Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 September 2

= September 2 =

Novels with different titles in the US and UK
There's a book coming up in 2018, a novel by James Patterson. In the United States, its title is "17th Shooter". In the United Kingdom, it's "17th Scandal". Are there lots of novels with different titles depending on the country?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:WHAAOE: List of works with different titles in the United Kingdom and United States. A famous example is that the UK Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is called Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the US. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note also as the list itself says, the list is likely to be very incomplete, perhaps intentionally so depending on the sourcing requirements and whether the works need to be notable. Offhand, I know one book in Elizabeth Moon's Vatta's War series Marque and Reprisal was published as Moving Target in the UK (and as is common, also NZ and Australia), mentioned in both these articles but not the list. Well it wasn't until I added it, and I probably wouldn't if we didn't have an article on the series and I didn't easily find sources. (Well probably many library databases will note the difference, but I'm not sure of their acceptance so I likely wouldn't have used them.) I'm sure I've come across other science fiction or fantasy novels with different titles before but can't remember them offhand and I don't read nearly as widely as I should. Nil Einne (talk) 06:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In my experience (45 years a fan) it's not rare. Spurred by this query, I've already added an Isaac Asimov title (The Death Dealers / A Whiff of Death), and I think I'll now go and add Alfred Bester's The Stars My Destination / Tiger! Tiger!. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}
 * [Edited to add. . .] I've just been reading the full bibliography of Brian Aldiss (for sadly obvious reasons) in the online The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (which gives both US and UK editions and titles), and no less than 12 of his works qualify (excluding more minor variations). 90.204.180.96 (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The Madness of King George μηδείς (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a novel, and the film has the same title in both the UK and the USA. DuncanHill (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

drawing blood
I was reading this news story and initially thought it was talking about drawing blood from a drunk driver. But it turns out the suspect had actually died in the crash and that the cop was trying to draw blood from the victim of the crash. Is this a normal thing in America? What's the purpose of drawing blood from a crime victim? Mũeller (talk) 06:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know how widely it's practiced but the article you linked to explains the reason why the officer wanted to draw blood so I'm not sure why you're asking here about the purpose.  I would note that it's always possible there's a risk initial impressions about the accident aren't quite accurate. So one party may not be entirely the victim even if they initially seem to be, and this isn't just in the US. In some cases this would apply even if the other driver is fleeing the police since either the law or insurance may not, for example, allow a driver to intentionally ram someone regardless of that person fleeing, if this driver isn't the police. (Actually I'm not sure whether intentional ramming by the police is generally covered by insurance or instead the government. Also in most countries the police also have guidelines and limits on how they can engage in chases.) To be clear I'm not saying this happened here, I have no reason to think it did, my point is solely that without a careful  analyse analysis of precisely what happened which generally takes quite a long time, it's often difficult to precisely assign fault and responsibility in a car crash so you should always be cautious about saying someone is solely a victim of the car crash.  Nil Einne (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC) Edited at: 08:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree that at the time of the incident the officers had no reason to assume who the victim was. Not even sure that the officer who was sent to draw the blood was ever at the scene of the accident; that sounds like a specialty where you call in the officer with the proper certificate.


 * I would also note that it is standard police procedure pretty much anywhere that when there is a collision and someone dies, the other driver is compelled to undergo a quick field sobriety test. There have been cases where the family of the dead driver accused the other driver of being drunk, and he ended up glad having a record that he blew a 0.00 on the breathalyzer.


 * The full video from one of the other officer's body cam is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJPVglqR4yM


 * There is a lot of standing around at first; the action occurs around 5:30. Also note the part starting around 11:00 where the officer's supervisor talks to the nurse.


 * My personal opinion is that the officer abused his power when there was no reason why he could not have discussed the matter further, waited for the nurse's supervisor, waited for his supervisor, etc. But that's just my opinion. Watch the video and decide for yourself.


