Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2014 January 13

= January 13 =

How to link endnotes in open office
I cannot find this information on the internet. I am writing a document with endnotes. I write references in the format [1] [2] [3] at the end of sentences and then at the end of the paper I list all the references. But now I want to link the reference in my endnotes to the sentences they refer to. Is there a quick way to link all the [1]s, all the [2]s together... Thank you! ( I am using Open Office) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.224.245 (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A quick google points to this at the OpenOffice Wiki. WegianWarrior (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I have already written all the references at the end. Is there a way to link? I want to avoid having to prepare all the endnotes again from the start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.224.245 (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

What kind of degree is a "D.PSc"?
I thought at first it was a Doctor of Psychology edit: Psychiatry, but that would be an MD, right? -- Brainy J  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 15:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Psychology will often be a separate faculty from medicine, see Doctor of Psychology. However, for some reason, all searches around those initials seem to come up with names of practicing psychologists in Kentucky (and particularly in Louisville). There may be something about that state's licensing requirements for psychologists, or how degrees at one particular university are labelled. --Xuxl (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with Xuxl. The relevant articles in Wikipedia would seem to be List of doctoral degrees awarded by country and List of professional designations in the United States, but it is not listed there.--Shantavira|feed me 17:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely no reason to suppose that a psychologist would have an MD. There is some reason to suppose that a psychiatrist would have one, but I wouldn't bank on it. (In the UK, many (most?) of those who practice medicine, in all fields, do not hold an MD degree). --ColinFine (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoops, mixed up the words psychologist and psychiatrist again. I know the difference but I still say/type the wrong one sometimes... -- Brainy J  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 17:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The capitalisation suggests three words: D(octor of) P**** Sc****. I'd guess that'd be Doctor of P**** Science. Psychological Science perhaps? (Googling suggests that's normally "DPsychSc", but it could be a variation.) The other option suggested by Google is that it's "Doctor of Philosophy (Science)", i.e. the equivalent of a PhD but in a scientific field, but that normally seems to be "PhD(Sc)". Proteus (Talk) 18:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Found the answer with a bit more Googling: "When seeking natural health services - look for the D.PSc or PSc.D designation following the practitioners name. These mean PMA licensed...". So it's not a degree, it's a license given by the Pastoral Medical Association, which is "an ecclesiastical (spiritually based) private membership of health care practitioners from all areas of health care, counseling and ministry that have joined in private membership with families seeking safe, Bible-based health and wellness solutions." So this is definitely not a standard medical doctor, but some kind of complementary and alternative medicine.-- Brainy J  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 21:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I regard those combinations of letters as an instance of passing off, but that's not what this page is for. --ColinFine (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The novel "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence"
Was it awarded a nobel prize — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.49.64 (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The author, Robert Pirsig, does not appear on the List of Nobel laureates in Literature.
 * So I'm pretty sure the answer is no. It did not. APL (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * (ec) No. Nobel prizes are awarded to people, not books. Robert Pirsig, the author, did not win a Nobel Prize. The highest awards for an American book would be the National Book Award, but Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance did not win it. Looie496 (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance was published in 1974; the 1974 Nobel prize for literature "was divided equally between Eyvind Johnson [...] and Harry Martinson."  ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The book is not a novel. Nobel prizes are not awarded by the year of accomplishment, but often years or decades later.  There are also the Pulitzer Prizes to consider for American authors. μηδείς (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * PMJI but while it is true that the Nobel Prize for Literature is awarded for the cumulative achievement of an author, this was expressly not Alfred Nobel's intention. His will is clear that the prizes are to be awarded to the person "who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit to mankind .. one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction". Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Now that is interesting. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If it is "not a novel" then the article needs to be corrected, as well as Category:1974 novels. ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What?! The book is absolutely a novel.  It's an autobiographical novel, but still a novel. Looie496 (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The book is categorically a novel, despite Medeis' earlier assertion. Just to be clear, our own article commences with "... is a 1974 philosophical novel...". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have asked that the interaction ban be implemented ASAP. It's time for you to shut up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This type of comment in not appropriate here. Please keep discussion to the subject at hand.  The above needs to be moved to the talk page or elsewhere. 193.169.86.13 (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The above IP is trying to imitate TRM and get him into trouble. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No he/she is not. He/she is suggesting telling others to "shut up" is uncivil and unnecessary as well you know.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Moby Dick would be in the category 'books about hunting whales'. Such a category would tell you little regarding what the book was about. Both 'Zen...' and 'Moby Dick' are novels, but both are more than just 'novels'... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We seem to have different expectations of novels, and I am not looking to argue a point. Perhaps I was confused by it being carried in the philosophy sections of bookstores and being presented as non-fiction. In any case no one seems to have objected to the fact that there are literature prizes besides the Nobel, and that one doesn't need to win the Nobel in any specific year in relation to a specific work. μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Moby-Dick. No hyphen, no points. Tevildo (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Moby Dick is fiction. Being fictional is a requirement of being a "novel". By definition.
 * (You'll sometimes see in reviews that autobiographies or historical accounts "read like novels" in the sense that they're very narrative. ) APL (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, this is interesting. I don't think it can be called a novel: "work of fiction" is more appropriate. I've tweaked the article appropriately, but not entirely--note that Category:American philosophical novels is still in there, but IMO that category needs to be renamed; Category:Philosophical novels incorrectly listed Philosophical novel as the main article, but that's a redirect to Philosophical fiction. I'd like to change "novels" to "fiction" in all the subcategories and rename the main one. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Novels do have to be fictional - our Novel article begins: "A novel is a long prose narrative that describes fictional characters and events, usually in the form of a sequential story." - and Wiktionary is even more direct, defining the modern meaning of the word as: "A work of prose fiction, longer than a short story.". Basically, the only thing that really separates "novel" from "fiction" is the length of the piece.  So a very short, fictional work is NOT a novel - but all novels are fiction.  So, yes - it does make perfect sense to replace "novel" with "fiction" whenever length is not a factor.   In that sense, "Philosophical novel" is a subset of all "Philosophical fiction" - which would also include philosophical short stories and essays of a fictional nature.  Of course there are books that blur the line - writing speculatively about a historical figure, for example, has elements of fiction - but doesn't necessarily bring in fictional characters or events into play.


