Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 April 10

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

April 10

Uncensored version of police beating horse-thief suspect?

The L.A. NBC affiliate has published this video of a man on his belly with his hands crossed to be cuffed then getting kicked and or punched repeatedly both by the immediately arresting officers, and others who run to join the beating. Does anyone know of an uncensored link to the video (in other words, the reporters' live commentary)? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

That audio is not present on any of the YooToob versions I found. Therefore, given the masses of diligent YooToob feeders, I think it's safe to assume (1) the audio was never recorded, or (2) the audio was removed or lost before the video was broadcast or otherwise escaped from the TV station (was this live?). "Uncensored" assumes too much considering the number of other ways the audio could be lost, including various technical problems. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for looking, I spent a good twenty minutes at it. It's quite blatantly an editorial decision, the coincidence with the violence was far too obvious, and the reporter says nothing about the sound going out when she comments in a follow-up piece where she is 'interviewed' by her co-workers. This will perhaps be leaked or be admitted as evidence in the officers' state assault and federal civil rights trial, at which point it will be subject to a freedom of information act inquiry. I'll keep looking. μηδείς (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

If it was an editorial decision, it was a good one. Her inane play-by-play commentary — Suspect being Tased! Suspect being Tased! — added nothing useful and, in Wikipedia lingo, was original research. What followed very well might have sounded too biased for the station to broadcast; viewers can clearly see what was happening and make their own interpretations. Actually I'm curious why you're interested in that commentary. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I see you don't deny this was censored on purpose. I am interested in it precisely because it was censored. Excited utterances and the recorded speech of eyewitnesses have special import in US courts, although given the video exists a judge might exclude the commentary as unnecessary if it was prejudicial. In any case, the "reasonable person" standard holds, and this broadcaster is presumably a seasoned reporter. As for bias, are we supposed to believe she started off, "Yeah, kick that motherfucker! Don't just beat him, shoot him in the head! Ooh, this violence arouses me," or did mean something else? We most certainly would not exclude such verbatim speech from being posted if it were verified. I am asking no more. Are there reliable sources that give the unedited cut? μηδείς (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: It's debatable which is more inflammatory, the thread or the hat. In any case, a hatter should identify themselves, especially in borderline cases. Why should it be necessary to find the edit in the history in order to establish that I didn't do it because I didn't like Medeis's comment? The mad hatter were: 117.173.108.206. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Given that the video was shot by the very TV station that released it with the audio-commentary partially cut-off there are unlikely to be any other versions available with the commentary unless such a version is (1) leaked, or (2) released by the media organization, or as part of legal proceedings, sometime down the line. Abecedare (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering if perhaps the live broadcast itself was uncensored, just the following release. μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

What is the criteria for a British NHS doctor (GP) to refer a patient to the mental health services?

Assuming a patient went to their doctor with a physical problem, but the doctor noticed something wrong with the patients mental health. What criteria or threshold of behaviour would cause the doctor to make a referral to the mental health services? Is there a checklist of "signs and symptoms" a doctor looks for in their patients? For example, if the patient expresses paranoid thoughts to the doctor, will that generate a referral? NHSdoctors (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The term mental health, just like physical health, covers a large number of potential conditions. There is no universal checklist. A GP's course of action depends on the symptoms displayed and their own professional judgement. Dalliance (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It is entirely possible for you to ask your GP about this. He or she will be more than willing to explain - that is part of their job. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 13:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Today, in 2015 the mental health resource in the UK are under such strain, that to refer even just a third of patients with a mental health issue would make the system collapse entirely. Thus the threshold (in practice) is were the GP believe their patient is close to endangering the lives of others. Should they not refer such a patient and that patent causes death of another (and very, very few do – compared with the rest of the 'normal' mentally sane population), the GP knows they may have to come up before a GMC inquiry for negligence. For everyone else, they just proscribe pills and platitudes. Shame, because Britain was one of the pioneers of effective health treatment that returned such people, back into society so that they could become productive citizen once more. In these modern days of automation – there is no shortage of labour – so the same need doesn't exist to treat effectively. So the current criteria is: “Is this patent potentially dangerous enough to bump he/her up the priority list and get him some proper treatment?” Oh, No. A doctor will not explain this to a patient or relative because their patent or relative is desperate and begging for effective help and could cause a very emotionally difficult consultation for the GP - (GP's have feeling and a sense of empathy towards their patients too) but their hands are tied now as to what help they can provide. --Aspro (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not just the doctor who might notice something wrong with the patient's mental health. Patients themselves understand when they are mentally ill and there are emergency mental health services which they can contact. This area has some of the best mental health provision in the country. A patient can walk into A&E and if necessary a doctor will liaise with the staff in the mental health unit which is next door and the patient can be admitted the same day. There are area mental health units which a patient can visit and the central unit has a crisis contact point accessible directly from the street which can be visited or telephoned 24 hours a day. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