 * Also significant in my opinion is the fact that the policy the nurse was quoted had been agreed to by the police department. I think that the officer should not have ignored that important fact. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This article provides some information. According to this article a blood sample was being requested not from a deceased individual but from an "unconscious" or "comatose" individual. Bus stop (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure of your point, Bus stop, as I don't think anyone thought or has suggested otherwise. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.204.180.96 (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. I misread the question. Bus stop (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Another possible reason for the blood draw from the victim is to find drugs and thus shift blame for the accident on him, and away from the police pursuit. StuRat (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, per StuRat, the police can be liable if a bystander is injured as a result of a police chase, so there are rules about exactly when the police are allowed to chase someone. However, going by news discussions (IANAL etc), the liability doesn't apply in Utah if the injured person was intoxicated.  There were people saying that the chase was improper to begin with, so they wanted the victim's blood on the off chance they might find something to get out of the liability.  And of course since the guy was in a burn ICU, he was probably pumped all full of painkillers and whatnot by the hospital, so they would have found that and maybe tried to use it. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 04:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It seems there's been lots of attention paid to the false arrest of the nurse, but very little to the illegal attempt to draw blood from an accident victim, without his consent, which caused it all.  That must be considered a crime, too.  I am unclear on if they actually did the illegal blood draw once the nurse was removed.  If they did draw blood, that would be assault, I imagine, since it does cause some minor damage to the body. (If somebody stuck you with a needle while walking down the street that certainly would be assault.)  Then there's the issue of the police pursuit.  I've seen no info on why they were chasing the suspect and if this pursuit was within departmental guidelines. StuRat (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * ER nurse’s arrest now the focus of criminal investigation
 * SLC mayor, police chief apologize for officer who arrested nurse; criminal investigation to follow
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I've just noticed that we've had an article the nurse since 2012. Bus stop (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * There are times when I wonder if there is really any definition of "consent" at all. A guy and a girl get drunk at a university and end up in the sack - maybe they say the guy raped the girl, maybe not, it seems random.  Police get drunk suspects to "consent" to blood tests and other tests all the time.  Can a drunk person consent to an emergency hospital procedure, or to a bank transaction at the casino?  It seems like in each instance the ethics, such as they are, are situational, tailored to the specific stakeholders surrounding the transaction. Wnt (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Age of consent is related. That is, isn't it remarkable how children develop the ability to give consent at such dramatically different ages, depending on their nation and the era in that nation ?  Often their ability to give consent varies with their gender, if they are married, and whether they are consenting to heterosexual or homosexual activity. StuRat (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

statistics on direction of transition for transgender people
How many people have transitioned/are transitioning/have identified as trans in each direction (M-->F, F-->M, or other directions if they exist)? I'm particularly interested in U.S. Military statistics, but any statistics would be appreciated. (I looked through several Wikipedia articles and found the Transgender Service in the U.S. Military handbook online, but no statistics on direction that I could see.)--Wikimedes (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A quick web search indicates mtf is more frequent. I've also been told it's possible to transition more than once.  No idea how often that happens. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (EC) This source [//www.marieclaire.com/culture/g3065/transgender-facts-figures/] mentions data from The Williams Institute with a link to this [//williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/military-related/us-transgender-military-service/]. The full report is linked there [//williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Transgender-Military-Service-May-2014.pdf]. They estimate the transgender population who have done military service in the US as: Veterans (assigned male) 118,300 & Veterans (assigned female) 11,400; Retired Guard/ Reserve (assigned male) 3,600 & Retired Guard/ Reserve (assigned female) 1,000; Guard/ Reserve (assigned male) 5,300 & Guard/ Reserve (assigned female) 1,400; Active duty (assigned male) 7,300 & Active duty (assigned female) 1,500. The research itself says it relies on a number of assumptions etc and is only a research brief. Note that one thing it relied on was the National Transgender Discrimination Survey which tried to cover the general US population and which found that 60% of participants were male assigned at birth and 40% female assigned at birth. The definition for transgender the NTDS used was While none of this directly tells you how they transitioned, if at all, it's a start. And if you wanted more detailed stastics, even for the US military, looking at the NTDS and seeing if you can glean more detailed info would likely be a resonable idea. In the case of the military, you could probably replicate their methodology (assuming you can still make the adjustments) to come up with your own estimates using any more detailed statistics derived from the NTDS albeit with the understanding the more detailed you go, the more you are making assumptions that could be wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 04:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting information. Thank you both.--Wikimedes (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Coming back to an abandoned embassy
The Embassy of Cuba in Washington, D.C. did not function as such from 1961 to 2015, due to problematic relations between Cuba and the US. From the 1970s until 2015, it was officially a part of the Swiss embassy (Switzerland being the protecting power for the two states) but used by Cuban officials. But between 1961 and the 1970s semi-reopening, how was it maintained? Does the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations have some provision for the maintenance of diplomatic properties in the event of a break in relations? Our article on the Former Embassy of Iran in Washington, D.C. says that the property's maintained by the US State Department, but I'm not sure whether this is standard for former embassies in the US, let alone whether it's standard worldwide. This is quite different from the status of the Embassy of the United States, Tehran, which was taken over by the Iranian government for military purposes, but given past events, that's not surprising. Nyttend (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure if it answers your question, but there are examples of evacuated embassy buildings simply being left alone to decay for decades. --Soman (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I dimly recall a news story from a decade or two ago about a US(?) embassy building in Russia(?), being re-occupied after a temporary gap in occupancy, having to be stripped internally and completely refurbished in order to remove all the listening devices that had been installed during the absence. I haven't managed to find a reference, however. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.204.180.96 (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The Bugged Embassy Case: What Went Wrong Nanonic (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1988? Doesn't time fly! OK, a decade or three. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.23.195} 90.204.180.96 (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In China, from 1950, when many embassies moved to Taiwan, the diplomatic facilities they left behind tended to have been confiscated by the new government, and used as government facilities. When those countries established relations with the People's Republic, quite often one of the things they needed to agree on first was compensation for the confiscated property. The UK's case was relatively unique, as it was the only major Western power to recognise the new Chinese government early on. However, a series of disturbances in 1967, including a fire at the Beijing embassy, led to some British diplomats leaving China and some properties being confiscated in 1967-1969. Relations resumed in 1971, when the Chinese government paid to restore the embassy in Beijing. Compensation for other British diplomatic and consular property confiscated in 1967 was eventually dealt with in a 1987 treaty. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Why did the CCC mandate that its participants send $25 home to their dependents?
Did they mandate this so that participants would not spend on unnecessary things, because their basic necessities were provided? I can't find a satisfactory explanation online, and would really appreciate some help understanding.

