Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 May 13

= May 13 =

Any visible parts common to " Statue of Liberty" and "Eiffel Tower"
Curious to know what are the components of Statue of Liberty and any of them common with visible parts of "Eiffel Tower" If not Eiffel Tower, does Statue of Liberty share common things with any other iconic tower.

I have done enough search and did not get significant inputs. Would appreciate any inputs2601:E:2980:30C:D8CE:38C8:530C:A237 (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)vsmurthy


 * The Statue of Liberty article goes into some verbal detail of the construction of Gustav Eiffel's underlying structure for the statue, but what you really need is a diagram, which I don't see in that article. However, there is one, of sorts, in the Gustave Eiffel article. The obvious common factor between them is the criss-cross reinforcements. There could be other similarities that I'm not able to pick out. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The criss-cross bits that are used in the statue and tower are trusses, and Eiffel seems to have been quite good at understanding how they work. Our article lists several named variants, not sure if Eiffel might have invented any unique types himself. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess Eiffel was very good at understanding trusses since neither structure has fallen over after 100 years. Shii (tock) 14:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

State borders in the USA
A recent question on the Science desk made me wonder about the procedure (if there is one) for adjusting state borders in the USA. If two states find that there is an inconvenient irregularity in their border, can they agree between themselves to adjust it, or do they need the consent of the federal government or legislature? DuncanHill (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just judging from how other stuff seems to work, probably depends on the size of the irregularity, and how cooperative/apathetic the states involved are. The two states would probably be allowed to sort it for themselves, but could call upon the federal gov't to intervene.
 * My home state of South Carolina recently had to give up a (laughably) small border town to North Carolina, because more accurate surveying techniques (satellites maybe?) showed that it was within the historically agreed North Carolina border. To my knowledge, it was pretty much a matter of NC saying "hey, SC, check this out," with SC responding "oops, take the town."
 * Now, if say, all the southeastern United States decided that they wanted to be a part of Texas (and Texas idiotically agreed to that burden for some reason), I'm pretty sure the Federal government would step in and say "look, our voting system is already as balanced as a fat one-legged drunk with an inner ear infection on a unicycle with a vibrator taped to the wheel, we don't need anything to upset it further." Ian.thomson (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As always: 'this has already been litigated'.
 * See: Ohio v Kentucky which went to the US Supreme Court. Any subsequent disagreements would definitely be a 'Federal Case' ;-), and if it was a major change (Ohio v Kentucky was just a disputed border area with less then a 1/4 mile in any one section) it would probably go to Congress.  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   05:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The question wasn't about disputed borders, though. Suppose hypothetically that the state of Kentucky decided that since the Kentucky Bend can only be reached from Tennessee, they might as well make a deal to turn it over to Tennessee; and the two state legislatures agree on the terms of the transfer.  Then would US law require the federal govenment to be involved, or not? --50.100.193.30 (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In Article Four of the United States Constitution, the way I read it, fiddling with borders requires consent of the states and U.S. Congress approval. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Bugs is referring to the constitutional prohibition of Congress changing borders without states' consent. However, when states make agreements with each other, it's known as an "interstate compact", and such a thing requires congressional approval.  Here's part of the final paragraph of Article One of the United States Constitution: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress...enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. If I remember rightly, the point is to ensure that states aren't conspiring secretly.  Ironically, although the southern confederacy did basically that at the beginning of the Civil War, their constitution had a similar prohibition, although it had the improvement of not requiring congressional approval for a specific situation: when two states were separated by a river, they didn't need congressional approval for navigational improvements.  Nyttend (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And yet no source I've managed to dig up regarding the 160-year Southwick Jog dispute between Massachusetts and Connecticut mentions any Congressional involvement whatsoever, even though the final border wasn't settled until 1804. Whether they recalled the complete silence they'd received in response to previous appeals to the English Crown, wanted to stubbornly settle the matter themselves, or whether perhaps federal approval was gained but simply not documented, is unclear.   ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  19:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue is usually a (often very important one) of the distinction between one of three very different scenarios, from a legal standpoint:
 * 1) A parcel of land undisputedly part of one state is transferred to another state
 * 2) A parcel of land is claimed by two states, and they work out a solution, either among themselves, or with the help of outside mediators (court system)
 * 3) A parcel of land is mistakenly being administered by one state due to a surveying error at some time in the distant past, and the error is later corrected.
 * Near as I can tell, ONLY scenario 1 requires Congress to get involved. The Southwick Jog appears to be a clear example of scenario 2, there had been a contention about who had control of that parcel, and there was not clear control of the land by either state.  Scenario 3 doesn't come into play here, but DOES come into play in many cases, for example the issues regarding Tennessee-Georgia water dispute or with the recent reassessment of the North Carolina-South Carolina border: .  -- Jayron  32  22:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah! Linked from the article about Article 1 is the key legal case: Virginia v. Tennessee.  Following the link from there to Findlaw, here's the relevant bit of the actual ruling.


