Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 February 23

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 23

Quotation about a rose girl

Resolved

In The Roses of Picardie by Simon Raven a character quotes the lines:

Rose girl bearing your posies
What are you coming to sell?
Is it yourself or your roses,
Or yourself and your roses as well?

I would be interested to know the source of the quotation. It is possible with Raven that this is his own translation from a Classical source. DuncanHill (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Google knows only Raven's book. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

That's why I asked here. DuncanHill (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I did find a French version

Hé, la fille aux roses ! tu es gracieuse comme une rose... Mais que vends tu ? toi ou les roses? ou les deux à la fois?"

... in Il y a rose et rose : les végétaux comme métaphore du corps amoureux dans l'Anthologie grecque by Pascal Luccioni who ascribes it to "Denys le Sophiste". Searching "Dyonisius the Sophist" led me to an English translation in Great Short Poems from Antiquity to the Twentieth Century titled "Rose Girl":

Rose girl, you with the rosy charm,

Pray tell,

Is it your roses, yourself, or both

That you sell?

I have no idea who Dyonisius the Sophist was, but the Greek text appears to be "ἡ τὰ ῥόδα, ῥοδόεσσαν ἔχεις χάριν ἀλλὰ τί πωλεῖς; σαυτήν, ἢ τὰ ῥόδα; ἠὲ συναμφότερα" see Perseus Project ---Sluzzelin talk 01:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh well done! I was able, with the information you gave, to find another translation in "Odes of Anacreon, Anacreontics, and other selections from the Greek anthology", privately printed by Nathan Haskell Dole, Boston, 1903. The Greek Anthology is exactly the sort of place I should have expected Raven to find juicy snippets in. DuncanHill (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

This Dionysius is also known as "Dionysius Sophistes" and according to Willis Barnstone's Ancient Greek Lyrics was "One of many poets, sophists, philosophers and miscellaneous writers of the same name who lived in the Roman Period." DuncanHill (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Quotation about apples

Resolved

In Morning Star by Simon Raven a character quotes the lines:

As the last apple hangs,
High on the topmost bough,
As the last apple hangs
Which the pluckers forgot somehow -
Forgot it not, nay, but got it not,
For no one could have it till now -

and then breaks off. I would like to know the source of the verse. It sounds a bit Housmanish to me (in mood at least) but I'm pretty sure it's not his. As with my question above, it may be Raven's own translation of a Classical piece. DuncanHill (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

[1]; it seems to be Raven's reworking of Dante Gabriel Rossetti's translation of Sappho's poem. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah excellent, thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The Sappho fragment in question is 105a (Lobel-Page/Voigt), and is derived from a comment by Syrianus. Himerius tells us that Sappho compared the girl to an apple and her bridegroom to Achilles. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I found a couple of other translations here. That gives a "Bergk numbering" of 93. DuncanHill (talk) 12:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hyman G. Rickover:

From Hyman G. Rickover:

"Rickover was assigned to the Cavite Navy Yard in the Philippines, expecting to be transferred shortly to the Bureau of Engineering in Washington, D.C. Rickover arrived in Washington after a trip overland across China, Burma, and India, by air across the Mideast to Athens and then London, and by ship to the U.S. "

Any idea why he went the "long" way around instead of just crossing the Pacific? The Pearl Harbor attack didn't happen yet so it should have been possible for an American to travel from the Philippines to the US by a more direct route. ECS LIVA Z (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

That bit of the article cites a book by Francis Duncan. In Google Books an earlier edition of the book is available in snippet view. I was able to get this snippet. That URL may not keep working, so I'll quote it:

...Rickover traveled widely, visiting in particular the Dutch East Indies and Indochina, often going third class from one point to another to better observe local life. In May 1939 he left Cavite, traveling across India and Europe to report to Washington...

