. Weaver (People's Party). A glance at any historical table or map of presidential elections will show dozens of other examples, often selected by Congressional District or else (as in New Jersey's case in 1860) running as individuals statewide on a "general ticket". See Electoral College (United States). —— Shakescene (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC) ¶ The relevant U.S. Supreme Court case upholding the State of Michigan's power to determine how to choose Electors — consonant with the 12th, 14th and 15th Amendments — is McPherson v. Blacker, text available here. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Magazine monthly dating scheme
I've been trying to remember why uk magazines that are released in March are dated as April, does anyone know? I saw something on tv about it a few years ago but can't remember the reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Podge Papin (talk • contribs) 15:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Cover date suggests it is to A) to allow magazines to appear 'current' to consumers even after having been on sale for some time and B) to inform newsstands when an unsold magazine is ready to be removed from the shelf and returned to the publisher/destroyed. ny156uk (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not just UK magazines, either. It's pretty standard.  It's also not limited to the magazine industry.  2013 model cars are being released now, in March 2012, presumably for the same reason. Mingmingla (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the off sale date rather than the on sale date. If it were "on sale" it would be the month it was released: as it's "off sale", it's the month it's due to be removed from the bookstands. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good way to explain it. Some magazines that are to be left on the newsstand for more than one month will explicitly say on the cover, "Remove from newsstand on such-and-such date", or words to that effect. Weeklies and monthlies have that assumption built in. There does seem to be a "creeping earliness" to this, though. For example, Leonard Maltin's annual film book dated the next year seems to come out earlier every year. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * See Shelf life and Model year.—Wavelength (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Bill Gaines worked out a schedule for the release of Mad Magazine eight times a year, according to which no issue was supposed to be for sale on newsstand magazine racks during the month listed on the cover... AnonMoos (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Also keep in mind the dates on which periodicals go to press, are mailed out, and actually arrive on someone's doorstep. My next column for a local free monthly needs to be submitted by the end of March so that the issue can be edited, sent to press before the middle of April and then mailed out in mid-April to ensure that most households in the area get it by bulk mail by the beginning of May. Some issues will appear in local shops in late April, and many (but not all) postal customers will see it then; however the date and the content both refer to May 2012. Similarly with the April issue of Popular Mechanics that I've already received by mail; the publishers and readers would both far prefer that issues arrive a few weeks "early" and generate no doubts or complaints than leave the readers wondering whether or when "this month's issue" will arrive. ¶ But with a newsweekly like TIME, Newsweek, Bloomberg Businessweek or The Economist, the reasons are closer to those given above; the date on the cover is the last day the issue is meant to be on sale, which seems to hold generally true in New York, London and Washington, but much less so in other cities where an issue printed to appear on Monday (with a cover date of the following Monday) may not show up until Tuesday or Wednesday. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Some publications have a 13-issues-per-year system (which divides neatly into 4 week periods), named January-December and the extra issue Christmas or similar. This means as you go through the year, issues become earlier and earlier. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, if only I were a publication. Then I'd have only 12 or maybe 13 issues a year.  As it is, I'm lucky if I have only that many issues to grapple with every day.  :)  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  19:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Better than dying without issue, Jack. On the other hand I wonder how many mothers would welcome the prospect of 12 or 13 issue a year? ;-) —— Shakescene (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Argentina and Brazil in Bengali culture
when being a fan of Argentina and Brazil became a value or part of the Bengali culture? Why? is it because Maradona and Pele were considered the best soccer players by the Bengali people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.168 (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It appears that soccer is a sensation in Bangladesh, where roughly half of the Bengali people live, as evidenced by this article bringing French soccer player Zinedine Zidane to rural Bangladesh (Grameen Danone). However, I'm not sure about your question directly, but culturally it is possible that Argentina and Brazil are considered great teams. This article mentions Pele in addition to Bengali people (i.e. Kishore). ~ AH1 (discuss!) 18:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's traditional in the world of football to pick between Argentina and Brazil (rarely will anyone be considered a fan of both rival squads). In other words, this is not unique to Bengali people. However, I am not sure when exactly this started. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 20:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Colonial police force
Would a policeman in west Africa have reached the rank of Major? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  20:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Could you be more specific? What policeman? Where in west Africa? When? --Tango (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I.F.G.Coles born c.1912 Country unknown.Kittybrewster   &#9742;  23:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It sounds unlikely to me that the British Colonial Police would have used military ranks, like Major. This article, Law Enforcement in British Colonial Africa, says that the Colonial Police in Africa followed the Royal Irish Constabulary model, which was more para-military than the mainland British police forces. Our article says that the RIC rank of District Inspector 1st Class carried the "insignia of a Major" (ie a crown). This article, Khaki and Blue: Military and Police in British Colonial Africa, says; "Personnel of colonial police forces were divided into three main groups: gazetted officers, nongazetted officers, and constables. Gazetted officer titles were standardized in 1937 to include superintendents, commissioners, and inspector generals. Nongazetted officers included inspectors, while constable levels included rank and file police corporals and sergeants." Alansplodge (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * However, bear in mind that a substantial number of officers in colonial police forces would have been ex-military, especially in the immediate aftermath of major wars - after 1945, there were a lot of youngish unemployed majors born c.1910! Shimgray &#124; talk &#124; 20:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. In the British forces, retired officers with a rank above Captain (or equivelent in the RN or RAF) are allowed to use their rank as a courtesy title instead of "Mr". But an active police officer wouldn't use an ex-military rank in preference to his police title. Alansplodge (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A Crown as used in the Colonial Police forces to indicate the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police. To differentiate the badge from the army, it was Silver in colour.