Thanks HarryOtter (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I think this is referring to the Civilian Conservation Corps. Nanonic (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I am fairly sure he is referring to the CCC. μηδείς (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Nanonic is right, and as to the question, I'm sure the original poster's guess is right. Right in the WP article it says that "The CCC was designed to provide jobs for young men, and to relieve families". Here it says that their families "were often quite destitute".  Here, "for his parents' subsistence".  Here, it "was a blessing to many poor families".  By not letting the men spend it themselves, it ensured that the families would get some help. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. And getting drunk, gambling, and going to prostitutes would be how many young men would spend the money, if they could, whether legal or not.  So, a government relief effort could end up being seen as responsible for this.  That wouldn't look good. StuRat (talk) 03:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * By way of additional supporting evidence, here is the president's first fireside chat to mention the CCC. He does not talk about the money sent home, but he does say that the program is "especially" intended to employ "young men who have dependents". The implication that the dependents' welfare matters seems clear to me. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 04:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Also note that this type of paternalist attitude which we would find intrusive today was more widespread then. Henry Ford had all sorts of moral rules for his employees, such as no unmarried cohabitation.  Violating those rules would get you fired and evicted from company housing.  During the Great Depression, this combo could be a death sentence.StuRat (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * If you're living in someone else's property, you're subject to their rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Within legal limits. StuRat (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * See article Company town. For the ugly side of company-town paternalism, see the 1894 Pullman Strike.  Even many of George Pullman's fellow industrial magnates and gilded-age plutocrats thought he was kind of an asshole... AnonMoos (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I can't find sources on the Guinness Website about "largest gay/lgbt pride parades"
Hi, I'm editing São Paulo Gay Pride Parade and I can't find primary sources on this one. I know that they aren't encouraged, but it's not like I can't use either. The thing is, I believe I have to use the primary source in this game, because the online resources I'm getting are all over the place. I've seen claims going back to 2006. I'm not sure at all what's going in here. Cheers! User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 23:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * List of largest LGBT events 173.228.123.121 (talk) 04:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link, but I need an specific link for Guinness, or at least something that references information from the Guinness book. Anyone? User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 01:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this the sort of thing that Guinness records? Blueboar (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest, I don't really know. I just know that a few articles, including the portuguese language wikipedia article about the São Paulo Gay Pride Parade, make such claims. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 02:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This article pt:Parada do orgulho LGBT de São Paulo includes Guinness data for 2006.  According to :

"A edição 2008 do 'Guinness' excluiu o recorde de público da Parada Gay de São Paulo, contrariando a expectativa dos organizadores do evento. A falta de um dado confiável sobre o tamanho da multidão pode ser um dos motivos. Dificilmente, a Parada voltará ao livro dos recordes na próxima edição. ..."