 * Looking at the clause in which the terms 'compact' or 'agreement' appear, it is evident that the prohibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States. Story, in his Commentaries, (section 1403,) referring to a previous part of the same section of the constitution in which the clause in question appears, observes that its language 'may be more plausibly interpreted from the terms used, 'treaty, alliance, or confederation,' and upon the ground that the sense of each is best known by its association ( 'noscitur a sociis') to apply to treaties of a political character; such as treaties of alliance for purposes of peace and war, and treaties of confederation, in which the parties are leagued for mutual government, political co-operation, and the exercise of political sovereignty, and treaties of cession of sovereignty, or conferring internal political jurisdiction, or external political dependence, or general commercial privileges;' and that 'the latter clause, 'compacts and agreement,' might then very properly apply to such as regarded what might be deemed mere private rights of sovereignty; such as questions of boundary, interests in land situate in the territory of each other, and other internal regulations for the mutual comfort and convenience of states bordering on each other.' And he adds: 'In such cases the consent of congress may be properly required, in order to check any infringement of the rights of the national government; and, at the same time, a total prohibition to enter into any compact or agreement might be attended with permanent inconvenience or public mischief.


 * Compacts or agreements&mdash;and we do not perceive any difference in the meaning, except that the word 'compact' is generally used with reference to more formal and serious engagements than is usually implied in the term 'agreement'&mdash;cover all stipulations affecting the conduct or claims of the parties. The mere selection of parties to run and designate the boundary line between two states, or to designate what line should be run, of itself imports no agreement to accept the line run by them, and such action of itself does not come within the prohibition. Nor does a legislative declaration, following such line, that is correct, and shall thereafter be deemed the true and established line, import by itself a contract or agreement with the adjoining state. It is a legislative declaration which the state and individuals affected by the recognized boundary line may invoke against the state as an admission, but not as a compact or agreement. The legislative declaration will take the form of an agreement or compact when it recites some consideration for it from the other party affected by it; for example, as made upon a similar declaration of the border or contracting state. The mutual declarations may then be reasonably treated as made upon mutual considerations. The compact or agreement will then be within the prohibition of the constitution, or without it, according as the establishment of the boundary line may lead or not to the increase of the political power or influence of the states affected, and thus encroach or not upon the full and free exercise of federal authority. If the boundary established is so run as to cut off an important and valuable portion of a state, the political power of the state enlarged would be affected by the settlement of the boundary; and to an agreement for the running of such a boundary, or rather for its adoption afterwards, the consent of congress may well be required. But the running of a boundary may have no effect upon the political influence of either state; it may simply serve to mark and define that which actually existed before, but was undefined and unmarked In that case the agreement for the running of the line, or its actual survey, would in no respect displace the relation of either of the states to the general government.


