Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 July 1

= July 1 =

Minimum cigarette prices
Here in Indiana, it's common to see gas stations advertising the fact that they sell "Cigarettes at State Minimum Prices". This evening, I saw a store advertising a "Buy Six Packs, Get the Seventh Pack Free" offer. Are "state minimum" prices generally the cheapest they can sell (after taxes) and make a profit, or are there typically specific legal prohibitions on selling cigarettes for less than a specific amount? And how is it possible to give away cigarettes at what's (by definition) below a legal minimum price? NB, I'm not a smoker nor a cigarette vendor, nor anyone else who would potentially need to ask legal advice on this kind of thing. Nyttend (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is a study on the subject: (If that DOI citation doesn't automagically complete, try this link:) —71.20.250.51 (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * What's truly remarkable is that the states can simultaneously press a program of price floors for milk in order to encourage more use of (allegedly) a healthy product, and tobacco to discourage the use of the product. It is interesting how far the politics of cigarettes have gone from the original patient-versus-company lawsuit to this sort of measure meant to ensure that the companies continue to have a healthy profit margin forever. Wnt (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That's not as crazy as it sounds. What is really needed to maximize profits for something optional, like milk, is price stability.  Low prices don't increase sales all that much, and so lowers profits, while high prices cut into sales dramatically, and thus also cuts into profits, as people switch to milk substitutes (almond/soy/coconut milk) or just eat things that don't require milk (so skip cereal at breakfast).  And once people find they can live without it, they may not go back to milk, even when prices come back down.  I've switched from milk to almond milk, myself, for health reasons.  I also don't like how quickly milk goes bad.


 * As for cigarettes, they are different, since there you are dealing with addiction. Kids might not buy their first pack and get hooked, if the price is high.  The good thing about the deterrent of high prices is that many of the normal workarounds for kids, like a cigarette machine or an adult straw buyer, don't bypass the high price problem. StuRat (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Speaking of addiction, that reminds me of something I once heard Dick Gregory say. Ridiculing the idea that usage of pot naturally leads to coke or heroin, he pointed out that "99 percent of alcoholics start out on milk." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yep, but seriously, I bet alcohol and cigarettes are used by more who eventually use hard drugs than marijuana is. StuRat (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * And milk has STILL been used by more yet. See post hoc fallacy.  -- Jayron  32  05:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Right, but any serious cause and effect argument must propose some mechanism by which A causes B, and milk causing hard drug addiction doesn't seem likely. Alcohol or cigarettes leading to harder drugs is more believable. StuRat (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * At this point it seems prudent to point out that Dick Gregory is a satirist, a comedian; and that such entertainers often rely on exaggeration to get a laugh. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I realize that, but there's also a serious flaw in the logic of marijuana being portrayed as a "gateway drug", at least any more than tobacco and alcohol. Prescription pain killers, like oxycodone, also seem to lead to serious drug addictions, such as heroin. StuRat (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. Thus confirming the point Gregory was making. He went on to say that someone needs to plant a rumor that maryjane has been proven to be an aphrodisiac (keep in mind this was well before the invention of Viagra); and given that news, Congress would rush to legalize it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Along with the continual curbing of tobacco use in America there has been a rise in tobacco use overseas, often in countries that I would hesitate to call "friends" of the US. So American tobacco growers continue to make money, American tobacco companies continue to make money, the governments continue to bring in money, and them foreigners continue to voluntarily shorten their life expectancies. Everybody's happy! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Note that alcohol "state minimum pricing" may be even more common that cigarettes. StuRat (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Here in Ontario, people sell cartons of smokes for near the price a pack costs in stores (and getting cheaper). Since this is beneficial to people on fixed incomes who like to smoke and eat, and helps the descendants of the people who discovered tobacco (and Canada), our government calls it "Illegal tobacco".


 * To be fair, the cigarettes with the precious yellow tape do generally burn slower and taste a bit better. If that's reason enough for someone to pay more (and more) and get more mysterious legal additives, their idea of "minimum price" may be different from those on "minimum wage". InedibleHulk (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow. They have a known problem with smuggling and they're raising prices anyway?  I would have thought they would ask someone to plot out the expected revenues first.