 * This specific book clearly blurs those lines. The book is described as "autobiographical" in Robert M. Pirsig - and the characters that appear in it (like his son, Chris) are evidently real people.  Whether the events of the book really happened is harder to say - particularly the conversations about philosophy.  Our article on Pirsig says: "His difficult experiences as a student in a course taught by Richard McKeon were later described, thinly disguised, in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.".   Does "thinly disguised" mean that he crossed the line into fiction - and thereby made his book be a novel?


 * I think it's a mistake to draw a bright line between fiction and non-fiction (and therefore between "autobiography" and "novel")...but unfortunately, the Wikipedia classification system imposes a bright line decision upon us. In my opinion, it should be in both fiction and non-fiction categories for two reasons:


 * It contains elements of both fiction and autobiographical fact - so it is BOTH a novel AND an autobiography - so it belongs in both categories.
 * The Category system exists to help navigation of Wikipedia - it's not, in itself, a repository of knowledge. We do not (for example) demand a reliable source before placing something into a specific category - and nobody should say "X is a Y, for sure, just because Wikipedia places X in category Y".  People searching for information about philosophical works - both fictional and non-fictional - would benefit from finding our article on this book,  so placing it in both categories is useful.   Obviously, over-doing the placement of articles in multiple, disparate categories would result in a more cluttered, less useful system - but this book is of such massive importance, that I feel it's justified.
 * I do think that the statement in the lede of the article that says that this is fictional should be more nuanced - especially since it flatly contradicts what we say in our article about the author, which says that it's an autobiography. SteveBaker (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

banking
Does a central bank earn interest on mortgage-backed securities purchased from a financial institution for the purpose of increasing the money supply? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.42.109 (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Ownership by the central bank doesn't change the way the security works. Looie496 (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Electrical Panels in US Homes.
I've lived in several houses in Texas - and the main electrical panel (the metal box with all the breakers & switches inside) has always been placed inside the garage - typically next to the door that leads back into the house.

The house I've been renting recently has two panels, one indoors in the expected place - and another outdoors right over the other side of the house - next to the electric meters that seems to have more of the heavy-duty circuits on it.

The house I've been looking to buy has just one panel - outdoors, next to the meters.

It seems crazy to have an electrical panel outside where rain can get to it - and it's really inconvenient if one of the breakers trips. Crazier still, neither of these exterior panels has any way to lock it - not even a hasp for a padlock. This means that annoying schoolkids could (hypothetically) decide it's fun to go through the neighborhood turning off everyone's power...or burglars could turn off the power to the exterior lighting to make it less obvious when they are breaking in.

Is there some logic to this? Is it a common thing? I plan to put a padlock on the one at our new house - is there any reason why I shouldn't do that?

