Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 November 17

= November 17 =

Indian driving licences
Here in the USA, your driver's license can have an endorsement: this means that you have some special status, e.g. mine says that I have to wear glasses while driving, due to myopia, while someone else 's may say that he may drive a motorcycle, due to special training. According to driving licence in India, an endorsement is a statement of fault: if you commit a motoring violation, your licence has an endorsement related to India's Point system (driving). Does India have a term for what Americans call "endorsements", and if so, what is it? Nyttend (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Terms may differ in different parts of the U.S. In my state, a notation that you need corrective lenses to drive would be a "restriction"; an "endorsement" would be a notation that you can do something for which a non-endorsed license would not be sufficient (driving a bus, transporting hazardous material, etc.) - Nunh-huh 02:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, that's how mine is as well. Struck the erroneous parts.  I thought you were from New Zealand?  Of whom am I thinking?  Nyttend (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not know who, but I, for one, am definitely not native of nor emigrant to New Zealand :) .- Nunh-huh 06:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I was confusing you with Nil Einne, I think. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am from NZ.Nil Einne (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * As for what you can drive on an Indian licence, the official term seems to be "Classes and Vehicle Categories". I couldn't find anything about wearing glasses for Indian licences, but in the UK that information is encoded in the number on your licence. We too have endorsements for traffic offences.  Alansplodge (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * In Britain there is a penalty points system - when you reach a certain number you get banned.  On conviction the magistrate or judge may order the licence to be "endorsed".   There is also coding within the driver's number - for example the number FIELD962249JM9ZE 63 signifies to the examining officer:


 * First alpha symbols - driver's surname
 * 9 = 3rd digit of year of birth
 * 6 = 1st digit of date of birth in MM-DD format (increased by five if the driver is female)
 * 224 = remaining digits of date of birth
 * 9 = last digit of year of birth

He thus knows he should be speaking to a girl whose middle name begins with "M" and will turn 18 on Christmas Eve. Licences also carry a photograph. For a detailed analysis see. Do other countries operate this system? 82.13.208.70 (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It is not well known, but there is also an indication on a UK driving licence to indicate whether the driver wears glasses (or contact lenses) - it is shown by an "01" in section 12 of the licence. There is a list of other codes which indicate special requirements due to health or disability Wymspen (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Anecdotally, I have heard of a British driver in the US getting let off for speeding because the police officer saw the high number of endorsements and didn't want to ruin a near-perfect record. MChesterMC (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In California, no, the license number is just a sequentially generated number. Personal information such as name and date of birth are on the license elsewhere (here are examples in PDF format if you're really curious), as well as stored electronically by the Department of Motor Vehicles and available to law enforcement and some other groups. Note that in the U.S. drivers' licenses are state/territory matters. Things can differ between states, though usually not too much because of certain requirements in federal law and a desire by state governments to cooperate. Other than that, we have a points system, vehicle classes, endorsements and restrictions pretty close to other places mentioned above. There are likely some international agreements to harmonize drivers' licenses so they're not wildly different between countries; see for instance International Driving Permit. --47.157.122.192 (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Private debt to GDP
Is the private debt to GDP ratio about how much of all the transactions that year were on credit as a percentage of that year's GDP, or all the private debt in the country as a ratio of the yearly GDP or what? Thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, this says 156.7 in 2016 while this says 300 in 2017. Is that possible? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It’s “all the private debt in the country as a ratio of the yearly GDP“. That is, the numerator is the amount of debt ever incurred but not yet paid off. Loraof (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very kindly, Loraof! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Is this right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I’ve done some copy editing in the article. Loraof (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Splendid, Loraof. Thank you so much! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Loraof.

I'd like to add a table to Consumer debt like the ones in List of countries by wealth per adult and List of countries by external debt. Is this a good source? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, it’s the World Bank, so it’s a good source. Loraof (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Loraof, thank you! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