 * Speaking of revenue, it amazes me how willing the lower class is to accept new and increased per-capita taxes based on any allegation of sinfulness, even as the wealthy so doggedly fight to retain and expand their privileges. Why is the class war only fought by one side?  Well, maybe now there will be three sides, the rich, the poor and the cartels, wonder who will win? Wnt (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * As you say, the logic's backwards. Higher taxes on "the white man's" smokes drive up demand and supply (aren't renewable resources grand?) for the already cheap and plentiful ones. In cases like that, we'd be crazy not to accept hikes. More smart shoppers than sheeple. But yeah, we're still annoyingly timid on other fronts. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think many of the poor are poor precisely because they don't understand economics. Those which buy lottery tickets on a regular basis are a good example.  If they instead invested that money, or even used it to buy their TV outright instead of "rent to own", or buy food instead of getting paycheck advances, they would be much better off financially.  If they don't understand this, you can't expect them to fight to oppose regressive taxes. StuRat (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Once they do understand, I'd hope they'll realize not to fight cigarette tax, in particular. A more direct contributor to poverty is the government and corporations reclaiming so much cash instead of letting it float. When they cut smoke tax in 1994, it was great for business, if "business" mainly applies to Toronto and Ottawa. But the higher this deterrent tax goes, the more kids on reservations can get PlayStation 4 for their birthdays, then go to college and design PlayStation 7 games.


 * I think this Mohawk/Kanienkehaka has the right idea. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Their optimism is cheerful, but I'm sure that Canada is as capable of setting up layer after layer of border and internal checkpoints as the U.S. is, until the consumers are relying on the Mexican cartels to smuggle in bags of nicotine and the Indians had better accept whatever the cartel decides to offer them for the herb with a smile. There's absolutely no reason why tobacco should be responsible for any less black market profit and violence than any other highly addictive drug, except that for historical reasons it was kept legal.  But every time the price increases that becomes less so. Wnt (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You lost me. If Mexicans are already rare in Canada, how would setting up another nanny system in the north make them more common? Even if that happens, the Indian cartels just have to wait till winter and the Mexican cartels will have more than their assets frozen. All cops would rather deal with the devil they know, though "showing your papers" is a bit different here. Also a lot harder for immigrants (or anyone) to buy ammunition here, so they'd also have to be arms smugglers, which would hypothetically be even harder by then (and annoy our Hell's Angels). InedibleHulk (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Original research should be accepted
Dear Board,

I tried to improve the Universal Rule site. It was indeed a learning experience. No original research allowed; stiff requirements; using your computer as a programmer would do; to steep a learning experience; guarded by persons with authority to refuse additions on subjects they themselves know nothing about. I am not alone, now looking at different talk sections, this is a common occurrence for new contributors.

I know we should accept rigorous scientific standards, but which? I have encountered the resistance of universities to accept Wikipedia articles as valid sources. I wondered why? More and more I use Wikipedia as a reliable and knowledgeable on-line resource, especially the cross-referencing which allows me to check and form my own opinion about what is valid to my case. The ability to bring about changes, in open validation is something I adore. The sanctioning by persons who are not experts I do not endorse. The experience also showed why universities decline Wikipedia as a knowledge resource, anybody can contribute to the human knowledge-database,within their field of experience, and as they see it. This means Universities lose power in defining what is valid knowledge, something they do not want.

However, Wikipedia has gotten where it is, exactly because of this, allowing original research: 60% of Wikipedia is original research!!! And a dictionary is a tautological reference work, in which one term refers to another (Gergen, Kenneth, 2009, "Relational Being"). So why not accepting reference to another article of Wikipedia?

I can prove using the works of relational constructionism, that every article, in deconstruction - a full 100%- is an original research. When selecting which data and information the researcher/author uses and deems valid; is already the case. (Flyvbjerg,B., "Making Social Science Matter")(Hacking, Ian, "The Social Construction of What"). Power is everywhere! (Foucault, Michael,1974).

I realize that the ultimate goal of Wikipedia and of Google the main sponsor is to replace all other encyclopediea. But rigorous appliance of so-called scientific standards is against the goal of the Open Scource movement in furthering the goal of the Humanistics: the best possible most economic result for the clients and the world out there. And that one day, we can cash on this, with 10 billion users. All aided by volunteers, having done 97% of the work.

The problems I and others with me have had, can be described as Toffler, Alvin, 1990, have described: a system, an organization getting stifled by its own rules of what makes sense. Weick, K., 1995, "Sense-making in Organizations", describes this in extenso. Toffler advises to go ahead, the speed with which you adapt, is important, and relating to other information is supremely important, Weick (1995) supports this: Action is more important than accuracy. And making sense in a situation, is also more important than being absolutely right. An experience I learned in quality control work: "Quality is what the client experiences as quality that serves his needs".

So, I urge Wikipedia, to relax its watchdogs and allow original research back.

