Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 May 9

= May 9 =

Why is there a liquor ban during the days around the 2013 Filipino presidential election?
Is it because they fear drunk voting and don't trust people to be responsible, or is there another official rationale from the source? 67.163.109.173 (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Would not have any specific knowledge of the laws or culture there, but I do know that in 19th century America many elections on the "frontier" were even conducted in saloons or taverns and many a candidate or party would "buy" elections with alcohol, I guess it would be similar to how some Romeos ply the object of their affections with liquor today and then ask them to choose something that most sober "dates" would have a hard time acquiescing to. The ability to change someones mind about politics or anything else with alcohol is as old as history, them regretting their choice the next day is as old as politics lol.  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   04:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have lived in very few (I believe no) places where liquor has been legal to sell on a certain time weekly centering on Sunday morning. Elections are at least as postuous. μηδείς (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not a unique type of ban. Thailand does the same, and also in Norway it is illegal to sell alcohol on election day. In Norway, the argument that is used is to preserve the 'peace and dignity' of the election. As for the Philippines, you can read about their alcohol ban in this article from the New Strait Times. There is also a ban on large amounts of cash, and the reason seems to be to prevent vote buying.
 * I don't know much about how elections (and election rigging!) work in the Philippines, but I can imagine alcohol being used to influence voters in several ways. One is that it is a substitute for cash: instead of offering a person cash to cast his vote a certain way, you offer him a bottle (or three) of liquor. Another way is described in Allende's The House of the Spirits, where the landlords got all their workers drunk the night before the election, drove them to the polling place and handed them a ballot, thereby securing victory for the landlords' preferred party. V85 (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Another relevant novel is George Eliot's Felix Holt, the Radical. In an early 19th century English town the two main parties "treat" non-voters in the pubs, in the hope that they will come en masse to the election in the town square and sway the voters. A commentary on electoral life before the 1832 reform. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, Medeis, you got me. Postuous?  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  06:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm intoxicated on μηδείς's vocabulary ;-) but its ok--I voted for him!  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   06:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * [Here is a tale from "old Chicago" of an alderman who imported his constituents, renting out local saloons and boarding houses to temporarily give them lodging and beer. There is a nice cartoon on the third page. Beer wagons patrolling the wards, picking up voters to deliver them to the polls slightly lubricated was the subject of several cartoons as well. This particular politician is mentioned in Sinclair's [[The Jungle]] which describes the voting buying process in detail. (As an aside I notice that Chicago had two rival Democratic parties - and the Republicans merely endorsed the more high-brow Democratic candidate instead of running their own.) Rmhermen (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Postuous, adj., characterized by or subject to posing or (especially moral) posturing. "Neither Bush nor Obama was personally troubled by marijuana use; their official campaign positions were postuous political compromises." μηδείς (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In this age of lots of free information, it's funny to see one not in any free dictionary that I can find (dictionary.com, wiktionary, Merriam webster). 20.137.2.50 (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, don't worry, I am not going to charge you for that portflambeau. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That gets as many ghits as postuous, or as few. Sometimes I almost wish you were more of a "sophistical rhetorician, intoxicated by the exuberance of your own verbosity".  But a lass and a lack is what we have.  :) --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  19:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Puns are the lowest form of wit... -- Jayron  32  21:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's bad enough to be asked to explain the obvious. Then to be criticized for offering the requested explanation?  Then to have one's critic criticked?  The girls in Paris is Burning are far less vicious. μηδείς (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't dismay μηδείς, we were just about to find out the true meaning of Fahrvergnügen! besides if you are looking for wit the reference desks would not be the gold standard, I'm just happy we all have a sense of humor   Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   06:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Everything is Obvious * Once You Know the Answer :) 20.137.2.50 (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Ho Chi Minh
I'm looking for a reliable source that clearly states something similar to this idea "The Vietnamese government promotes Ho's celibacy to symbolize his total devotion to the revolution." Thanks!65.128.150.59 (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * See the last paragraph of Ho Chi Minh, which is the only mention of his celibacy that we have. It seems relevant. --BDD (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Our article Tang Tuyet Minh is interesting here. Marco polo (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

unreferenced text in Taira no Tomomori
This seemed to be unreferenced for years since I tagged it: "Tomomori has become a popular subject for kabuki plays. A tattoo of Tomomori is often meant to signify strong ties with illegal drug and weapons trafficking."--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Information.svg Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).
 * Helpful link: Citing sources. --Dweller (talk) 08:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Isn't the OP asking for help finding a source rather than for help editing the page? I've tried, but so far am only bringing up Wikipedia mirrors. Perhaps a search in Japanese? 184.147.137.171 (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The Tattoo Encyclopedia doesn't mention illegal activity. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 12:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't eliminate the possibility that this claim takes the one that is already in wikipedia. Anyway, since the tattoo thing only comes from one book, it does not seem suffifiently significant.--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I took it out. Too bad no one could help you. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