SteveBaker (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the logic is that is allows people from the utility company to work on your box without having to come into your house. Looie496 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Or for them to read the meter so they can bill you. That's possibly done without human intervention in many places these days, but that's why the meters were located outside.  I seem to recall that contracts for electricity supply require the home owner to allow company employees unrestricted access to the meter at all times.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No, this isn't anything to do with meter reading - those are separate dials. All that's on these panels are circuit breakers.  I don't see anything that electric company employees would need to access - and (as I mentioned) in other houses I've lived in, all of that stuff was inside the garage with only the dials on the outside of the building. SteveBaker (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * A couple of speculative points, most of which you could probably clear up conclusively with a call to your electric utility (and/or the property owner). There is a clear boundary between the wiring that the customer is responsible for maintaining (and is allowed to touch) and the wiring that is the responsibility of the electric utility: the demarcation point.  For electric service, and depending on the type of residential connection and the particular utility, this point often comes at the customer side of the meter, or at the high-current fuse/breaker at the top of the main panel through which all the household supply enters.  Either way, a short, simple conversation with the utility company should tell you which boxes you're allowed to padlock.  (They may also be willing to make an arrangement whereby the panel is locked, but they still have access.  Again, can't hurt to ask.)
 * The home you were renting with two panels probably upgraded its service at some point in its history (older homes may still have 60-amp service; new construction in the U.S. is typically 150- or 200-amp service). The original indoor panel, I'm guessing, has a lower total current rating (check the fuse or breaker at the top) and may represent the original panel for the home before service was upgraded (and possibly the home was renovated, perhaps to add rental space...?)  The new outdoor panel was probably added when the supply was upgraded, new meters were installed, and (possibly) the location where service entered the house changed; the indoor panel was then wired to be one large sub-circuit of the new outdoor panel. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * So, for the rental house, that could maybe make sense. If we imagine that it was once all on the indoor panel - then they needed more current so they added the outside panel.  The owner of the house bought it as an investment just a couple of months ago and has only set foot in it once - so we know more about it than he does!  The house was built in 2007 and doesn't appear to have been renovated - and I would have thought it would have been wired with 150/200 amp service from the start...but that's the best explanation I've heard for the two-panel arrangement - so maybe not.


