Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 May 7

= May 7 =

Change in views of homosexuality
I remember reading a study about how most Americans held anti-gay beliefs, but it was done in the '90s. Now, it seems most Americans are pro-gay. How did change happen so quickly? Was it influenced by the rise of owning a personal computer at home and getting Internet access? The Baby Boomers - the largest generation - probably were parents in the '90s. Now, the Baby Boomers are retiring, in retirement, or dead; and the Millennials are coming of age. The people in power are not Millennials, because Millennials are still young adults or new parents, and politicians tend to be old people, way past reproductive age. So, the change in opinion has to occur among the Baby Boomers themselves. The Baby Boomers are also associated with the hippies. So, the people who support gay rights now are actually the same people who rejected gay rights in the 1990s? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The Stonewall riots in 1969 are widely considered to constitute the single most important event leading to the gay liberation movement in the USA. Blooteuth (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, but OP was asking about the shift in opinion since the 90's. This article suggests that the change was driven by the increasing visibility of gay people, and the growing percentage of Americans who were personally acquainted with a gay person. This figure rose from 43% to 73% over the course of the 1990's. As for why gays became more visible, that is more difficult to answer, but two major factors were the Sexual Revolution of the late 1960's, which gave rise to large and conspicuous gay communities in the major cities, and later the AIDS crisis, which drove home the "silence = death" idea and the existential imperative of coming out to straight family and friends. The latter was probably more decisive in shifting opinion, since it personalized the issue in the minds of straight people. Many celebrities came out during the 1990's, popular entertainment began to treat gay characters as sympathetic, and some sort of tolerance towards gay people became a standard tenet of American liberalism, as well as a general marker of urbanity and enlightenment. Generational shift played a part, but wasn't really the driving force that some make it out to be. To some degree, all generations became less homophobic over the last twenty years. (To get a sense of this, look over this article on public opinion of same-sex marriage, which is a good metric of homophobia in general.) Needless to say, the shift is far from complete, large swaths of the population remain anti-gay, and despite major advances in the courts, there is nothing like a "pro-gay consensus" among American politicians. L ANTZY T ALK 14:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Many people of voting age nowadays are of later generations that come after the baby boomers but before the millenials (Generation X). With such a large population of which a significant proportion support gay rights, from a cynical point of view savvy baby boomer politicians have changed their views in order to increase support among the voting population. FWIW Gallup polls have recorded that a majority of Americans supported legalizing homosexuality since 1977 (with exceptions in the late 1980s and mid 1990s), but same-sex marriage specifically has been opposed by a majority up to 2011 as a separate issue. Alcherin (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that even though Millenials may not hold office, they can still have political power, in that who they will vote for is still important, and Reps voting in ways they dislike could get voted out of office. StuRat (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Various points:
 * (1) Being gay is a 20th century Western concept. History of homosexuality. Before the turn of the 20th century, there was no class of people recognized as having a homosexual identity. There were the activities of sodomy and transvestism, but those were things that anyone might potentially do, like murder, not what one was from birth or some point of self-recognition.  Sodomy and transvestism were seen as sinful or perverse, but not as permanent conditions.  "By the end of the 19th century, medicine and psychiatry were effectively competing with religion and the law for jurisdiction over sexuality. As a consequence, discourse about homosexuality expanded from the realms of sin and crime to include that of pathology."
 * (2) Sexuality exists on a spectrum, and since homosexual acts were seen as sinful or criminal, only flamboyantly butch or effeminate people who were at the extreme ends of the spectrum were obvious to the public, especially in Protestant European societies. The third sex in India or berdaches in the Americas were accepted by their local cultures but seen as barbaric or pagan by Christians.  In the West, masculine men who had families and wives might still engage in sodomy occasionally, often, or in prison, at boarding school, or "in the navy".  This was not seen as "making them gay".  I once watched a Mexican movie where two male characters were obvious and open lovers.  I asked my friend "Are they maricones?"  The response was that the flirty "receptive" partner was, but that the other was just his mayate ("top" in American gay vernacular), and there were a lot of men who were mayates, including a few we worked with.  These men might exclusively sleep with maricones but were culturally "straight".  See Def #10.  Look also at Antinous, ritual pederasty among the Ancient Greek aristocracy, and among tribal Afghans ("gay taliban") and certain tribes of New Guinea.
 * Consider the sex lives of Christopher Hitchens and Aaron Hernandez, neither of whom would have been seen as gay. But the nominally "straight" public only sees the extremes whose flamboyance makes them both obvious, and objects of amusement, or ridicule, if not disgust.  The large number of people who engage in homosexual behavior are hidden, On the down low, due to family and societal pressures. (When I was coming out to people in the 80's, many didn't believe me, many said they had homosexual thoughts themselves, and a good number of my own sex (maybe 1/3) said they would like to try it--but that was against my policy.)
 * (3) With the androgyny of Glam Rock and New Wave in the 70's and 80's, and the admission by some like Elton John who admitted he was "bi", hits like The Kinks' "Lola" and Lou Reed's "Take a Walk on the Wild Side", acts like Culture Club and Eurythmics, it became cool at least to like sexual ambiguity at a distance. Queen's fans went from, "Gay? Never!" to "I always knew!"
 * (4) After the initial shock of AIDS, Rock Hudson's outing and the activism of the 90's there came a tipping point where everyone knew someone who was LGBTQ, or had come out as LGBTQ. They say the reason that the communist bloc fell was because while no one had really believed it, at some point everyone realized no one else did either.  According to Kurt Cobain in All Apologies, "Everyone is gay".  Not that there's anything wrong with that.
 * μηδείς (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Aboriginal Australians
How common is the term First Nations, a specific group of Aboriginal peoples in Canada, used to refer to Aboriginal Australians? I just noticed it linked here and was wondering if a hat note was needed at the Canadian First Nations article. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Never. They're called Aborigines or aboriginal Australians. Sleigh (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But there was an Australia's First Nations Political Party (AFNPP) federally registered with the Australian Electoral Commission from 6 January 2011 until 15 August 2015 when it failed to demonstrate evidence of the required 500 party members. There also exists a |"Sovereign Union" of "FIRST NATIONS WHO HAVE DECLARED THEIR SOVEREIGNTY USING A UNILATERAL DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE" viz. Murrawarri, Euahlayi Peoples, Mbarbaram, Wiradjuri Central West and Djurin republics. Blooteuth (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Never say never. Here's a few examples of references to Australia's First Nations:
 * http://nationalunitygovernment.org/content/difference-between-first-australians-and-first-nations
 * https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/arts/meaning-of-first-nations-peoples-australia-day-thought#axzz4gOqh4Lfz
 * https://independentaustralia.net/australia/australia-display/australia-needs-a-treaty-with-the-first-nations,7529
 * http://aiatsis.gov.au/publications/presentations/assembly-first-nations-and-treaty
 * http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-26/victoria-to-begin-talks-for-first-indigenous-treaty/7202492
 * Mitch Ames (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not especially common but not unknown per the above references. Hack (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks all. I've adjusted the First Nations page to cover it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to complicate it a little, First Nations in an Australian context could refer to Torres Strait Islanders, an Indigenous Australian group that is distinct from Aboriginal Australians. Hack (talk) 06:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well that's easily fixed. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Since then I have seen exactly one reference to the Yupik as First Nations]]. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