So the answer would be that he wanted to visit those countries to see how people lived there. (And presumably he was not under orders to take the fastest route.) --76.71.6.254 (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, the only scheduled commercial trans-pacific air service at that time was Pan-Am's "clipper" flying boats, which could take 4 days to go from Manila to San Francisco and cost $950 (quite a bit of money in the 1930s). AnonMoos (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

However, any one of dozens of mail ships could do the journey, the fastest in 21 days [2] at a fraction of the cost. The Dollar Line alone carried over 45,000 trans-Pacific passengers annually. Alansplodge (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Agencies which work with ICE

Is there a way to find out which law enforcement agencies in the United States cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, I know the local sheriff where I live does because I've seen "Hold for ICE" in people's arrest reports here, but I'm curious about other agencies in my, area and surrounding areas, not for any particular reason though (I was born in the U.S. to a family which has been in the U.S. for generations, so no need to worry about giving legal advice). 76.2.97.54 (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC) PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.}

Have a look at Sanctuary city. You'll immediately run into the problem that not all policies are well publicized, there is no comprehensive database on how every law enforcement agency in the country treats suspected illegal immigrants, and there is no agreed-upon definition of "sanctuary city". As our article gets into, a "sanctuary city" could be one that doesn't share information with certain federal law enforcement agencies, one that doesn't inquire as to an arrested person's immigration status, one that only holds suspected felons for transfer to ICE, and cities that will transfer anyone to ICE that ICE requests, but will not use public funding to house suspected illegal immigrants before the transfer takes place. My own jurisdiction gives ICE a time limit to request custody of a suspect and then arrange their transfer to another jurisdiction, or they will treat the suspect the same as they'd treat a citizen. Is my jurisdiction a sanctuary? Talking heads disagree. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

To add to the confusion, while a good number of these sanctuary "cities" have city police departments, arrested individuals are often booked into jails operated by a county sheriff. For example, the city of Punta Gorda, Florida has its own police department, but PGPD officers take prisoners to the Charlotte County Jail, which is run by the sheriff. Obviously a pro-ICE chief of police would be limited by an anti-ICE sheriff in such situation, but in a vice-versa situation, I suppose a police department could have policies affecting ICE enforcement on the streets, while the sheriff would work with ICE when those police department arrest an immigrant for other crimes. There's yet another layer of confusion when considering places like Liberty University, where there's a campus police department at a college (which I believe is) within the city limits, which is the jurisdiction of the Lynchburg, Virginia Police Department, which is in turn under the jurisdiction of the county sheriff. How does that effect whether or not a city is a "sanctuary city"? It's probably unlikely, but what happens if you have a very pro-ICE campus chief in a county which works with ICE, but within a city which is otherwise considered a "sanctuary city"? Another question I have is, are there any agencies that outright refuse to work with ICE at all, even with convicted felons and such? From what I've read, it seems even San Francisco will deport illegals if they are convicted of serious felonies. 76.2.97.54 (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC) PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.}

San Francisco is a bit weird. They will cooperate in the detainment of illegals who are also felons, but only if said felon is currently suspected of a new crime. That is, if the person was convicted of a felony, served his time, and is not wanted for anything else, SF will not hold them. They will also detain anyone suspected of a felony. New Orleans has one of the most extreme policies I've seen, barring nearly all cooperation with ICE, but the law still permits the police to participate in the case of anyone suspected of a felony, and "matters of public safety". Their police officers are even explicitly ordered to ignore warrants from ICE unless it is for a felony. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I thinnk PCHS is making a mistake here. In the U.S., city police departments are not normally subordinate to county police departments or sheriff's office. County sheriff offices generally have primary jurisdiction over enforcing laws in unincorporated areas outside of city limits, while city police departments have primary jurisdiction for enforcement within the city limits. This is explained at Sheriffs in the United States, you can see that in almost every state, the primary responsibility for the sheriff's office is to police areas that aren't covered by municipal departments. It is broadly true that in many states all sworn law enforcement officers have state-wide jurisdiction, but where questions of conflicts occur, the city police department would have primacy over the county sheriff's office within the city limits and the county sheriff's office would have primacy outside the city limits. They are parallel and equivalent organizations (i.e. same 'level' on the org chart) with different geographical areas they are responsible for. For the specific case they gave, that of Lynchburg, Virginia this is even MORE of a mistake, because Lynchburg is not part of any county at all, so there isn't even a county sheriff that would hypothetically be over it anyways. --Jayron32 15:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