How did the British Empire end up with the Statute of Westminster?
What puzzles me is how did the political elites of Great Britain back in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries accept the idea of home rule of the British dominions and then allow the severance of last political ties and sovereignty in the Statute of Westminster instead of further integration in the form of an Imperial Federation especially in the case of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand? I can see how the Canadians, Australians, and Kiwis would prefer full independence since they each possesses a much lower population on a large territory compared to the Britain. However, I do not see why would the British accept that so easily. Did they think that the British colonial empire would last forever at least during the 1930s? 70.95.44.93 (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I've heard that the ~1867 Canadian Confederation was allowed to give them something so they don't feel like having another American Revolution down the road. And that the Civil War showed how easy it is for part of the continent to fight a war of independence. I don't know how true that is. If yes it worked since in 2017 Canada's still a proud part of the British Commonwealth and America never will be. Man, history would've been awesome if King George the Third wasn't such a dick. We'd be like a supercountry, maybe the capital would even move from London to New York (maybe not). Slavery might end earlier since it was illegal in England. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * 70.95.44.93 -- part of it was how in 1914 the British government kind of unilaterally decreed the Dominions into the war. The Quebecois were not too enthused about that, and in Ireland it helped set the stage for a violent bloody secession.  It was better to find a framework to recognize the effective reality that the dominions were reaching political/economic maturity, rather than to inappropriately treat them as old-style colonies. AnonMoos (talk) 03:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Why didn't the Quebecois care about liberating France? Or at least not enough to risk their lives for it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe Isolationism? Americans also weren't very happy about being pulled into either world war. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Sagittarian Milky Way -- at that time the Quebecois were very Catholic, and often not in sympathy with developments of French revolutionary ideas such as the recently-passed 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State. The main Wikipedia article is Conscription Crisis of 1917. AnonMoos (talk) 07:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Makes sense. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The answer is that that the idea was rejected by the Dominions at various Imperial Conferences. They were concerned that the UK and England specifically would have a built in majority in any Imperial Parliament (compare the populations even today, England 55 m vs Australia 25 m and Canada 35 m. The disparity was much greater in 1900). See News and the British World: The Emergence of an Imperial Press System, 1876-1922 (p. 56) Additionally, it didn't fit the free trade world view of the Liberal Party which dominated British politics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The First World War put the last nail in the coffin of the Federation project, because the nationhood of the Dominions had been made very real by their participation in the conflict. look at Anzac Day for example. User:Sagittarian Milky Way's suggestion about the War of Independence seems highly unlikely to me to have had any bearing; perhaps he has a reference? Alansplodge (talk) 09:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure of the source. Maybe Canadian History for Dummies or its competitor the Complete Idiot's Guide to Canadian History (one of which I've read some of), maybe some Internet forum. (in case anyone's confused, America doesn't actually have thousands of insulting book titles written for the mentally challenged, the names are hyperbole). I'd read that by the time North America had 2 bloody independence wars (1775-1781 and 1861-65) the British were more amenable to placating their North American colonies instead of treating them like fully non-autonomous colonies and risking loss of the 18th century first mover advantage of lots of loyalists and loyalist refugees some time in the further future. (like 20th century?) I don't know enough to say if that's accurate. But the lower-quality outnumbered American troops were such an underdog even France wouldn't ally till they survived a few years and won anything significant. One can understand why the British didn't give more than tokenish compromise compared to after they'd fought their colonies at least twice and lost (War of 1812). Yes I realize America was lucky Napoleon and Louis the XVI kept the British busy while the "winning" was happening. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the War of 1812 was a "win" for the United States. At best, both sides fought to a stalemate on land, with neither side able to capture and hold any appreciable amount of the other's territory.  The United States was never able to break the Royal Navy blockade that motivated the U.S. declaration of war in the first place.  The war ended when both sides got tired of it and had exhausted their reasons to fight in the first place; the Treaty of Ghent put everything back status quo ante bellum.  You could argue that the United States didn't lose, but it's a stretch to call that a "win".  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * So it was a tie but a draw on land (not even home biome advantage often) and roughly similar casualty ratio against a more industrial nascent superpower that might've reconquered if things went better and making that superpower financially hurt to kill only 2,200 men seems like a win. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * What America won from the War of 1812 was the Battle of New Orleans, and hence President Andrew Jackson; and "The Star-Spangled Banner". What the British won was effectively an end to the hostilities between us, which would come in handy in the 20th Century when they needed us. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The Star Spangled Banner was the earlier Baltimore battle. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Battle of Baltimore, September of 1814, during which "The Star-Spangled Banner" was written. Note the semicolon in my previous comment. I probably should have reversed the two items, to make them chronological. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The elites of Britain in the late 19th and early 20th century were wearisome of providing for the defense and administration of territories that were capable of self-government. A centrally-administerred British Empire run from London was inefficient.  Pre-Victorian era, Britain outsourced the defense and administration of many parts of its colonial empire to private corportations (Hudson's Bay Company, East India Company, later Cecil Rhodes various African ventures, etc.)  Such quasi-governnmental arrangements fell out of favor when their lack of oversight and human rights abuses became liabilities for the Empire, and Britain gradually began direct rule of many of these territories (British Raj, etc.) After World War I, it became clear within Britain that maintaining a centrally-administerred world-wide empire was not in the best interest of Britain itself, and began the process of spinning those places off into independent states.  The Statute of Westminster was neither the start nor the end of that process; a process that began before WWI and ended in the 1980s.  The British "elite" as you call them were central in the theory behind it.  Lord Dunham is perhaps the first to propose what became known as the theory of responsible government, which was the British Empire's way of spinning off various colonies as quasi-independent states, and his ideas were not widely acceptable when he proposed them (as revolutionary ideas frequently are not) but it was part of a longer tradition of liberalization as seen by Whig political theory as first put together by leaders such as the Earl Grey.  In simple terms, Classical liberalism as a political theory was a dominant political theory of much of British "elites" during the 19th and early 20th century, and the Statute of Westminster is an expected part of that thinking.  -- Jayron 32 12:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As Jayron  already described, to put it very simple it is a result of political history. You can find a very similar odd looking political reality in today's world biggest taxhaven, City of London, with the difference that our article for that contains allot more about its historical/political development. --Kharon (talk) 07:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC) 07:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Citation needed that the City is a "taxhaven" please. Alansplodge (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There's lots of reliable sources that talk about it in those terms. See for example ,,, . It is seen quite commonly elsewhere in Britain as a separate entity with undue power in the government that sucks money away from them and makes them poor. And citation for that see for example where they are quite rightly worrying about Brexit and the effect if bankers leave 'Once, the reflex response to that would have been a yelped “Good riddance to the parasitic swine” (that’s the censored version, obviously)' Dmcq (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * @Alansplodge: You actually live in London and you don't know? Seriously??--Kharon (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm no expert but I think those articles are using the term somewhat subjectively; the City is dissimilar to true tax havens like the Cayman Islands for example. Our Tax haven article doesn't mention London but does mention the United States as a tax haven. Anyhow, does this have anything to do with the original question? Alansplodge (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The article says as its second sentence 'There is no generally accepted definition of what renders a country or jurisdiction a tax haven' so I guess there is no such thing as a true or false tax haven. Dmcq (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * @Alansplodge: Seriously? --Kharon (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear on 'A global map of tax havens, using the list in the proposed 2007 "Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act", US Congress' which is included in the article. However, I bow to your superior insistence. Alansplodge (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I have thought with myself about this idea. Perhaps a "confederation of federations", where (say) Yorubaland would be part of a Federation of West Africa, which would in turn be part of a British Confederation?—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 04:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