What expert considers democratic socialism to be part of libertarianism?
What expert considers democratic socialism to be part of libertarianism?

I ask this in reference to the diagram on the talk page of the Libertarianism article. Benjamin (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see that diagram, just a repeat of this Q there: . StuRat (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It is under "Libertarian classification diagram" at the top, you click to show it. Benjamin (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I see. It's in a collapse-box currently. StuRat (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I would note that the "democratic socialism" portion of that diagram has an asterisk leading to the caveat "in some forms". So it's not asserting that all of democratic socialism is libertarian, though it looks that way unless you peer closely enough to see the asterisk. Loraof (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

If there are no sources saying democratic socialism is part of libertarianism, are there any saying it's not? Benjamin (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether you'll find recent experts passing an opinion on this either way. And political science textbooks will aim to get students to understand the distinctions between these political currents rather than similarities and overlaps. Of the thinkers mentioned on the Libertarian page, those who would also be quite close to democratic socialism include Murray Bookchin and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. And it is rather simplistic to ask whether democratic socialism "is part of" or not part of libertarianism. One could ask instead what concept of freedom is held by proponents of each. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Is the image wrong or inappropriate? Benjamin (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * In the following you find the adjective "libertarian" used to qualify democratic socialism by constrast with communism. Some countries are therein quoted accordingly but without their government at the same time declared libertarian. I've no idea whether it does or not explain that similar point in the diagram. --Askedonty (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

A pound in England hundreds of years ago
I am pouring through articles and cannot find what I need.