Procrastination and politics
Hi. My first question is related to observations of my own behaviour: why is it that I often procrastinate more on tasks and long-term goals that I actually want to accomplish, and projects started in my free time that may be enjoyable, as opposed to short-term educational assignments? What implications does this have for goal-setting? Are there any articles on this form of procrastination?

The second part of this question is related to observations concerning politics in the modern Western world: politics often becomes very ad-hominem. Is this a basic tendency of human nature, or is there some other reason why humans tend to comment on the contributor, rather than the content–that is, attacking the policy-maker, rather than the policy itself? How can human nature be addressed?

Finally, I'd like to know more about how these above topics are related. No, I am not requesting medical, legal, homework, horticultural, opinionated or diatribical advice, but more about information regarding the amplification of procrastination in political decisions, human perceptions of risk and value, and moreover the contribution of compassion fatigue into the aforementioned issues and crises in "First World" attention span. Thanks. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 18:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Why in the world do you think that procrastination has anything to do with political attacks? Looie496 (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Some thoughts on the first question ((original research, I'm afraid). A few months ago I noticed that my own procrastination is often purposeful: it makes sure that there is always something hanging over me to keep me from doing anything risky like trying something new. --ColinFine (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Compassion fatigue in charitable giving" often has little to do with attention span as such, and more with the fact that people are often most inclined to give when there's a natural disaster or other simple-to-understand catastrophe, and people can feel that their donations will help in restoring the situation to some kind of relative normality. When there's no such simple comprehensible narrative, but instead a complex political situation with many contending groups with opposing interests and convoluted twists and turns (as in the Congo war and its aftermath) and/or people feel that their aid will be used for long-term subsistence maintenance of those displaced or impoverished by ongoing politics, then that's when the "fatigue" really sets in.  People considering donating to Somalia relief, for example, might naturally wonder how the current situation is really different from that of 20 years ago, and if it will still be much the same 20 years from now, or whether their donations might perhaps help the conflict to continue by relieving warlords or extremist groups from the need to consider the well-being of the populations in territories they control, etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's related to how much you want to achieve it - the key difference is that some of the goals are long-term and some short-term. You can't procrastinate much on short-term goals - if it needs to be done by the end of the day then you have to get on and do it. If you have several months to do it, then it's easy to convince yourself that starting it tomorrow rather than today won't do much harm (you can then make the same argument tomorrow, until, in my experience, you finally realise a week before the deadline that you haven't even started...). This is a very topical subject for me - I have some exams next week and my kitchen is now spotless! --Tango (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I would argue that people choose to do tasks first which are:


 * 1) Quicker.


 * 2) More enjoyable.


 * 3) More important, in terms or reward for completion and punishment for failure to finish.