In some places, including San Francisco, the city and county are consolidated to one degree or another, and in at least some consolidated locations, including Indianapolis, the sheriff's office and city police have been merged into a single jurisdiction. In some states, the sheriff's office has countywide jurisdiction, including in municipalities that have their own police departments, although of course the sheriff's office wouldn't do as much work in such a municipality. This is true of my native Ohio, for example, where the sheriff has primacy countywide. As far as Lynchburg — we have a sheriff's office here, although the city police do most of the law-enforcement work, and like all of Virginia's other cities, yes we're independent of the surrounding counties and their officials. Our campus indeed is in the city; I'm not entirely sure what the relationship between city and university police is, and while the university police have a little jurisdiction off campus (they enforce speed limits and street-crossing on the city-owned streets at the school associated with TRBC, for example), it's quite limited; you'd never see them downtown, and when I witnessed a low-speed car accident just off campus some months ago, we had to wait a good while for city police to arrive, even though the university police were much closer. I expect that they have to bow to the city police if there's some sort of conflict. Nyttend (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It's all kind of a silly distinction anyways: In areas with multiple jurisdictions, it's really up to individual department policy as to whether they will use their department resources to enforce ICE directives. If a county sheriff decides that his officers won't kick in any doors to deport someone who doesn't have the correct paperwork, but a city police chief decides that he will direct his officers to do the same, even if both departments have overlapping jurisdiction in a particular city, there's not much one department could do to force the other department to do anything. The County Sheriff can't force the city cops to obey his directives, and the Police Chief can't force the sheriff's officers to enforce his. You would just have a case of one department following one set of priorities and another following a different set of priorities, but one cannot force the other to obey policies from outside of its own chain of command. It would be like Google passing a company rule and expecting Samsung employees to have to follow it. --Jayron32 17:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

But there are some big difference between Google/Samsung and police departments. For one thing, a state could grant the sheriff authority over a municipal department, and if municipal officers refused to follow the sheriff's orders, they might be eligible for legal penalties. If I remember rightly, in Ohio the sheriff has this authority; one could interpret ORC §311.07 (B) as giving him this kind of authority, although I don't have a clue whether such a clause has been litigated and gotten judicial rulings on this kind of question. For another thing, when it comes to legal matters, law enforcement tends to have greater influence in the state capitol than does the average citizen; if municipal police and the sheriff's office each makes a big stink about the other's decision and refusal to cooperate, it's quite plausible that local legislators will sponsor legislation that would set legal standards of some sort and remove or restrict the wiggle room. Nyttend (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, obviously just about anything can happen, and does often enough, but we needn't consider edge cases and odd examples when discussing normal operations. Politics is a mean bitch, and if you have the right friends, you can get anything you want done to happen. --Jayron32 01:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

NATO defence budgets

So we keep hearing how most of Europe is freeloading off the American defence budget. Is there a list I can see of countries which currently don't spend the NATO requirement of 2% GDP, but have announced firm plans to start doing so? --79.32.133.5 (talk) 09:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, see NATO Public Diplomacy Division - Defence Expenditures of NATO Countries (2009-2016) and look at page 2. However, this does not show who is planning to increase their defence spending. This article says that the countries which have increased their budgets since 2014 "are mostly in eastern Europe, where the threat from Russia is felt most keenly. These countries also tend to have relatively small economies by NATO standards. Estonia and Poland now meet the target, and Latvia and Lithuania are on course to do so". A simpler graph is here. Note that Canada is not a European country but significantly underspends. Alansplodge (talk) 11:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] Such data is compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute amongst other organisations. Links from that article may lead you to what you're looking for. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.203.118.169 (talk)