Watching Blackadder season two, they talk of pounds. What were they made of, and what were they worth in terms of what one could buy? Sorry for the tough question. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Are they speaking of units of weight or currency? Valenciano (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Currency, as in one's money bag. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Most higher denomination coins then would have been made of gold (link) as for value, it's tough to estimate since must-have goods then and now were obviously different. Bearing that in mind, this tool would give an approximate idea for 1485 and 1585 (the approximate year of the first two series.) Valenciano (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The pound sterling is the currency in the UK; IIRC it used be the value of one troy pound (weight) of sterling silver. LongHairedFop (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * See also Sovereign (English coin) and Sovereign (British coin) for an alternative comparison.   D b f i r s   14:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The relevant pound was, iirc, smaller than the troy pound. —Tamfang (talk) 04:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * For several centuries after the Dark Ages the penny was the only coin made in Europe. That was so long ago that pennies were made of silverware-grade silver. If the value of silver was still like the New Testament one penny was enough silver to make a dude voluntarily work from sunrise to sunset if he was a day laborer. Large transactions had unwieldy numbers of pennies (tens or hundreds of thousands of pennies) so they were written in pounds. A pound would be a pound of silver (240 pennies), a shilling would be 1/20th of a pound and so on. Later, English gold coins were invented that were worth about then exactly as much as a pound (a pound coin made out of silver would've been ridiculously big obviously — a US silver dollar was an inch and a half wide and only weighed about an ounce). Even later they invented 5 pound coins that were large gold coins worth 1,200 pennies (which were now gigantic coins made of copper or bronze as greedy monarchs kept adding cheap metal to the silver till they took it out entirely). Today 5 pounds is worth an amount that's illegally cheap to hire a 25 year old at for 40 minutes and 1 second of work. It's about 6 bucks. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * In some areas during some parts of the Middle Ages, a tiny silver penny was considered equivalent to a day's labor, and was the only coin that circulated among ordinary people (as opposed to merchants, noblemen, and government officials), yet peasants and serfs would have rarely possessed such a coin. AnonMoos (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm so confused. :) Sterling? Isn't that silver? Is gold ever called sterling?