 * So no, it is not necessary for the federal government to be involved except maybe if an "important and valuable portion of a state" was involved in the boundary change. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you everyone, very interesting :) DuncanHill (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * A recent case is Wendover, Utah, a town on the border with Nevada. Both Utah and Nevada agreed that the town should be moved into Nevada to unite it with the more economically vibrant neighbor West Wendover, Nevada. In 2002, a Congressional resolution passed in the House of Representatives but was blocked in the Senate and hence the town remains in Utah. —D Monack (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Makeup
In Western culture, makeup is worn almost exclusively by females. Is this the norm across cultures, or the anomaly? I'm thinking of ancient China, where the men were certainly ornately decorated. Thanks! --Bowlhover (talk) 06:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think your assumption is off a bit, aside from circus performers and actors that have always seen Western men in what is basically 'makeup', the infamous Kennedy-Nixon debates of 1960 proved that politicians and then TV personalities and then corporate and civic leaders all need the now obligatory makeup artist prep time before any major presentation. Perhaps the 'everyday life' and the 'common man' thing is more what you are asking, but the more powerful and more publicly known the Western man the more that man has worn makeup.  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   06:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the OP here is talking about more visible make-up? Futurist110 (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * TV appearances are irrelevant to the question. That makeup is done for a particular reason (without it men would look unhealthy under studio lights).  The OP is asking about everyday wearing of makeup. --Viennese Waltz 07:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems like we are assuming much about OPs rather broad question, but the more answers the better.  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way  18:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Makeup has a lot to do with fascination, so I wonder if any interpretation has ever associated it with the Myth of the Garden? Where men are concerned in any event, beards and mustaches have often been sufficient to build the animal ambiguity which seems to be core of that fascination. --Askedonty (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not very extensive, but we do have Body painting, which covers face painting. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * See "Guérewol".—Wavelength (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think there's a practical reason why men don't wear facial cosmetics. It tends to clump up when it encounters facial hair, even a five o'clock shadow.  So, using cosmetics all day requires that the man shave off any facial hair and/or commit to shaving more often. StuRat (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Kamala managed. But yeah, not exactly the typical cosmetics or man. For years, he went about like that in public, protecting the myth, sort of like El Santo. More recently, lots of kids fashion themselves after Jeff Hardy and Justin Bieber. In El Santo's world, they might be called exoticos. More commonly, metrosexual. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if there is any research on the topic that could give us a true answer, but I have a feeling that the reason is more in the realm of "Why women DO wear makeup" as opposed to "why men DON'T wear makeup". I don't know much about the fashions of ancient China, but my guess is that the costumes had more to do with their political and social relationships with other men as opposed to trying to attract women, which is the purpose of modern day cosmetics. If you look at other modern day social structures, the largest part of the duty of building and maintaining the romantic relationships is put on women. If you look at relationship advice, a lot of advice geared to women is built upon maintaining your looks to keep your man. Sure men want to be attractive, but their attractiveness holds a very different place in how important we consider them to be. Their power is seen to be in different aspects of their being, such as wealth, physical strength, humor, the "alpha" personality, etc. So in other words, they probably don't wear makeup because enhancing facial beauty isn't considered important in terms of a man's importance. Bali88 (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