 * However, which of these 3 factors is more important may vary by the individual. Also, true procrastinators may intentionally put off the more important tasks, being afraid they will mess them up. StuRat (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

White African Americans and black non-African Americans and the one drop rule
In the application papers for most jobs, colleges, dating sites, etc. there is always a section that asks you to describe your race. One of the options, of course, is “African American” and one of the options is, of course, “White or Caucasian.” This seems to assume that all African Americans are black and that all blacks are descendants from Africa, but that is not always the case and so it just appears to be discriminatory. There are some African countries with a significant portion of the population being white like in South Africa. Two famous white Africans include Richard Dawkins and Orlando Bloom. The Australian Aborigines, for example, are black, or would be considered black under the one drop rule. The same thing applies with the Southeast Asian Negrito people. If I were to be an American whose parents were whites born in Africa and who practices and observes the customs and cultures from whatever part of Africa they would have originated from, would I put “White or Caucasian” or “African American” in an application paper; and if I were to be an American whose parents where Australian Aborigines or “Negritos” from Southeast Asia, would I put “African American,” “Native American,” or what if was filling out an application paper, especially if there was no "Other" option (many application papers lack that option I noticed)? Where would the one drop rule fit and apply in all this? What would I say to either of the 2 cases I described above if I were to be asked personally about what race would I be or something along that line? Willminator (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In contrast to the "1 drop rule" there has always been "passing as white" when it is convenient, or claiming "Cherokee" ancestry if in the US South. Some colleges or employers with US government contracts give preference in admissions or hiring for "disadvantaged minority" status, so checking the "African American " box when someone has 1/32 African ancestry might be beneficial,even if they could easily pass as white or perhaps "Southern European." Any African ancestry less than a Quadroon , like an "Octaroon" (one of eight grandparents African) was hard to discern. In the pre-Civil War US South, writers discussed the existence of red or blond haired and blue eyed slaves, who were slaves because of the condition of servitude of their parents, rather than because of their features and skin color, and considered the difficulties in the distant future of a large proportion of the slaves being indistinguishable from free persons, due to racial admixture.  Edison (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * African American is a particular cultural identity based on the particular experiences and context of slaves and descendants of slaves in America: it doesn't mean someone of recent African ancestry who is an American citizen. If someone came from South Africa or some other specific country and became an American citizen, they would generally be termed (or term themselves) a South African - American or Ugandan-American or such like. "African Americans" typically do not know where in the continent of Africa their black ancestors came from, because records of such things were not kept. They might be lucky enough to be able to trace some of their white ancestors.
 * It is not to do with physical appearance, or genetics, or anything so measurable: it is the creation of a positive identity for people whose family history has generally been erased. The American construct of race does not generally include Aboriginal Australians: you'd have to put whatever category you felt best, or add your own 'other'. It is an unwise form that does not include 'other' for something as open as ethnicity or race (although, I guess you could just put anything other than "white or caucasian", and it would usually give the main data point they really want). If you're white, mark down white because you will be treated as someone who is white, and the form is generally checking for prejudice in the system. 86.164.69.49 (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There are two key problems here. One is that race and ethnicity are extremely poorly defined. Yes, Africans and Australian Aborigines have fairly similar coloured skin, but there is really no reason to group them together. Conversely, there are people from Africa with all kinds of difficult skin colours, and it would probably make sense to group them together for certain purposes. The second problem is the euphemism "African American". As with many euphemisms, it doesn't really carry the same meaning as the word it is used in place of ("black"). I remember hearing somewhere that when the US media were reporting on the riots in France a few years ago involving a lot of black French people, they referred to the rioters as African Americans despite them not being American in the slightest, simply because the US media couldn't bring themselves to say the word "black". --Tango (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate a link to the supposed instance of US mainstream news media calling black French people "African Americans." It might have happened if a reporter did not have his brain in gear, but is smacks of an urban legend. "I remember hearing somewhere" is an inadequate reference when you cast aspersions on the journalists of a nation. Edison (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the reference is probably to CNN's Carol Lin, who when asked for comment during a live slot, replied "it’s been 11 days since two African-American [by which she means Tunisian] teenagers were killed, electrocuted during a police chase, which prompted all of this". - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 10:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We have this sort of thing in the UK too. There's usually a box marked "Other" with a space where you could write "Australian Aborogine" or "White South African" or "Inuit" or however you like to identify yourself. Folks with a certain political agenda sometimes ignore the usual "White British" box, tick "Other" and then write-in "English" (the thought being that you can aquire British citizenship, but, in their worldview, you have to be "born English"0. Alansplodge (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder what would happen if someone ticked the wrong box, a white South African ticking the African-American box for example, or if someone deliberately lied when answering that question? Would it matter?  Astronaut (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't these questions usually ask which race you self-identify as? I don't see how anyone could demonstrate that you are lying about that.  Maybe some countries have legal definitions of race, though? 81.98.43.107 (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that there are basically two ways in which this data is used in the United States:
 * 1. To comply with equal opportunity statistics keeping. If you run a business where 95% of the people applying are a minority (or female, or whatever) but 100% of the people you hire are white (or male, or whatever), you are probably going to run into discrimination issues. If the percentages don't show systematic bias then it's not an issue. So a handful of falsified entries are unlikely to make any difference there. I suspect that in most cases these statistics are just kept for reference and are not trotted out unless there are serious accusations being leveled. And in all cases I'm pretty sure these are voluntary — you can decline to state anything, if you want.
 * 2. In some areas they relate to affirmative action policies. I'm not familiar enough with these to know what happens if you deliberately falsify data, but I doubt anyone is going to get too mad about honest differences of opinion, given the self-identified nature of them. In any case, giving knowingly false data on an application is usually grounds for rejection.
 * As for the categories not matching up with the "real world" — the thing is, racial categories are variable and arbitrary by definition. These particular ones have been crafted for specific social purposes. There is always an "other" box for people who feel too hemmed in by them. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot of mentions here of Australia, so let's add some information. Very few forms in Australia ask for "racial" information. The word "race" is hardly ever used anywhere in Australia. Many forms for government and education institutions ask a question like "Are you an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander?" (no mention of "race".) Note that it's asking the individual to make their own judgement and declaration, so it's about self-identification. The reason for the question is that additional federal funding is frequently available to the relevant institutions, and there are special government programs in place to address disadvantage for such people. Other "races" hardly ever crack a mention. Our five-yearly national census asks people to tick a box or boxes to identify their "ancestry". Again, it doesn't use the word "race". And because of the massive amount of mixed parenting that has occurred in Australia since non-Aboriginal people arrived, and the massively diverse backgrounds from which they have come, (and, some might argue, the impact of suntan on some outdoor workers) skin colour is an almost useless indicator of anything to do with race, ancestry or what one might self identify as. I would also point out that it isn't much of a problem, because most Australians don't really care. HiLo48 (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a news story in the last 2 years of a white South African-born US high school student who ran for and won some election as "African American Student of the Year" or some such, then was suspended by the school. Edison (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * They could drop the "African-American" schtick and go back to "Negroid", provided the whites and Asians are likewise labeled "Caucasoid" and "Mongoloid". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If there was much point in that one really should distinguish between lots of different Africans as they are more varied than the rest of the world put together. Dmcq (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The OP began "In the application papers for most jobs, colleges, dating sites, etc. there is always a section that asks you to describe your race. One of the options, of course, is “African American” ..." and my first thought was, I haven't seen that option on the forms I am confronted with. Anyway. One resource: Black people. And, without wishing to cast aspersions on a whole nation of journalists, I can confirm that I too have heard a white, well-educated, well-intentioned American make the classic slip-up of referring to black people who have nothing to do with the United States as "African-American". I'd be interested to know to what extent that was the case in the American media with regard to the 2005 civil unrest in France and indeed the 2011 England riots. BrainyBabe (talk)
 * In America, asking that kind of info on a typical job app would be illegal. Dating sites, sure. Or Hollywood casting calls, where they're looking for specific types of all kinds. But not on standard job apps. If the OP has actually seen one on a job app, maybe he could point us to it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * When I lived in the US virtually every black person I knew referred to themselves as black. I am curious as to whether blacks actually consider themselves African-American or is the term used solely by the US Government? I am reminded of when my white Cuban friend enrolled at a college in Los Angeles and was informed that she was a member of the Hispanic race. Completely baffled, my friend had to ask what the word meant having never heard it before!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I regard "African-American" as patronizing to black people; trying to tell them how to define themselves, rather than letting them do it. As with "Negro" or "Colored" in generations past. Same with "Native American" rather than "American Indian", never mind that many (though not all) actually like the term "Indian". I was born here, so I'm a "native American", but my ethnic ancestry is English. Maybe the best comment I've heard on this was by Whoopi Goldberg, who said something like, "I've been to Africa. I'm not African-American, I'm American." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Letting people describe their own ancestry is surely the safest and nicest thing to do. (We all have plenty of ancestors to choose from, after all.) Other labelling would hopefully be unnecessary. HiLo48 (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In the ideal world, yes. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)