(EC) Depends what you mean by "firm plans". [3] mentions both France and Germany's intentions. If the Germany one seems a bit unclear, [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] mentions more on how Germany is currently doing. Technically you could argue that any country which has consistently increased their military budget in the past few years and said they intend to continue to do so has a plan, even if it may not mean they'd meet the 2024 target. Nil Einne (talk) 11:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Alan - " Iceland has no armed forces" from your first document gave some hope for humanity and really made my day ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

You don't want to mix with their coast guards though, see Cod Wars. Alansplodge (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Except that Iceland is an example of why that group is upset with NATO-related spending as Iceland defense is still guaranteed by the U.S. under the United States-Iceland Defense Treaty of 1951. Rmhermen (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Iceland is a special case though, because NATO needs Iceland more than Iceland needs NATO. It's an unsinkable aircraft carrier and radar base plonked right in the middle of the Russians' exit route from their bases in the Baltic and Barents Seas. In the Second World War, it was occupied by the British for the same reason. Alansplodge (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

How do people always have a constant supply of energy to power their world?

Most of the time, people have a constant supply of energy to power their world. If each lightbulb in the city requires a specific amount of energy to power it, then how do people know how much energy to supply? Can the demand for energy surpass the supply of energy? What if the energy is captured and stored and sent to individual homes, but individual homes are not using it? Will the energy be wasted or transferred to another house? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Start at the Wikipedia titled Electrical grid and follow it around to learn more. --Jayron32 17:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's in the article, but I didn't see it. To paraphrase in part the OP's questions, what if the total amount of energy used during one time frame (minute or day, say) is less than the amount produced? What happens to the excess? Loraof (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

In that case, Load balancing (electrical power), which is a concept central to the Electrical grid, and which the OP, who I presume is quite intelligent, would have found easily after clicking around a bit, would have soon appeared on his internet capable device of choice, and he would have learned what he needed to know. From there he can follow links to articles such as Load following power plant, Base load, Peaking power plant, Pumped-storage hydroelectricity, etc. etc. If after being unsatisfied with the quality of Wikipedia's coverage of these topics, he could then seek out additional sources as he now would have gotten the vocabulary to search for outside of Wikipedia. But because he's a smart, intelligent person who doesn't need to have his hand held, I didn't feel the need to do all of that. --Jayron32 19:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for holding my hand, Jayron. Please try to be nice to people while helping them. Loraof (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• I think the OP is asking about the instantaneous effect of turning a light bulb on (or off). This action changes the demand on the grid on a time scale of roughly 10 ms. All of the responses in the linked articles appear to operate on much longer timescales: bringing a generator online takes minutes. So, how does the grid accomodate instantaneous change? My guess is that an instantaneous change results in a change in voltage, but that these changes are tiny. -Arch dude (talk) 04:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Switching a larger appliance on or off creates a significant change in voltage on the low-voltage side of the step-down transformer, and this change is very noticeable in the light output of incandescent lighting supplied by the same windings. The corresponding voltage change at the generating end will be much smaller, but not insignificant. In fact it is carefully monitored to determine whether extra generators are likely to be needed soon. Dbfirs 08:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The OP assumes that the supply is constant, but, in fact, it is regularly varying as appliances are switched on and off. In the UK, the voltage has always been kept within six percent of 240 volts (except under fault conditions). The actual voltage may vary between 225.6 and 254.4 volts, and I've noticed that it is usually close to 250 volts where I live. When extra appliances are switched on, the voltage drops, and the actual power delivered to each appliance also drops (depending on impedance) so the load balancing is automatic within the 6% range. European harmonisation requires a voltage of 230v with a 10% permissible variation, and the UK system remains within these parameters, nearly always on the high side. Dbfirs 09:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

This Humanities desk is not the best for a question about electrical energy which would be answered in engineering terms on the Science or Miscellaneous reference desks. Since the OP may be unfamiliar with electrical engineering, here are restatements of their questions in the form of the Hydraulic analogy that is an intuitive aid in teaching.