I expect, that everybody will be up at arms, or try their best to ignore this letter: Power is Everywhere. But for the best of Wikipedia, I really think you should relax a bit, to get the best results: A 16-year inventor using only Wikipedia as resource and being nominated for the Nobel-prize? What is next? An 8-year old?

I wish you the best18:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Americascupfreak (talk • contribs)


 * Your claims about various numbers and percentages reminds me of this: ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * First of all, this is a reference desk, not a "board". We are volunteer Wikipedia editors or just interested users. Secondly, randomly including names and dates as unreferenced citations is more pedantic than informative.  This is one reason why we require articles to cite sources properly;  (and can be done on talk pages by using   template).  Besides, 78.426% of your argument is heuristically empirical ab initio.   Cheers, —71.20.250.51 (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and prove to me that "every article, in deconstruction - a full 100%- is an original research". Also, the purpose of Wikipedia is to construct things, not deconstruct them.  If you want to deconstruct something, Wikipedia is not for you.  --Bowlhover (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless you're destroying wordiness, loaded language and uncited claims. Then Wikipedia is absolutely the place to be. There really isn't a single article that can't benefit from some slash and burn. Guess I should probably mow that one down, now that I mention it. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Only 44 bytes off the lead, but noticed there's a terribly obese "Historical references" section, which is literally asking to be pulverized. Just putting it out there, too much for me. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear AmericasCupFreak,


 * I am sorry that you have had a negative first experience of editing Wikipedia. Why not visit the WP:Teahouse, have a cup of soothing tea, and talk about it there? The Teahouse is a perfect place to talk about, and vent about, problems you've had getting started on Wikipedia. They're very friendly, and extremely helpful.


 * At the moment you're on the Reference Desks, which exist to provide referenced answers to questions people cannot find the answers to themselves. This isn't such a good place to vent, as some of the users here are a bit scratchy and bitey.


 * Best of luck. 86.129.13.205 (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, . There is no board. Wikimedia has one, but that does not concern itself with the policies of the individual Wikimedia projects. Everything on Wikipedia is determined by consensus: you are welcome to make a proposal at the Village pump and see if you can enrol enough others into your view to change the consensus. I do not believe that you will succeed, but you are welcome to try. That is the only way, as far as I am aware, to get the policy changed. --ColinFine (talk) 09:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

1987 aircraft incident - did it happen?
According to our article on United Airlines Flight 811, "In 1987 Pan Am Flight 125 outbound from London Heathrow Airport encountered pressurization problems at 20,000 feet (6,100 m), causing the crew to abort the flight and return to the airport.", together with more detail on this incident. However, this is only referenced to an episode of Mayday (presumably S1E1, but even that's not clear). I've not been able to find any reference to the incident on the AAIB website, or more than cursory information about it anywhere else. Some sources give the date as 10 March, but the destination varies (JFK? SFO?). Did this incident actually happen? If so, can we find some more reliable source material for it? If not, I think it should be removed from the article. Tevildo (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is something from the FAA:  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good find. I searched http://www.aaib.gov.uk and couldn't find it (and still can't). WP used to have an article about this flight[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pan_Am_Flight_125&oldid=514513004] but after two AFDs (Articles for deletion/Pan Am Flight 125 (2nd nomination)) and a speedy attempt it became a redirect. From the (broken) links it looks as if FAA did the investigation. Wouldn't the UK's AAIB have been responsible? I wonder why there is no report. Thincat (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. According to the AAIB website, this was the only aviation incident that occurred in the UK on that date, and I would have expected a great deal more information - or, at least, an official report of some description - about what was apparently a major incident.  The FAA (the FAA, mark you, not the NTSB) page is probably enough to get us through WP:V, but I'm getting a definite Capricorn 1 vibe from this...  I've written (on an actual piece of paper!) to the AAIB to see if they can clarify it. Tevildo (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Here we are. This is the NTSB report on United 811 and on page 57 it discusses the incident on PanAm 125. So, it was certainly a real incident. It very much looks as if only Pan Am and Boeing investigated it. I find that very strange. Thincat (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that contains the essential information that the "investigators" were from Pan Am and Boeing. (And is an interesting document for a fan of the history of desktop publishing, into the bargain).  It certainly _should_ have been reported to the AAIB as "damage or structural failure which adversely affects [the aircraft's] strength, performance or flight characteristics", but it's not impossible to believe that Pan Am decided against it.  I'll see if the AAIB themselves have a different view on the issue, but my question is answered.  Thanks again for your research. Tevildo (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)