"A equipe do Guinness é bastante criteriosa na inclusão de um recorde. São exigidos documentos e relatos de testemunhas. Em muitos casos, um fiscal do Guinness acompanha a quebra do recorde. ..."

"O 'Guinness' utiliza o dado fornecido pela PM, e não pela organização. Prefere-se uma fonte governamental por considerar que a ONG responsável pelo evento tem interesses na quebra do recorde."

"A edição 2007 do 'Guinness' foi a última que trouxe o registro do recorde do evento. Na página 89, o feito é destacado nos seguintes termos: 'Em 17 de junho de 2006, a Parada do Orgulho GLBT (Gays, Lésbicas, Bissexuais e transgêneros), que ocorre todos os anos em São Paulo, Brasil, atraiu 2,5 milhões de pessoas'. Esse dado foi fornecido pela PM e é menor do que o 'divulgado' pela organização da Parada (3 milhões)."

"No ano passado, um dos organizadores da semana do orgulho gay havia dito que o Guinness registraria, em 2008, o recorde de 3,5 milhões."

"Procurada pela Folha Online, a assessoria da Ediouro, que publica o livro no Brasil, confirmou que a edição 2008 do livro não traz o recorde da Parada Gay. Informou que cabe aos organizadores do evento solicitar a atualização dos recordes, cumprindo os critérios do Guinness. O recorde conquistado na edição de 2007 está garantido, pois nenhuma outra parada no mundo superou a de São Paulo."

"Se serve de consolo, a edição 2008 do 'Guinness' traz um outro recorde de interesse dos gays. Na página 125, o livro registra que o maior festival gay do mundo é o Mix Brasil: Festival da Diversidade Sexual."

''The 2008 edition of "Guinness" excluded the record of the attendance at the Gay Parade of São Paulo, contrary to the expectation of the organisers of the event. Lack of trustworthy data on the size of the multitude could be one of the motives. It will be difficult for the Parade to return to the book of records in the next edition.''

''The Guinness team is sufficiently thorough in the inclusion of a record. Documents and witness accounts are required. In many cases, a Guinness inspector is present at the breaking of the record.''

Guinness utilises the data furnished by the P[olícia]M[ilitar] [Military Police] ''and not by the organisation. A government source is preferred through considering that the ONG [Non-Governmental Organisation] responsible for the event has interests in the breaking of the record.''

''The 2007 edition of "Guinness" was the last which carried the register of the record of the event. On page 89, the event is highlighted in the following terms: "On 17 June 2006, the GLBT Parade of Pride, (Gays, Lesbians, Bissexuals and transgender), which occurs every year in São Paulo, Brazil, attracted 2.5 million people". This data was furnished by the PM and is less than that "divulged" by the organisation of the Parade (3 million).

In the past year, one of the organisers of the gay pride week has said that Guinness would register, in 2008, the record of 3.5 million.

Approached by Folha Online, [Folha de S. Paulo newspaper] ''the public relations department of Ediouro, which publishes the book in Brazil, confirmed that the 2008 edition of the book did not carry the record of the Gay Parade. It confirmed that it falls to the organisers of the event to solicit the confirmation of the records, conforming with the Guinness criteria. The record achieved in the 2007 edition is guaranteed, because no other parade in the world surpassed that of São Paulo.''

''If it's any consolation, the 2008 edition of "Guinness" carries another record of interest to gays. On page 125, the book registers that the major gay festival of the world is Mix Brazil: Festival of Sexual Diversity.''  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:3213:B601:54B5:CAD6:13A5:3AB9 (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

See also:

"'Ninguém tem dúvida que tem mais gente que no ano passado', disse André Guimarães, produtor do evento. Coma a Polícia Militar não divulgou seu número para o evento de hoje, a reportagem perguntou a Guimarães se isto não pode difficultar que o 'Guinness', o famoso livro dos recordes, reconheça o novo número."

"Guimarães disse não ter dúvida de que a publicação irá acatar o novo recorde. Ele afirmou que há muitas fotografias que podem provar que mais gente se aglomerou no trajeto que no ano passado."

''"Nobody has doubt that there are more people than last year", said André Guimarães, producer of the event. Since the Military Police did not divulge their number for today's event, reporters asked Guimarães if that might not make it difficult for "Guinness", the famous book of records, to recognise the new number.''

''Guimarães said there was no doubt that the publication will accept the new record. He affirmed that there are many photographs which can prove that more people congregated along the route than last year.'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:3213:B601:54B5:CAD6:13A5:3AB9 (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)