 * However, for the house we're in the process of buying (which was also built in the mid-2000's), there is only one panel - so the idea that it was upgraded seems kinda unlikely. (The door of the panel also shows clear signs of having duct-tape adhered to it - so I'm betting they had problems with it flapping open due to the lack of any kind of catch!)
 * SteveBaker (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * When you get an answer about this, I'd be interested to know. Every breaker box I've ever seen (not that the number is *that* high) has not been watertight at all. Sure, you're in Texas but I would think that the ambient humidity would still cause issues with outdoor electrical wiring after a few years.  So I'm curious how you're supposed to keep water out of it.  Or, as you suggest, having someone tamper with your power.  Dismas |(talk) 06:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That is unusual placement. Does the house have a basement? What's on the other side of the wall with the panel? If the house was built cheap and designed to be sold, not lived in by the person having it built, then maybe they picked the closest wall to the main line in order to save money on trenching and heavy copper wire. If the other side of that wall wasn't a garage or utility space then the cheapest place to put the panel was the outside wall. That would also explain using a cheap box without a sturdy latch or hasp. You seem like a smart and handy person though, so I would expect you to have caught on if the whole house was done that way. Did you have the home inspected? The house is so recent that a good local home inspector will likely know which builders built it if it is part of a development, and will also have a great eye for little details you would never think to look at. K ati e R  (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughts...to answer your questions:
 * Neither house has a basement. Basements are very uncommon in Texas - most houses under 30 years old are built on a solid slab foundation.
 * Both houses are mid-range construction - neither was built-to-order, both being part of a "planned neighborhood" where a single builder came in and built hundreds of houses.
 * In both cases, inside of the wall with the outside breaker on it is the main living room of the house - in neither case is it close to the kitchen, laundry room or airconditioner...those being the heaviest power users.
 * We haven't yet had our new house (probablyour new house!) inspected - that's happening next week.   We do know who built it and it's a reputable builder who has built thousands of homes throughout Texas.
 * I had considered the possibility that they were trying to save heavy-duty cable - but this is in a long street full of houses built at the same time by the same builder. You'd think that the main electrical line would run along parallel to the road - which would make the distance into the garage exactly the same as the distance to the outside breaker box.   That's true both of the house we're renting and the one we're (probably) buying.
 * Now I come to think of it...it's worse still than that. In both cases, they put the breaker box farther than necessary from kitchen, hot water tanks, laundry room and airconditioner - so they actually LENGTHENED the lines from the breaker box to those heavy duty appliances.
 * As I said before, the idea that the outside breaker box was done as a later upgrade makes some kind of sense in our rental house - where there is a second breaker box for the light-usage circuits inside the garage. In that case, to get heavier duty cables to it after the house was completed would require digging for 15 feet through the steel-reinforced slab foundation.  So I could definitely understand putting the heavy duty circuits on a new breaker on the outside wall and using the old line to service the lighter current circuits.
 * But that doesn't explain what's going on in the house that we intend to buy - it has just one breaker box - and I can see no sign of one having been removed from the garage.  But in any case, I would have thought that houses were being built with larger capacity circuits in the mid-2000's - so perhaps the "upgrade" theory doesn't hold water for that reason?
 * SteveBaker (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good to hear about the inspection - I know people who have decided to skip it because they were overconfident in themselves and ended up with issues in their homes that an inspection would have found before purchase, and I was hoping you weren't putting yourself in that situation. Too bad that this thread will be gone by the time of the inspection - I expect you'll get a good explanation of why it is set up that way. K ati e R  (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Does the outdoor electrical panel include the main overcurrent protection and disconnect, as well as all the circuitbreakers? Then how do the branch circuits leave it? Is it recessed so the conduit or more likely plastic jacketed wire is concealed, or are the branch circuits exposed to the outdoors? If exposed to the elements, they might need to be weatherproof as well. I would not want an outdoor breaker box unless it was an appropriate outdoor  NEMA enclosure types. US codes for panels inside typically have certain requirements, such as 6.5 feet of ceiling height, a 30 inch wide space on the wall, and 36 inches of clearance back from the panel, which should not be in a bathroom or clothes closet. Is there no such interior space near where the meter and service cable arrive at the house?  Edison (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Some forum discussions    mention the prevelance various from place to place in the US, although only a few mentioned Texas in any way although several mentioned it being common in California so maybe a few here have experience.
 * I have to say the situation here in NZ is I think as the last linked discussion mentioned, they are commonly outside together with the meter in one box. Mine is made from metal with a window to show the meter, it is lockable although I never investigated whether you can lock it but as the power meter and demarcation point is inside I imagine you do need to buy the local from the power company as suggested by that earlier discussion. (The hasp hole isn't that big, not to mention the metal for the hasp is fairly thin. So it would be trivial for the power company to break it if necessary but I imagine their rules mean they aren't supported to have to.)
 * Anyway, it seems your security fears may not be totally unjustified.
 * Those discussions and others like  suggest at a minimum, it may be required in some areas to have an external breaker (i.e. it doesn't have to be the whole fuse box) due to the local fire code so they can more easily cut off the power, but I haven't been able to confirm this anywhere reliable.
 * More reliable sources seem to confirm what Edison suggested above and say the main service disconnect/circuit breaker needs to be close to the service entrance per the NEC   (I was initally hestitation to provide this but it sounds like Inkling is a legitimate company so I presume no copyvio is involved). And per the second source, there appears to be some disagreement of how to intepret the NEC wording, as well as the fact that each jurisdiction may have their own specific code based on the NEC but with specific refinements. (For example, it appears some jurisdictions have a maximum distance even though this isn't part of the NEC requirements.)
 * Anyway the NEC appears to clearly allow the service disconnect to be inside (in particularly see the handbook/third link). And also specifies the service disconnect can't be in a bathroom etc (third link earlier or www.ehow .com/info_8573165_there-residential-circuit-breaker-box.html which also implies it can be inside. But since it further requires that the service disconnect be nearest to the point of entry, one intepretation appears to be that if the point of entry is unsuitable for a service disconnect, you have to put it outside rather than even a foot away from the entry. (Remembering it needs to be accessible etc.) And even without such an intepretation, I'm not particularly sure that putting it next to the door leading in to the house from the garage is always going to be possible since it's likely to be somewhat far away from the point of entrance. Either way, putting it outside may be easier for a number of reasons regardless of whether you could perhaps put it somewhere inside and comply with the local version of the code.
 * The requirement here is of course slightly different from the fire code issue as here I'm pretty sure it's primarily to reduce the amount of the circuit that is unprotected. But again, you could have a seperate service disconnect from the fusebox. But I imagine many developers would be lazy and don't bother. (In any case, the service disconnect would still need to be adequately protected from the elements and would ideally need to be lockable to allay any safety concerns.)
 * BTW, the service disconnect requirements could explain your two circuit breaker situation. You didn't mention how many switches there are on the main panel. Were the more than six? As per the g-w.com source and the 2011 NEC handbook, it seems like you can't have more than six service disconnects. Normally in NZ and also in Malaysia, AFAIK you only have one, a main circuit breaker. This may be similar in the US. But one possibility is that to avoid confusion, the box with the service disconnect can't have more than 6 switches. This means that you'd need a seperate fusebox if you wanted more, which could be next to the service disconnect or could be anywhere else (and since it's not a service disconnect, the requirements are likely much more relaxed).
 * Another thought if this isn't correct, does the second box happen to have a Residual-current device? These are increasingly required for some circuits depending on jurisdiction. But as they are more likely to trip, it may have been considered better to install them inside, seperately. (And do you have a single service disconnect or only each individual circuit breaker of which I presume there are fewer than six?)
 * P.S. Not particularly relevant, but since someone mentioned basements, as per the earlier source and, I don't think installing the circuit breaker in the basement is recommended if you live in flood prone area.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow! Lots of useful information!  Many thanks for that!