During the first third of the Twentieth Century, various Imperial Conferences were held, usually in London, during which the heads of government of the Dominions would gather and work together. The 1926 conference produced the Balfour Declaration, which stated that each of the Dominions was self-governing, and not subject to rule by the British Government. The Boer War, and World War One had demonstrated to Australia at least that there were advantages to participating as a constituent but autonomous part of the Empire, rather than as part of a unified whole under British rule. Australia, at least, had participated in the Versailles talks after the war as an independent nation.

The 1930 Imperial Conference formalised the arrangement with the Statute of Westminster, which was adopted later and severally by the Dominions. It was accepted that they would worl together as part of the Empire, but as self-governing entities. The best analogy I can find is where the children grow up, became adults, and sit around the table with their parents. The parents are first among equals, but the children are no longer dependents.

One consequence of the Balfour Declaration was that the British Government (via the Colonial Secretary) no longer advised the monarch to appoint Governors-General, and this task was given over to the various Dominion Prime Ministers. Along with any other circumstance where the monarch needed advice on Dominion matters. Australian PM James Scullin advised King George V to appoint Sir Isaac Isaacs as the first Australian-born Governor-General, against the wishes of the King, who preferred someone British. Scullin insisted, and the King had npo coice but to accept. --Pete (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Dmcq's link is seven years old and rather outdated.  Political parties do now participate in the elections to the Court of Common Council (the last one was on 23 March). 92.8.223.3 (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're getting at. Anyway candidates to the Court of Common Council must be Freemen of the City of London. Dmcq (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * They also have to be City residents.  See, . 92.8.223.3 (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You still did not explain what you are trying to get at. And being a resident is about the least specific requirement, being a Freeman of the City is very specific. What you have said just seems to be just some fact picked at random off the web, have you a reason for saying it? Dmcq (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The most striking feature of City elections is that it's not "one man one vote" - probably the only example of this remaining.  It has many curious customs not seen elsewhere - for example the "silent ceremony" at which the new Lord Mayor assumes office.   This was last performed on 10 November when the 690th Lord Mayor was inducted (the actual number of lines in our List of Lord Mayors of London article is 762 - see note to List of presidents of the United States). 92.8.223.3 (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am going to assume you are a robot. Dmcq (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Branding on large infrastructure projects
Why is it that on large infrastructure projects, all the companies involved whether the core client, programme management partners, contractors etc all seem to brand themselves with the project logo rather than their own company logo? 82.132.228.76 (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You're going to have to give us an example of that happening in practice, with links and photos, if you're going to get a meaningful answer. --Viennese Waltz 14:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Crossrail In london was all Crossrail branded. Everything including letters, hoarding, offices etc. 46.233.90.41 (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "A brand can give a project an identity and help it deliver extra value, says Donnie MacNicol [a project, programme and organisational consultant]. The accumulated wisdom of traditional project management provides the basis for winning the minds of team members. Winning the hearts of the team, and thereby getting the best out of them, requires an emotional attachment to the project. To do this, the project must have an identity". Project branding - giving your project an identity from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Alansplodge (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)