So, in England in 1500ish, when a person took a pound from his bag, was it gold? Was it a single, really valuable coin? Was it worth its weight in the metal it was made of? Could you buy a horse with it? A very large turnip? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the pound was originally a pound of sterling silver. The problem is that neither "pound" nor "silver" remained the same. Around 1500, a lot of things happened - see Pound_sterling. I can't find anything about the 1500, but around 1300, a knight needed an annual income of 40 pounds, and a commoner who made more than 5 pounds per year was a substantial person. A pound would probably buy more turnips than you would ever want to eat. Horse prices varied wildly with time, place, and quality. A pound would probably buy a cheap draft horse, but trained high-quality horses could be a lot more expensive (this source has examples of 10 pound for a riding horse and 80 pounds for a war horse). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * One of my high school Shakespeare books said that when his complete works were published on big pages in the 1600s it went for the lordly price of a pound (20 shilling). England's money was still on the silver standard and Europe was already experiencing silver inflation at that time (relative to both stuff and gold) because of the large amounts in the Americas. This would continue for most of the last half of the 2nd millennium. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, there was a gold coin with a face value of one pound, the Sovereign (English coin) (previously linked above) which was introduced in 1489. Whether it actually equalled the value of a pound of silver was variable, but that was the intention. Alansplodge (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all! Very interesting indeed. I'm grateful for the good answers. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * One thing no one brought up is that the pound sterling was the unit of account for much of British history, and that is distinct from being an actual currency. As noted above, for much of English history, the silver Penny, which actually weighed 1/240th of a pound (for any given definition of "silver" and "pound" was in use at the time in history) was really the only common circulating coin in England.  As noted in that article, from Offa to Henry III that was the only coin minted.  There was not a single coin called the "pound sterling" nor was there any fiat currency or paper money so designated.  Instead, as a unit of account, the pound sterling was used to denote the value of things one owned; such-and-such estate was worth so-and-so pounds sterling, such-and-such weight of gold was worth so-and-so pounds sterling and so on.  No one carried around actual pounds of sterling, unless they had big bags of coins which actually contained 240 pennies.  -- Jayron 32 10:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Although the question was about the Tudor period, wherein Blackadder II is set. Alansplodge (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * They still didn't carry around a one pound coin. -- Jayron 32 13:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, they might have carried one or more gold sovereigns which "typically had a nominal value of one pound sterling, or twenty shillings". Alansplodge (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that the Sovereign only had a nominal value in the sense that it was the value of one pound sterling of gold when it was first struck. Since the price of gold was allowed to vary freely, the coin was actually bullion, it had no face value, but rather its value in the unit of account varied depending on the market price of gold at the time.  Gold coins throughout the time period varied in value depending on market conditions, the Angel, an earlier coin, fluctuated greatly in value.  -- Jayron 32 16:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed; you might have got a few pence or even shillings more or less for your sovereign. But the days of carrying big bags of pennies had passed. Alansplodge (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If the Angel (coin) is to be believed, then it would be more than varying by a few pence. An angel would have had 80 grains of gold, so 1/3rd the value of a sovereign, but otherwise the coins would have fluctuated in value at the same pace, both being gold.  Multiplying the values from the Angel article by 3 we get a sovereign worth: 270 pence in 1526 (that is 1£.1s.10d) to 360 pence in 1550 (1£.10s.-)  A coin that fluctuates upto a third of its value in a matter of 24 years is a Big Deal; this by the way was due to the massive influx of silver from the New World during the 16th century, as silver went down in value, gold by comparison would go up.  -- Jayron 32 18:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Alansplodge (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the aristocracy didn't carry big bags of pennies anyways: when needed gold coins were imported from other places: florin had been circulating for several hundred years at that point, one of the articles noted above also notes the presence of Arabic gold in the British isles, likely Gold dinar. -- Jayron 32 19:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

This is so interesting. I've always wondered what was in those little bags they had. So, a rich person could have had no pennies in there, but maybe some shillings, and if quite rich, a bunch of those little gold coins, each worth maybe a pound sterling, which was the value of an actual pound of sterling silver, which was a huge amount of money, maybe a couple of months worth of work for a peasant. Am I sort of right on some of that? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Peasants were poorer back then then now though and especially in the early middle ages peasants were a much higher percent of the population. Certain things like cloth and books and not having to poop in an outhouse were much more valuable before the industrial revolution (Jesus said sell your cloak or shirt to buy a sword remember. Iron was much more valuable before mass production) Considering that somewhat smaller families still live in mobile homes and 2 room apartments today the size of housing a peasant has didn't really rise too much compared to how much technology advanced though. How much room did a Medieval peasant have? 1 room? If a quick Google search is correct a cheap horse is now about $500 (c. 50¢/lb). That's roughly 50 or 70 hours of minimum wage while 240 pennies, 1 per day at 12 hrs/day would've been 2,880 hours. There is less horse demand now then then of course but horse supply will also decrease as no one will manufacture horses than they can't sell. The cost of horse production isn't very amenable to assembly line or other modern technology reduction and horse specifications have only mildly improved so it's a bit more apples to apples than say a 1900 car vs a modern robot-made one. Comparing cheap horses to the modern equivalent (junk cars), 2,880 hours or 240 days of work seems way too much. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Sagittarian Milky Way. I like those equivalents. Are there any others you can give? I'm thinking of work that people did 500 years ago and still do, and things people bought then, and still do. How about picking apples or mending shoes and buying a whole chicken or a loaf of bread? What would be your guess of how many hours to buy those things? I often ask people when travelling about that. Currency conversion means nothing. I can get a good idea of how they get on by asking how many hours work to buy a whole chicken. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Revelation 6:6 says a (weird ancient) quart (or kilo) of wheat will cost a penny and three quarts of barley will cost a penny (day's wages). This is not what it cost, this would've been a great food shortage though not starvation if you could keep your other costs down. Common Roman Empire soldiers were paid 225 denariuses (close to a silver penny) a year (maybe they had above average free time, life was cheap or they let them keep some of what they plundered?). I unfortunately don't know much about this kind of thing actually and can't tell you about 500 years ago. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And a Scotsman might carry the family jewels next to the family jewels. StuRat (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * ". . . a rich person could have had no pennies in there, but maybe some shillings . . . ." Even a rich person would likely have carried pennies, because they might want to buy something worth much less than a shilling, and could not assume that the vendor would have enough to make up the change. Or they might wish to give a penny or two to an ordinary beggar or religious mendicant. However, if rich, they might well have had attendants/bodyguards with them who actually carried their money for them. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.183 (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Artcraft Studio
Trying to find more info about Artcraft Studio, a photographical studio located in Kapaa, Kauai in the 1900s. I am looking who was the company owner and the range of specific years the business was active. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * By 1900s, do you mean 1900-1909 or 1900-1999 ? StuRat (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 1900-1999.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * In that case, this seems like a long time for a single studio. Can you narrow it down further ? StuRat (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Stochastic discipline, a study of bread
What the following mean:

In 1918, he began to move to Vienna A "scholastic doctrine", a "study of bread" in Jura, which he failed after failing. State examination happily abandoned to switch to East Asia research. I think a study, means being unemployed, but scholastic doctrine, in Jura. scope_creep (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Taking it's only badly written, and not pure incoherence it's still not up to any level of my understanding. "Scholastic doctrine" is an expression that does not make sense. Scholasticism is a method, at best, doctrines may be buried under contexts.--Askedonty (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This looks like a poor computer translation from German. "Study of bread" is probably a literal rendering of German "Brotstudium", which (similar to "Brotberuf" – 'bread job') can be used to mean a course of study undertaken solely with the aim of earning one's livelihood, rather than driven by genuine interest in the subject. So, apparently somebody moved to Vienna, began studying law without being very much interested in the subject, failed his staatsexamen, and then abandoned that profession in favour of East Asian studies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's the apparent original: . "Nach dem Zusammenbruch des  Jahres  1918  mittellos  nach  Wien  verschlagen,  begann  er  nach einer  Schlosserlehre  ein  „Brotstudium“  in  Jura,  das  er  nach  nicht  bestandener  Staatsprüfung  glücklich  aufgab,  um  zur  Ostasienforschung  zu  wechseln." Rough translation: "Finding himself penniless in Vienna after the defeat of 1918, he first served an apprenticeship as a metalworker and then began to study law in order to make a living, but when he failed his state exams he was only too happy to give up this career in favour of East Asian studies". Quite funny, actually, that the translation algorithm derived "scholastic" from "Schlosser" ('metalworker'), apparently purely on the basis of superficial similarities of letters. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is half an OCR motivated algorithm. More seriously, it must have decided for "lehre" equals "doctrine", then after lexical order, selected from some imperatively organized list of links.
 * Well I'll admit I had completely forgotten about bread studies. --Askedonty (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Excellento or double excellento. That is more than I could do. I did various dictionaries, couple of extra translation, but no results. It is curious that you think that automatic translation is done, and then you realise that it has somewhat to go. Bing translate, which I thought was the better, perhaps worked better on simpler German language articles than Google, but didn't do much better. Thanks Folks. Reference Desk is a real boon. scope_creep (talk) 11:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've now tried Bing on the sentence and didn't find the result so bad. Like Fut.Perf., I remain quite uncertain about the origin of the „scholastic“ piece after all. --Askedonty (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Operation Sovereign Borders, Donald Trump, & Media Coverage
Is there any clear indication that Donald Trump might have known about Australia's Operation Sovereign Borders before or after the heated phone call with Malcolm Turnbull regarding the refugee resettlement deal with the Obama administration? Also, what is the reason behind the lack or media coverage in the West on the controversy surrounding the militarized sea borders and the detention of asylum seekers in Manus and Nauru islands especially when there has already been a relatively much discussion on Trump's desire to build a wall and the 2015 European Migrant Crisis? As far as I have seen, the only media groups and newspaper discussing there alleged crimes against humanity are the Australians themselves, the Guardian (UK), and a contributor (Roger Cohen?) to the New York Times. 70.95.44.93 (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It's because of the remoteness of the location. Few reporters will go there to report on something few back home will care about. StuRat (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not Manus, it's Papua New Guinea and it's not Nauru islands, it's Nauru. Sleigh (talk) 04:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Please don't post unsubstantiated allegations, including questions/speculation about living figures. If you have a factual, relevant and reliable source, feel free to post it. μηδείς (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)