First up, criterion - singular, criteria - plural

I cannot go along with Aspro's comments. Whether there is strain on the system or not should not influence the doctor's or your opinion about the need for referral to the mental health services. Services grow (or should grow) depending on the demand for that service within the population. If there are reduced referrals because someone foolishly thinks that they may cause strain on the system or there might be a long wait to be seen is doing society an injustice and doing the Department of Health a favour - not to mention the patient. What happened recently when emergency departments were overwhelmed with patients? the government found a few million pounds to alleviate the problem. A more pertinent cause of the reduced budget and general service shortfall in mental health services in the UK is the lack of political clout that the service and its managers have. Compare cancer or childrens' illness with mental health and most people will prefer to support the former two. This is largely due to the stigma that still attaches to mental health disorders and the appalling ignorance on the part of politicians and the public about mental illness.

Finally, for Aspro's benefit this is worth a look. Richard Avery (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Second up, children's - possessive plural, not childrens' - possessive non-existent.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Ha ha, very good Jack, Thank you. Richard Avery (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that it should not influence the doctor's or your opinion but when the mental health infrastructure has been cut to the bone to only admit emergences what option has the GP got but to hope for the best and offer platitudes and drugs. This links into 87.81.147.76 comment. Yeah, they might be able to walk in to any A&E but until recently I did volunteer work for a mental heath charity and if they walk in they were told to see their GP until the problem became so bad that the police delivered them to to hospital – in the back of a van in a cage. If you got taken to hospital in a cage would, that do yourself esteem any good or would it make your feel even more retched than you already felt? Only then did they get admitted, because they were becoming a danger not only to themselves but other and so law enforcement had to take over. So instead of nipping the problem in the bud at the start, there are now legal issues, complex social problems that social workers are now expected to unpick, etc. etc. Britain used to be a great naval nation and they knew the meaning of Spoil the ship for a ha'pworth of tarIf the brakes on your car start to fail, do you say to yourself “oh well Im going to sell it soon so I will leave the next owner to fix them.” The NHS now does not wait for people to get lung cancer, it actively promotes the cessation of smoking. Why is mental health now become different over the last decades? Four out of ten experience mental health problems at sometime in there lives and it is an eye- opener to console weeping police officers, executives, etc. that have found themselves admitted and bewail “but I should not be here! I cant be in a mental ward. These places are for the hoi-poli. I am different”. It is such a shock to them, that the initial response is one of absolute and total denial. Mental illness can hit anybody out of the blue and the pills that their GP's gave them was no substitute to avoid the eventual crisis. Today a 'crisis' now mean that things have got to a stage that their wives out of fear have got a court order to prevent them seeing their children and there careers ends in tatters. Instead of not paying income tax for a few months, they end up 'chronic' and unable to work at all for the rest of their lives. Think about all those skills gone to wastes for a ha'pworth of tar. The OP asked for the criteria - it has now been provided - and mental health professionals will back me up on every word (save perhaps for the word prescribe - it is Latin for something that has to be written before and whilst on this occasion it was not my spell checkers fault but mine entirely. Richard Avery (talk) is, me thinks, nit picking), (and I can recommend to him a remedy for nits, if he finds he continues to suffer form this complaint ;-)--Aspro (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I think we are both on the same side Aspro. "Mental health professionals"? I worked in mental health as a registered nurse for 30 years. ;-) Richard Avery (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