How do people always have a constant supply of water (energy) to drink (power their world)?

If each faucet (lightbulb) in the city requires a specific amount of water (energy to power it), then how do people know how much water (energy) to supply? Can the demand for water (energy) surpass the supply of water (energy)? Answer: No, not over extended time, but possibly Yes over a short time if there is a storage tank (battery). What if the water (energy) is captured and stored and sent to individual homes, but individual homes are not using it? Will the water (energy) be wasted or transferred to another house? Answer: Only small amounts of water (electric energy) are usually stored in homes e.g. in hot water tanks, toilet tanks,... (batteries) for future use, but no surplus water (energy) is delivered to homes. The water (electric energy) supply is continuously presented at a regulated pressure ("Voltage") to all homes. Any home at any time can choose to draw zero water (energy) by keeping faucets closed (mains switches off) or to draw a desired amount of water (energy) by opening a faucet (switching on). A related subject is the pricing of the water (energy) supply. There are examples of water (energy) supplied at a fixed price depending on the maximum flow (Current) that is limited by pipe diameter (cables and fuses) regardless of whether it is consumed, and of water (energy) supplied via home consumption meters_{1 2} that give fairer sharing at the cost of their complexity and needs for periodic reporting. Blooteuth (talk) 09:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

35 U.S. Code $121 - Divisional application

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It is a real life situation. An individual applied for a US patent with USPTO office and got a response claiming that the application in fact contains two independent inventions with an advice to file a divisional application. The two parts, that are averred to be independent, are very unequal in size, the first part is about 30 pages and the second part is about 2, so the first part contains much of prolegomena, necessary to understand both parts logically. We are reading the section of USPTO code [10] mentioned in the headline and we cannot understand the phrase: "A patent issuing on an application with respect to which.... shall not be used as a reference...." What kind of reference? He considers it awkward to repeat the narrative of prolegomena in the second application. A reference to the first one made in the body of the second one would be more appropriate but he is not sure if it would fall under the above restriction or not.

The examiner is using the term "divisional application(s)." Which application is divisional? The first one (after the break up), the second one (after the break up) or both?

Can he file a continuing divisional application?

Thanks --AboutFace 22 (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The code reads:

If two or more independent and distinct inventions are claimed in one application, the Director may require the application to be restricted to one of the inventions. If the other invention is made the subject of a divisional application which complies with the requirements of section 120 it shall be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the original application. A patent issuing on an application with respect to which a requirement for restriction under this section has been made, or on an application filed as a result of such a requirement, shall not be used as a reference either in the Patent and Trademark Office or in the courts against a divisional application or against the original application or any patent issued on either of them, if the divisional application is filed before the issuance of the patent on the other application. The validity of a patent shall not be questioned for failure of the Director to require the application to be restricted to one invention.

All that is saying is make sure you get your second patent application in before the Office issues a patent on the first application. This puts your application on all fours with section 120, which applies to subsequent applications by the same person where the Office has not directed that a fresh application be made in respect of part of the originally filed material. You haven't quoted the Office's letter in full, so it is not clear which (if any) of the two ideas the examiner has nominated to be dealt with in the original filing. Your second filing will be your divisional application. The "reference" in the code would be made by a hostile party hoping to defeat your patent. It is nothing to do with you. However, I would strongly advise you to give full details of each invention in your applications, even at the cost of repeating yourself. This protects you against a smart lawyer saying "Oh, but this wasn't disclosed in the application". Please quote what the examiner actually wrote if you want further advice. Disclaimer: I am not a patent agent. 80.5.88.48 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try to post more in a couple of hours. I also indented your paragraphs for clarity, sorry. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ad hominem attacks

If ad hominem attacks are considered so flawed in debates or arguments, why do people - even noted debaters and rhetoricians - still use them?--WaltCip (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Because most people are convinced by rhetoric, not by logic. Wymspen (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Because they still work - the audience is easily fooled as they're not trained in rhetoric.