John Buchan's family
Did John Buchan have a family member or friend named Peter? I was just noticing how frequently he uses the name for a character. Proving a bit tough to google because of the number of people called John Buchan - appreciate any help. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I see this has gone unanswered for awhile, just a question really I am assuming you are wondering if he bases these characters on a real life person, if so do all the "Peter" characters have similar or even exactly the same traits? Looking at Buchans wikipedia article he probably had several professional relationships/acquaintances/friendships/run ins with "Peters", should we be looking for someone that matches a certain characteristic?  Just for reference its been revealed that John Steinbeck substituted his wife for Charley his dog in dialog (or would that be monologue) in his Pulitzer winning (arguably Pulitzer attention-getting) Travels with Charley, so reversing this we may even be talking about a non-human, authors have been known to do it before.  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   14:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * A recent biography, John Buchan: The Presbyterian Cavalier by David Godine and Andrew Lowrie, says that Buchan had a younger brother named Alastair, 20 years his junior, who Buchan nicknamed "Peter". It doesn't give any indication that this "Peter" formed the basis of the characters.  Note that we actually have an article about the most notable of those Peters, Peter Pienaar, who appears in two of Buchan's most widely read books. Looie496 (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It is another clue that he really liked the name though :) Thanks. Market, the three Peters I know of (Pienaar, Peter John Hannay and Peter Pentecost) are supposed to be characters the reader likes and admires; that's all I can think of in common. And they look gentle but are actually tough. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad to help!  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way  06:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