In the UK, we have secure mental health units all over the country for patients which have indeed expressed mental health issues. If a GP is concerned about whether the patient will be an immediate danger to others or him/herself, then the GP will refer that patient first to A&E, where the patient will be once again assessed, then referred to the actual mental health unit (whichever one has a bed available at the time), then assessed once again there, usually upon arrival. They try to get patients into units which are closest to their next-of-kin, but this does not always happen. Patients are then given medication to deal with their problems (librium, thiamine, and Vitamin B+, to deal with any substance abuse issues which may have caused the mental problems), and optionally sleeping tablets. Some are given lithium to deal with mood swings. They are re-assessed twice weekly, with the aim of getting them well as soon as possible, as, unfortunately, the NHS needs the beds. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 13:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• If you want immediate, highly personalized mental health services in the US, all you have to do is (as a black woman) mention that Obama follows you on twitter. μηδείς (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It's normally better to try and talk the patient round to it, first. Same as any illness, you can't treat it unless the patient is persuaded they need help. Criminals can't be rehabilitated unless they admit guilt. Lack of awareness is a problem, so they might not know they have a problem, but be open to it being addressed.

I have mental health issues, but I got simple disrespect and bad customer service from several NHS psychiatrists. I no longer trust them. I asked the GP to be referred (against his objections) to a private psychiatrist in Ireland - at my own cost, and hassle. I am recovering, but it is only because I trust her to treat me. I still would not consider it being done locally, and I still see the NHS as Skynet. If the GP referred me to anyone without my knowledge, it would have been very, very hurtful.

It also depends on the doctor and patient, and your interpretation of 'paranoid thought'. Doctors have the power to detain a patient for their mental health; but normally that would be overkill. It is almost always better to do so in the community - de-institutionalisation is the theme in The Rain Man. For hospitals, it varies: the State Hospital in Lanarkshire is a top security hospital for dangerous patients, eg. who have killed someone. Most detained patients are in lower security; and many are not secure at all. I formerly worked at a mental hospital where, if a patient absconded, they didn't do much. --Crazy Aberdeen Guy (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Photo location help

I've tried to find out the location on that this photo was taken, but have had no luck. It was probably the United States or Ireland, but I need to find out which. Can anyone else figure this out? --Steverci (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

You should link to a specific image, not to a Google search result; I see a bunch of identical portraits of a woman (with no background), which surely isn't what you're meaning. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 15:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is the specific image; it's Maureen O'Hara. --Steverci (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

That is a studio headshot. She did not work in a studio in Ireland. She started in London. She moved to Hollywood. This would have come from her agent (which, because she used a film clip initially, is doubtful) or as publicity for a movie (which is more likely). I expect it to be from movie publicity from RKO. The hair style makes it hard. She wasn't known for having her hair so closely tied down. 209.149.113.89 (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It is likely taken in America, but O'Hara did return to, and work professionally in, Ireland after coming to the U.S. Films she was in were shot on location in Ireland, such as The Quiet Man. It is possible she had the headshot physically taken while she was on location in Ireland for a shoot. That being said, it is nearly impossible to tell where the picture was taken just from the picture. There's no geography or contextual clues to say where it was taken. It's a portrait against a white background. --Jayron32 18:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I tried looking for places and times she wore her hair like that for a clue, and it seems the only time she did was for The Fallen Sparrow, which was made by RKO. Is this enough evidence to prove to Commons that the picture was made in the United States (and thus is free to use)? --Steverci (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe that it is beyond reasonable doubt that this is a studio photo. The studio, RKO, is a U.S. studio. They would have owned the photo. So, while it may have been taken in Tahiti, Mongolia, or Zimbabwe, it is still owned by a U.S. company. 209.149.113.89 (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Don't know where, but it was taken in 1955. See caption for this stock-photo from the same session (Caution: the Ireland in the caption is a reference to "Irish actress" and not the place where the photograph was taken). Abecedare (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, Getty credits it to Ullstein Bild, which seems to be a similar stock-image service operating in Germamy. I found the photo on ullsteinbild.de as a thumbnail, but it seems you need an account in order to use the "more details" button. --65.94.49.82 (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