Because they don't work, but the speakers are angry and untrained in rhetoric themselves. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

They do work, because demonizing the opponent is often what the audience wants to hear. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice that just showing contempt to other debaters is not an ad hominem attack per se. The ad hominem fallacy implies that you consider them despicable because they do despicable things. And what they do is despicable because they are too. The fallacy is the circular argument, not just attacking your adversary. Hofhof (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's an accurate description of ad hominem. There are also times when an ad hominem is not a logical fallacy. So the classical version of an ad hominem is, "don't listen to my opponent's ideas, because he is a terrible person." This argument completely avoids discussion of the ideas, which is the purpose of the attack. But on the other hand consider, "don't listen to this witness's testimony, because he is a known liar." In this case, the target's reputation is actually material to the value of his speech, and the attack is not a fallacy, if the accusation is true. This can sort of apply even in political debates, especially when the issues are complicated and the listener does not understand the full implications of potential policy decisions. So take for instance a debate between two political candidates over an obscure banking regulation. This is an immense and complicated subject, and you can't expect the vast majority of voters to have more than a vague understanding of it. So when one candidate says, "don't listen to my opponent, because she is in the pocket of the big banks." Well, if you approach this with the knowledge base of the average voter, that specific ad hominem sounds more like the second example than the first. The goal of a debate before a lay audience is often to simultaneously push an agenda and educate the audience. An attack that undermines all attempts by your opponent to educate the audience can be very effective. "Don't trust her facts, she's not trustworthy. Only trust my facts." If you can accomplish that, then people who buy it won't even consider it a fallacy if they are familiar with rhetoric, because you arrive at some conclusion like, "The opponent may be right, but only if her facts are right, but I can't trust her facts, because I can't trust her." It's very different in an academic debate, especially a theoretical one, because the base reality is agreed upon. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

For the record, ad hominem is never a logical fallacy, it is an informal fallacy. People get those confused. A logical fallacy occurs when the rules of logical form are violated. That is, logic takes supposition "A" and supposition "B" and tries to connect those to prove conclusion "C". Logical fallacies are ones where the path between those are invalid. For example "All dogs are carnivores" "Cats are carnivores" "Therefore, cats are dogs". This is a formal fallacy called affirming the consequent and it results from faulty reasoning. Informal fallacies have good reasoning, but what's wrong is the inputs That is, one of the suppositions is incorrect, so even though the formal rules of logic may be followed, the conclusions are incorrect. This is what is known in computer science as garbage in, garbage out. Ad hominem arguments are of a class of informal fallacies called genetic fallacy whereby the supposition is based on irrelevent information; the supposition may even be true, but it doesn't matter to the argument at hand. --Jayron32 11:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Less opposition to Donald Trump

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If Trump were to ever be successful at tackling the unemployment rate, would there be much less opposition to him among the general population? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 22:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Obama lowered the unemployment rate from 10 to 5 percent, but it didn't do the Democrats any good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• What do you mean by "tackling" the unemployment rate? Unemployment (whatever the headlines say) isn't a major problem in the US at present. It is relatively low, and has been falling over the last years from its rapid doubling between 2008 to 2010. www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate It's simplistic to credit presidents for what mostly happens to them during their presidency, but there's a coincidence there with the Obama terms. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(I apologize for replying to a boxed thread, but I think I do have a relevant reference.)

Here's a reference that shows that, in recent history, presidential disapproval at least very roughly follows the unemployment rate. [11].

Whether you think Trump would follow this trend is up to you. As was correctly pointed out above, crystal ball gazing is beyond our purview.