 * To be completely clear here - neither of the two panels that I'm talking about has an overall ON/OFF switch for the entire house - or any kind of metering equipment. These are literally nothing more than arrays of circuit breakers - one for each loop of lights and wall sockets, and one for each major appliance - about a dozen switches in all.   I can't imagine an emergency situation where someone would need to turn off each breaker in turn.   I believe there is a master on/off switch inside the meter box, but that's locked and I presume that it's inaccessible to everyone except the electric company.  So I doubt that these fall under the "Service disconnect" rules...although I could easily be mistaken about that.  I don't see anything that might be a "residual current device" - the breakers seem to be just the regular kind.   There are various other safety devices in the house - many of the outlets have breakers of their own (each with a little red LED showing that everything is OK).  The situation with putting them in the garage can't really be problematic because so many other houses I've seen here in Texas have them there - and these two houses are really no different in terms of how far the garage is from the street - or how far the door into the house is from the front of the garage.  In both cases the garage door into the house leads into a corridor between the laundry room and kitchen - which is a common arrangement with other houses I've owned.


 * I'm now quite concerned about the security question of having such exterior panels - and in light of some of those links, I'm definitely going to figure out some way to padlock the one on my new house. Aside from anything else, the indications that someone tried to duct-tape it shut (!!!) in the past, and the panel door was swinging open when we came to view the house - which means that the breakers would be open to the elements 24/7 if I did nothing - and that mixing high current electricity with Texas rainstorms seems like "A Very Bad Thing" that even the mighty, unstoppable power of Duct Tape is not going to fix reliably enough for my tastes!


 * SteveBaker (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sub-question:
When did builders in Texas (or the US in general) switch from providing 60 Amp current to 150 or 200 Amps in normal, mid-sized houses? SteveBaker (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This suggests some time in the '60s. Dismas |(talk) 13:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The best books are hard to classify?
Following on from the thread above about "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence". Does anyone here know whether an observation I made years ago - that the best books were often the hardest to classify - has been made by anyone else, and if so, where?

The example that initially lead me to this conclusion was my search for Artificial Life (ed. Christopher G. Langton. Santa Fe Institute studies in the sciences of complexity/Addison-Wesley 1989). A large bookshop in Oxford (possibly Dillons?) looked a likely place to find it. I searched in the computer science section - no luck. No luck in biology either, though that seemed a long shot. The enquiries desk eventually pointed me to the mathematics section... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I noticed that our article Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas describes it as a Roman à clef — a fancy term for "sort of a novel, but not really". ~Eric, the Read:71.20.250.51 (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I prefer the term gonzo journalism. Looie496 (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's actually a "failed attempt at gonzo journalism" more than actual gonzo journalism. Thompson has given rather extensive commentary on the book, and the book itself lies a little too far on the "fiction" side to qualify for the "journalism" part of "gonzo journalism", hence the "Roman a Clef" description.  Other writings of Thompson's are more factual in their nature, and Thompson's original drafts of FALILV was basically a straight copy of his notes from two drug-filled trips to Las Vegas, but his editors and publishers encouraged a more coherant narrative, which required extensive fictionalization to the work.  -- Jayron  32  15:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Genre studies is an interesting read on this subject, particularly the section on Evolution regarding Derrida's views. A google search on "best book defy classification" indicates that you are in good company with your observation - examples here and here - although lists of classic nonfiction and "is-it-fiction-or-nonfiction-or-what?"  genre-busters are harder to find. -  Ka renjc (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)