That's odd, because the photo I linked is supposed to be in the early 1940's, which is when the movie was made. --Steverci (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Ullstein Bild is a stock photo company. The 1955 date could be nothing more than the date the image was added to their catalog. 75.139.70.50 (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

dinosaur unscientific classification

are there a unscientific classification of dinosaurs?--151.76.241.71 (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure. There are enormous ones, big ones, medium-sized ones, small ones, and a few little tiny ones. There are ugly ones and pretty ones. Scary ones and nice ones. If you want a better answer, please clarify what you are trying to figure out. Looie496 (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

There is also the argument that the term 'dinosaur' is unscientific in that it includes species more distantly related to each other than some species it excludes, at least as the term is commonly understood. See the discussion regarding birds (descendants of theropod dinosaurs) in our dinosaur article. As far as phylogenetic taxonomy is concerned, if dinosaurs are a legitimate clade, there are currently dinosaurs nesting in the trees outside my house... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

By implication, the term "dinosaur" is now itself a dinosaur. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's a metaphor - another sort of beast entirely... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I intead to only dinosaurs not avians, I intead to a cassification by bybehavior and appearance (e.g. big carnivorous dinosaurs, small carnivorous dinosaur, dinosaur whit armor, horned dinosaur, big herbivorous dinosaur whit long neck et ect.)--95.247.25.222 (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is going to stop you classifying dinosaurs how you like - but don't expect qualified experts to agree with you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Not all scientific terms have to be cladistic, some are descriptive and useful because members share share common characteristics other than ancestry. For example, aerobes are not a clade, nor are marine mammals or trees or algae. As long as "dinosaur" denotes a reasonably well-defined group of scientific interest and discussion, it doesn't necessarily matter that the group isn't a clade. Dragons flight (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

As I said, "there is an argument that the term 'dinosaur' is unscientific..." the argument, and the reasoning behind it, tells the reader much about how science (or at least biology) classifies things. That science still manages to have rational discussions about 'trees' or 'marine mammals' suggests that the argument hasn't necessarily been won - and probably suggests that when it comes to classifying things, pragmatism isn't of itself unscientific. Accordingly, one can have a rational scientific discussion about 'big herbivorous dinosaur whit long neck', as long as one makes clear that one is using the classification for a specific purpose, and that one isn't necessarily implying any particular evolutionary relationship. Classification in of itself is neither inherently scientific or non-scientific - the distinction is more a question of what is implied by the classification. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Indeed. Tree is a good example. Definitely not a good formal grouping, nor a clade, but also certainly it is a useful group, and we'd be silly to try to avoid it. We of course do have dinosaurs flying through our yards if we take the term to mean the clade (as many paleontologists do); that's why "non-avian dinosaur" is a common term in the literature. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

That's entirely true. We have all sorts of informal classifications that have no basis in evolutionary biology. Berry, fruit, vegetable, monkey, all just a few classifications which are common, but have no basis in biology, or alternately, which have conflicting biological classifications from the common one (berry, in particular, seems to have to completely non-overlapping definitions between the common use and biological. It seems the majority of foods we call berries aren't actually botanical berries, while lots of things we'd never classify as berries should still be classified as such). The thing is, context matters. What makes sense to a biologist may not to a cook. Or as someone wiser than me once said "Knowledge will tell you a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom tells you not to put tomatoes in a fruit salad." --Jayron32 02:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Another good one is "bug" - which most people would use for insects, spiders, butterflies and a bunch of other things. It's useful to have generic words for things in order to avoid having to do a detailed classification when time is of the essence. "<scream> Steve, there's a huge bug in the bathtub!"...is a sufficiently precise form of communication. In this context, there is no need to count six legs but not count pseudo-legs and look for the segmented body plan in order to use the unnecessarily precise term: "insect". The same thing is true for words like "dinosaur". We may want to say things like "When dinosaurs ruled the Earth" as a convenient short-hand. Excessive precision is often counter-productive - a classic example being the ridiculous argument about whether Pluto is a planet or not. If your robotic lander is in orbit around the thing, you'll probably want to say things like "Let's land on the planet now" without having to pick a more scientifically precise term when ambiguity is simply not an issue. We do this all the time...if I ask you whether a pickup truck is a car - you'll probably say "No" - but if I ask you to count the number of cars ahead of us in the drive-thru lane, I bet you'd include pickup trucks in the count. Informal language is stuffed full of that kind of mess...which is actually a good thing when rapid, approximate communication is needed. The important thing is to use more precise language where it actually matters - and to know when to mentally flip between modes. SteveBaker (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• The OP is apparently asking for a typological classification. The internet mentions typological classifications of certain bones and eggshell fragments. But basically, any research is likely to be done within valid groups, like the sauropods and their skulls and backbones. The only common non-genetic classification I have heard of would be the herbivorous, versus the carnivorous dinosaurs, which would group the sauropods with the bird-hipped dinosaurs (the brontosaur with the triceratops, e.g., instead of with their closer cousins, the tyrannosaur. μηδείς (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