National statistics
Hi, I am interested in small business trends in the USA. I need national level information on the percentages of businesses that created new jobs and increased their revenues (and by how much) in the last two years (2012 and 2011). I have looked at the USA government sites website but am unclear on how I could find this data. What are these numbers?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krutij (talk • contribs) 18:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The SBA has yearly economic reports you may wish to peruse here. You might not have as much luck with 2012 and 2011 since they are so recent. uhhlive (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Businesses that support same sex marriage.
There use to be a list here. What happened to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.247.243 (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * List of organizations that support same-sex marriage in the United States --Viennese Waltz 22:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As opposed to supporting it everywhere? μηδείς (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I doubt these companies have said they support same-sex marriage in Saudi Arabia... (at least not if they want to continue to sell their products in Saudi Arabia.) Blueboar (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I note the lack of oil companies on that list, or at least I didn't see any. That might not be a coincidence. I also suspect Red Lobster would not be welcome in Saudi Arabia, assuming Muslims are not supposed to eat shellfish. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * According to Comparison of Islamic and Jewish dietary laws Muslims can eat shellfish. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's complicated. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 06:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As opposed to companies everywhere, supporting it in countries where they operate?
 * That said, the idea of a company having a well-defined political position on something like this is weird to me. Here is the UK, the law requires companies to treat same-sex and opposite-sex couples fairly, and the equal marriage question is mostly haggled over by politicians and religious figures. I would think it very strange if Tesco issued a formal statement on the subject. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but Tesco don't have any real business outside the UK to lose. No one in the USA wants their stores, which is why the chain is being sold off. Lots of UK businesses gave their support to the gay marriage bill and there is also the Stonewall equality index too for a gay-friendly business directory. Plus i'm sure the Coalition for Equal Marriage website lists a lot of supportive businesses? At least it did when i last visited. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 08:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Do we have a similar list for companies who have declared that they refuse to support, or declared that they oppose, same-sex marriage? --Lgriot (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm unsure about big companies, there's a few smaller ones who've announced it and hit the headlines. There's probably a bunch advertised on the Coalition for Marriage website, just as there is for pro-gay marriage support at the Coalition for Equal Marriage site. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 08:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Tesco's venture in to the US (and a few other places, as with most other similar businesses expansion has had its hits and misses) may not have had much success, but as per our article, it's the third largest retailer in the world by revenues and second largest by profits and it seems clear this isn't just coming from the UK. It may be small compared to Walmart, but it's still a relatively successful international business. However I don't get what this has to do with the question. Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Quite. I had hoped it was obvious that I was not talking about a UK-based retailer's support (or not) for same-sex marriage specifically in the USA. That was, er, rather the point of my earlier remark. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Even if there isn't an official statement, some companies in the US do make sure that it is clear that they support LGBT rights and marriage equality. For example, they may have non-discrimination rules and domestic partner policies for employees and show same-sex couples in advertising. There have been cases where a group like NOM raises a stink about it and the company makes an official statement in favor of equality, refusing to back down due to the pressure. It has also become more common for people to petition companies to stop donating to groups such as the Boy Scouts that have descriminatory policies, especially if the group's policies contradict the company's own progressive policies. When the companies withdraw funding, they tend to issue a statement explaining why. On a smaller scale, local LGBT groups often produce lists of local small businesses that support LGBT rights and same-sex marriage, produced by speaking with the owners/operators of the businesses. 38.111.64.107 (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sort of with Alex Tiefling here. An individual who supports same-sex marriage, that is completely understandable.  But I'm not sure what purpose is served by a company having an official position on a subject like this. It's not like they can require all their employees to think similarly as a condition of their employment.  If it's the law, they have no say about it either way.  If it's not the law, pretty much ditto.  I guess it's a gesture of moral support for a change in the law, on the part of the company's owners or directors; but surely they must be aware they'd be potentially alienating some of their staff members, and politicising their work place.  Do businesses get involved in or take positions on other social or political issues?  Does Wal-Mart, for example, officially support either major party?  Or have a position on the American involvement in Afghanistan?  Or on the health care debate?  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  12:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't this all really about the specific company extending spousal benefits to same sex couples? I know that has made the news before as Company X supports same sex partnerships, meaning the company is extending benefits to them as if they were spouses.  Wasn't that a big part of the DOMA and Cal Prop 8 Supreme Court argument?   Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   13:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, but that, while obviously related, is still a quite different issue. "Extending benefits to [same sex couples] as if they were spouses" is a choice companies have always been able to make, theoretically at least.  And a lot of places have laws supporting that, and proscribing many forms of discrimination based on sexual preference.  But supporting same-sex marriage is another ball game.  It might seem the logical next step to a lot of people; but a lot of others, including some gay people, do not want it personally and/or are opposed to it on principle.  The jurisdictions (and people) that have not yet come to the party about same-sex marriage are often the same ones that are the strongest when it comes to support for discrimination-free laws for same-sex people.   --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  13:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Opposing same sex marriage as a corporation may lead to negative publicity, Chick-fil-A. On the other hand I can't think of much in the way of negative publicity surrounding Disney, or any of the others, for their support. Also see List of opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States but there does not appear to be any companies listed in the organisations section. And Category:Organizations that oppose same-sex marriage. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To JackofOz and CambridgeBayWeather, my comment was just refining what a company can tangibly do. Unless I'm missing something other than a tolerant environment and benefits etc. don't any other stances stray into semantical differences of something more than just the dictionary definition of "supporting".  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   17:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm seeing this from the perspective of an employee of said company. Personally, I'm all for marriage between any two consenting adults who are not married to someone else or are close relatives.  But my workmate in the next cubicle regards marriage as strictly between a man and a woman, and I respect his position.  Our company really ought to be respecting both posititions and not taking sides, since nobody is ever going to marry a company.  The directors, owners, managers etc will all have their individual personal opinions, and I can guarantee they will not all align.
 * Anecdote time: A couple of lifetimes ago, I was a member of a certain union, which existed for the benefit of its members and supported their welfare in a workplace sense. At the time there was a public political issue about whether Australian uranium should be sold to foreign countries.  My union had nothing whatsoever to do with uranium mining or any sort of mining or even any sort of industry; it was a clerical union for public servants.  But in its wisdom it decided to have an official position on the uranium issue.  I don't remember now whether they were pro or con, but that's irrelevant.  There was a lot of debate on the issue; there was a group of union members who agreed with the union's position, and there was a group who opposed it.  Then there were those who felt our union had no business sticking its nose in an issue in which it or its members had no stake.  The union reasoned that a buyer country could make a bomb that could be used against Australia, and if a relevant workplace was blown to kingdom come in a nuclear holocaust, this would have an obvious impact on the welfare of union members.  Many felt this association was too third-hand.  They eventually held a plebiscite, and the "no-position" group proved to far outweigh the other two, and as a result the union ceased to hold any official position on the matter.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  19:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There are in fact business reasons for supporting same-sex marriage. Larger U.S. businesses have to operate across a number of U.S. states, each with its own rules about tax withholding, benefits, and so on, for different categories of same-sex and different-sex couples.  The U.S. federal government, meanwhile, has its own, often contrasting set of rules for those areas.  The result is a nightmare for payroll departments, especially in cases where an employee works in one state and lives in another. The trend seems to be toward recognition of same-sex marriage in more and more states. Companies that support nationwide recognition of such marriages do so partly because it would cut administrative costs.  Marco polo (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course, probably even a bigger business reason for this position is that it attracts employees and customers, including not just gay and lesbian people (who overwhelmingly support same-sex marriage in the United States) but younger heterosexuals as well. Marco polo (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)