In the past men did wear makeup.Look at Regency dandies for example.Hotclaws (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Amending the U.S. Constitution
I am genuinely curious about this--I apologize if this is a stupid question, but here goes: Are there any limits on how the U.S. Constitution can be amended? In other words, are there any ways in which the U.S. Constitution cannot be amended? For the record, by this, I don't mean the process of amending the U.S. Constitution, but rather the amendments to the U.S. Constitution themselves. If enough people, politicians, judges, and U.S. states hypothetically want an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to say whatever possible thing that they want, would they be guaranteed success in amending the U.S. Constitution in the way which they want to amend it? Futurist110 (talk) 06:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Article V is quite simple, just 143 words. The only restriction on what amendments can be passed is that "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate".  There were a couple of other restrictions for a limited time when the Constitution was adopted, but they expired in 1808.  --50.100.193.30 (talk) 08:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The issue has actually been addressed by the Supreme Court during the passing of the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. There was some serious objection to the amendment as itself "Unconstitutional" because the constitution isn't supposed to contain run-of-the-mill legislation; rather the Constitution is supposed to outline how the government is organized and how it operates.  The 18th amendment is just a law that people had a hard time getting passed otherwise, so they crammed it into the Constitution, but it's really not a Constitutional issue.  However, in This set of rulings, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the amendment, essentially saying that Congress had the right to propose just about anything as a Constitutional amendment.  -- Jayron  32  11:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The concept here is an "entrenched clause" - most famously, they're a fundamental aspect of the modern German constitution, which invalidates any amendment that modifies the basic rights of the citizenry or the fundamental nature of the goverment, but they crop up in some other countries as well. That article notes that the US had two (both in article five, as noted above) - one was a temporary provision which has now expired, while the other provides for equal representation in the Senate. It could be argued that this last one is not entirely permanent, as if all fifty states agreed to repeal it the Constitution would not prevent them doing so, but it's certainly placed on a different level to all other provisions. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would any state want to reduce its equal representation in the Senate? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously they wouldn't. But to pass a constitutional amendment reducing, say, the Connecticut Senate delegation to one non-voting observer, well - three quarters of the states would have to ratify, but it doesn't say which three quarters, now, does it?  Obviously that's an extreme and (now we know) unlikely scenario, but one can imagine soon after the original document was written (particularly with lingering Confederation-era resentments still just under the surface) some state or group of states seeking to use the tyranny of the majority to subsume one state under several others.   ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  19:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hence the reason for that provision. It doesn't matter if 49 states decide to reduce Connecticut's suffrage in the Senate. Unless Connecticut approved it (for goddess knows what reason), such an amendment would not go. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've often wondered whether it could be done in two amendments. First amendment deletes the "equal suffrage" clause; second amendment boots out Connecticut.  Maybe we should go back in time and ask Kurt Gödel this, the day before his citizenship exam. --Trovatore (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Constitution would prohibit the passage of that first amendment unless maybe it was unanimous. So, again I ask, why would any state support potentially having its own equality in the Senate compromised? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Whom exactly are you asking? No one has said they would.
 * Still, I can imagine a scenario where it wouldn't be entirely irrational. Let's say you're a Connecticut legislator, and your views have a very temporary majority in the legislature &mdash; the writing is on the wall that, in the next senatorial election and for the foreseeable future, senators will be chosen who have policy preferences very very different from yours.  Moreover, you care more about actual policy than you do about the influence of Connecticut as a state.  I can imagine that it could then make sense to vote for such an amendment.  Of course, it won't go over well with the voters, but we're already assuming that that's a lost cause. --Trovatore (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be extraordinarily foolish and short-sighted. However, I am confident that the Supreme Court would not allow it to happen once the inevitable court case would reach their desk. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, but would it? It says you can't amend the constitution to deprive a state of etc etc; it doesn't say you can't amend the constitution to remove that provision. --Trovatore (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Passage of such an amendment would potentially deprive a state of its equal suffrage, so such an amendment should not be constitutional. But if someone did try that ploy, there would be a court challenge regarding the obvious violation of the intent of that clause. Keep in mind that the whole reason for the equal representation in the Senate was to get the Constitution ratified by giving the states a forum in which they were all represented equally, to keep the bigger states such as Virginia from dominating the federal legislature. Take that away, and the deprived states might say, "See ya." So, again I say again, why would any state support such an amendment? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's a thought experiment: imagine that a state is splitting in two, say North and South Florida, with both parts intending to remain in the US. Everyone is pretty relaxed about this - it doesn't have much effect on the inhabitants of the two Floridas, who each have a state government hopefully more responsive to their local interests than the old one was, and the federal congressional delegations remain the same - they agree to split them 13-14. But there's a problem in the Senate - why should New Florida get four Senators when Old Florida had just two? The senators from everywhere else complain, understandably, and a compromise is reached: Florida say that in order to be allowed to break up, they'll agree to just have one each. The net balance of power is conserved, but the two individual states are worse off than the other 49.
 * Sure, it's an improbable thought experiment, but stranger things have happened in constitutional democracies trying to solve intractable dilemmas :-). Andrew Gray (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The courts would have to decide the matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that our article on the concept linked above actually mentions the lack of entrenchment of the entrenchment clause in the US constitution as a possible problem. Our article mentions Australia and NZ has a similar issue where it's normally suggested that Parliamentary sovereignty means that parliament can't actually entrench any entrenchment clauses (although not all commentators agree). Of course, Australia actually has a written constitution (and other parts?) which are considered entrenched and above parliamentary sovereignty. Of course, even in cases where the entrechment is questionable or there is no entrechment, you may involve Constitutional convention (political custom), and the unpredictable effects of trying to go against them in a serious manner e.g. will the courts actually involve themselves, will the civil service accept such changes, will the government inspire revolution, how will the head of state respond? (If you consider the US case to be really entrenched, there's the question of whether the entirety of Article 5 is entrenched or only the entrenchment part.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The founding fathers created a fair amount of flexibility, so not all possible scenarios are necessarily allowed for. This is where the Supreme Court comes in. Assuming there's a challenge to such an amendment, the high court would have to decide whether there is in fact a constitutional right for a state to give up its equality in the Senate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, I wouldn't expect any mention of it to come up; if states are modifying their borders slightly, ending a long dispute, I wouldn't imagine anyone in Congress to raise a stink about it. It would probably go through each house's committee unanimously, get approved with unanimity or near unanimity, and signed by the President with little or no fanfare.  Everyone's attention after the fact would be on the states that were resolving the dispute and the politicians who had resolved it, and even while it was happening, most sources would be paying attention to the people who had just become residents of a different state.  After all, most new laws get little or no attention, simply because they're thoroughly non-controversial, so the actual approval of this interstate compact would probably be as insignificant as (to pick a random number) Public Law 113-114, the "Animal Drug and Animal Generic Drug User Fee Reauthorization Act of 2013".  Nyttend (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Legal question
This ? regards lawyer conduct in a court room. Case involves child support. Defense lawyer sends his client home during court without notification of it to plaintiff. This causes plaintiff to sit in court, expecting case to be called and effectively wasting the day for plaintiff. Plaintiff finally approached bar, asked what was happening. DSS and ADA searched out the defendants lawyer who at that time admitted sending his client home earlier in the day. When asked what he was going to do, his reply was "I don't know", turned and walked away. He was called back, he refused to give an adequate answer, was rude, turned and walked away again. This happened once again. Finally, the plaintiff was told nothing could be done and to go home. The case had to be continued. This plaintiff is the sole caretaker for two small children, needs to work and was kept out of work by an inconsiderate lawyer while the defendant was allowed to leave early to pursue whatever. The defendant was $2500.00 behind in child support but did pay up to date that morning. What can be done with situations such as these? Lawyers are supposed to uphold the law and the rights of individuals. However, when approached, this lawyer indicated his belief was that he was not accountable for any loss of time or expense for the plaintiff due to his behavior. Thanks for any input Frustrated!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elton rouse (talk • contribs) 15:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You need to seek a lawyer. We cannot help you.  -- Jayron  32  16:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * We cannot give legal advice. But I can tell you that if you have a complaint about a specific lawyer, you can contact the bar association in your jurisdiction, and perhaps the better business bureau. Good luck, SemanticMantis (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Friend Of The Court
We don't seem to have an article on this. It's just a redirect to another article on a somewhat related topic. Briefly, the FotC, in Michigan, at least, is a court appointed officer whose job is to collect money from one party and distribute it to another, taking action when the party owing money by a court judgment does not pay in a timely manner. I'm familiar with the FotC being used in child support cases, but they might also be used more broadly. So:

1) Does this office just exist in Michigan ?

2) Is it used more broadly ?

3) Do we have an article on it ? StuRat (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Water faucets
Is there any reason for which the left handle on showers and sinks, etc., is for hot water and the right handle is for cold water (in the United States)? Or is this just so that there is some uniformity? Also, is this the same in other countries, or does this differ from place to place? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In the U.S., apparently, that orientation of the fittings is required by something called the "Uniform Plumbing Code". See this article which mentions it.  It doesn't say why it is not the other way around, per se, but it does say that standards require it to always be the same way.  -- Jayron  32  16:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no such uniformity in the UK. I have a bathroom in which the bath is one way round and the sink is the other. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Though (OR) it is my impression that we have been getting more uniform (matching the American system) over the past fifty years. When I first encountered the American assumption that hot would be on the left, I remember thinking it odd; but now I am surprised when I encounter a sink that does not follow this convention. --ColinFine (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The only reasonable explanation I found when Googling:
 * Fine-tuning the temperature (i.e. mixing hot and cold water) will be simpler for right handed people, i.e. the majority. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a simpler point, also favoring the right-handed majority: you don't always use both taps. Sometimes you just want cold water. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's very interesting. I would have never thought of that.  Although my first reaction is that a person can fine-tune the temperature with either hot or cold water (i.e., increasing/decreasing amount of hot water OR increasing/decreasing amount of cold water).  Thus, either hand will work.  In other words, one does not "fine tune" with cold water alone.  Or am I missing something?  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That would be why I do not like that now almost ubiquituous single handle mixer faucet. I'm right-handed and I've noted that I can't get a warm mix in town anymore, without having to put my left arm to work or play curious finger-palm acrobatics. Note that with a two handle faucet I never bothered if it was standart or a reversed. --Askedonty (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not crazy about those either, but things could be worse: In the old-old days, there were separate faucets for hot and cold. To wash you face, shave, etc., you would fill the sink with a mixture, as with filling a bathtub. Also note that the faucets are labeled H and C, which is a must, especially if they're not installed in the conventional way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Does that work for non-English speakers? HiLo48 (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The concept works in any language as long as the designations on the faucets are unambiguous. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Like the French ones, which are of course appropriately labelled C for hot and F for cold. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (Not to mention the potential confusion of caldo for German-speaking tourists (compare kalt)). I've always found faucets using red and blue blobs on their handles useful. Googling it to find some reference, the first hits were about temperature-sensitive LED light faucets. Something I didn't even know existed. My bathroom fixtures are from the 1950s. ---Sluzzelin talk  02:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow. I though there were standards about taking pictures also. I'm not often going enthusiastic about granting monopolies to syndicates but sometimes you may wonder. --Askedonty (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Standards about taking pictures? No. None. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe try like this; although I reckon this sort of leading us away from the UPC. --Askedonty (talk) 06:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In France you can remember that gauche is chaud and droite is froid because the vowels match. Cold is on the right because most people are right handed and will reach naturally for the cold tap first, thus avoiding scalding themselves. That's the explanation a French plumber gave me anyway, and I'm inclined to trust him. Same handedness is in the UK Building Regulations, although not everyone realises. Taplexia. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I read this theory somewhere [possibly in one of the "Imponderables"-books by David Feldman]: Before the invention of hot water boilers all taps were cold and to the right because most people are right handed. So when boilers were invented they put the new hot tap on the left. 93.95.251.190 (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Martin.

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Pink Dollar generated in the United States
Hello! I'm in search of information about the amount of money the 'pink dollar' generated in the United States in the past 10-20 years within the LGBT tourism market niche. Therefore I'm looking for a diagram or at least some figures to generate a diagram for a powerpoint presentation. I hope someone can help me. Regards, Dionysos1988 (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * At a glance, there isn't much on Google scholar. You can imagine how hard it is to determine if expenditures have anything to do with sexual orientation... anyway, best I could find was this, which talks about New Zealand. I don't really know this field, perhaps "pink dollar" isn't the best search term for academic works. If I really had to find more, I'd start searching related things like /gay impact economy/ SemanticMantis (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * And be sure your sources aren't referring to the "pink collar" sector. Anyway, wasn't "lavender" formerly the color associated with homosexuality relative to mainstream culture (before the LGBT rainbow spectrum)? -- Deborahjay (talk) 05:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Whenever I hear "pink dollar", I think of the (probable) trillions made from products which remind us of boobs to get us to pay a buck or so toward them. These ladies are the real cash cows, and I think the gays would stay better off calling it "pink money" (or something else). That brand image is as taken as they come, and they don't seem ready to let go. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This "brand image" is evidently not so "taken" when an active contributing editor to the English-language Wikipedia Reference desk refers to the issue of seeking a cure for breast cancer as reminding [us] [?!] of boobs (the latter word without scare quotes). Once I followed the piped link above to Pinkwashing, I realized that this will not pass without my overt comment here. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I piped it to pinkwashing, rather than Pink ribbon, to avoid pissing anyone off. Sorry. There's a good side and a bad side, and the bad side's lucrativeness is apparent in the blog article I linked. Since they were misinterpeted as "scare quotes", I've removed them. Not sure what you inferred, but I probably didn't mean to imply it. Words are tricky that way, especially typed. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * When writing on this public online forum where people ask queries to gather information, you might consider whether it's appropriate to use language such as you did above and in your edit summary. Besides "pissing anyone off" - did you consider that some people are offended or hurt by vulgar language and cheap humor (boobs, cows, udders - no quotes provided) in reference to the widespread and often deadly and disfiguring diseases that are breast cancer, striking so many women and irreparably harming them and their loved ones. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, sorry everyone. I'll give you the long answer on your Talk Page, more private. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Too bad nobody could help me. Thanks to all anyways... Dionysos1988 (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)