Hope this is helpful. ApLundell (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

If this question were to be re-phrased, to ask about the past rather than the future, I would support unboxing it. We cannot predict the future, but we can look at what happened in the past in this respect? Eliyohub (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I predict there will be a whole lot less opposition if/when the Orange that Walks Like a Man starts a nuclear war. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Zero-sum games

I'm looking for sources on this.

Elections are often improperly cited as examples of zero-sum games. Unless the election enforces mandatory voting and utilizes a plurality voting system, it is non-zero-sum.

Benjamin (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like someone's personal opinion, advocating for the theory that candidates should somehow get a plurality of eligible voters rather than of actual voters. If someone chooses not to vote, it's as if they didn't exist. So it's still zero-sum. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any examples of elections being cited as examples of zero sum games. Plenty of people talking about the sumness of politics in general, but not of elections in particular. Also, bugs I think you're wrong about the point of the sentence. It doesn't seem to be advocating anything, simply stating the obvious truth that except in the context of mandatory plurality voting, convincing one person to vote for you does not necessarily subtract one vote from someone else. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

If you vote for no one, then your 0 goes to every candidate's count. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

See None of These Candidates for something related to that. Of course, if an election is decided by a plurality of the voters, and there's no way for the plurality-winner not to win aside from the election being entirely voided (e.g. fraud is deemed to have been significant), "None of These Candidates" can't have an effect as long as any candidate gets more votes than nobody. Nyttend (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

If "none of the above" can legally win, resulting in a vacant seat or a redo, then it's still a zero-sum game, just with more than two players. Provided everyone has to vote. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Not voting is equivalent to "none of the above". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

False. Or rather, it depends on the local election rules. If the law stipulates that the winner is whomever gets a majority or plurality of people who voted for an actual candidate, then you are right. But if the law stipulates that "none of the above" can be a winner in the election, and results in either an empty seat or a new election, then it is not. There have also been historical elections where the winning option had to have a majority of eligible voters, rather than actual voters. In essence, everyone who abstained was counted as "none of the above," which could win. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

For which country are you saying "false"? In America, in general, if you don't vote, then it's as if you don't exist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You can't just start stating facts that depend on context, without specifying context. None of these candidates is the modern American version (where yes, such a vote counts as not voting), but we also have None of the above that discusses how this works in other countries. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I was too quick to say false. I see that you were probably specifically responding in the context of Nyttend's link, while I was (without announcement) making a more international statement. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Any sources? Benjamin (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Have you reviewed the sources in Zero-sum game?←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Which one are you referring to? Benjamin (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Any or all of them, to learn more about what "zero sum game" means. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Did you even look at them, or are you sending me on a wild goose chase? I am asking about elections as zero sum, and I don't see where that is referenced. Benjamin (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

How badly do you want to know? Badly enough to read the sources and see if you learn anything? Or do you expect others to spoon-feed you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the sources and they didn't appear to have anything to do with elections. Please stop wasting my time if you're not going to be helpful. Benjamin (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

If you actually read the sources, did you get any sense of whether the concept could apply to elections, even if the sources don't directly talk about elections? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

No. Benjamin (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Bugs, the article contains the exact, unsourced statement that Ben included in his original post. He's not simply here to understand the concept, he's trying to find out if a reference exists to replace the CN template with, or satisfied no reference exists, delete the line. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

If in doubt / Take it out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

That aside, Ben, what I doubt the most of that sentence is the statement that elections are widely believed to be zero sum games. I find literally no examples of anyone claiming that the voting process is zero sum, even in the darkest corners of Google. However, people do claim that electoral outcomes are zero sum. That is, there are people who believe that no one group can benefit from a change in government without another group suffering an equal loss. It's possible whoever wrote that line completely misunderstood this claim, and appended an irrelevant rebuttal. I would support its complete removal. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It's an uncited claim refuting an equally uncited claim. It be gone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)