succubus

Are people who claim to have summoned a demon/succubus for sex delusional or does such a thing actually exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.163.201.237 (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no widely accepted scientific evidence of actual demons, succubi and such things, which would strongly suggest that people who say they have had an experience with such things are likely to be either delusional, intentionally lying, or in some other way mistaken. Though if you know such a person, maybe encourage them to take a picture next time. Dragons flight (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Here [1] [2] are some accounts from people who believe that such things exist. Many people would classify this as crackpot territory. On the other hand, people believe in lots of things, from miracles to the invisible pink unicorn to the Garden of Eden. So if you don't want a scientific perspective (you didn't ask on the science desk), then you get to believe whatever you want. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, no one actually earnestly believes in the invisible pink unicorn. It only exists to serve the purpose of mocking people of faith. Without confirming, denying, or passing normative judgement on anything else you noted people believe in, I just needed to clarify that. --Jayron32 21:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

"Mocking" doesn't seem quite right. It's to show that believing in things based on faith, as opposed to evidence, leads to absurd beliefs. See reductio ad absurdum. StuRat (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hm... weren't we talking here recently about how you can't prove a negative? I'll admit that the invisible pink unicorn has very few serious devotees, but I'd hesitate to rule them out completely ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Accepting that the Eden story was a metaphor for the hunting-and-gathering lifestyle, to claim it never existed is one of the traps atheists tend to fall into. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The invisible pink unicorn is just a valid as God, Allah, Buddha or any of the other multitude of magical sky pixies people conjured up before they understood the world. As for the OP, those people are either lying or mentally ill. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 08:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

That extremely narrow range purports to cover all possibilities, but doesn't go anywhere near it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Erm, I fail to see how it doesn't. Either people didn't see anything, but say that they do. Then they are lying. The second possibility is that they genuinely believe that they saw something that doesn't exist, so therefore they were hallucinating, a common sign of a number of mental illnesses. What other options are there? Fgf10 (talk) 08:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Optical illusion. Or maybe they saw something that is beyond their experience so they give it a name that is wrong. Most UFOs fall into this category. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

If they believe what they saw was a genuine mythical being, they are mentally ill, as no such thing exists. And yes, I do classify people who genuinely believe in religion as mentally ill. Fgf10 (talk) 11:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Then your mind is closed to any other possibilities. Get back to us when and if you become more open to the possibility that there are possibilities you have not yet imagined. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You're kidding me, right? Poe's law strikes again. This is the reference desk. Where we deal in facts, not fairy tales. I'm a research scientist, I deal in reality, so should you. Calling someone who doesn't believe in fiction closed-minded in rather hilarious. 12:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

And labelling as "mentally ill" or "a liar" anyone who believes things that you think don't exist - what is that? The spirit of intellectual enquiry? Get real. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 13:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

That is the spirit of reality. I don't 'think' mythical/religious things don't exist, I know. And before you go, 'oh that's just another belief', no, I have the laws of physics on my side. People who believe things that are demonstrably false and incompatible with reality are at best delusional. Now, if you are one of them, I do feel sorry for you, and I would advice you seek help. We can't go on treating religiosity as something normal, this is 2015, not 1615. It is indeed the spirit of intellectual enquiry that moved us out of the dark days when religion dictated life, and we are still ongoing in the struggle to rid modern society of the remnants of those barbaric practices. One day we'll get there! Fgf10 (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The reality is that you don't know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Nor are dreams and religiosity mental illness. Such fallacious wp:OR belongs elsewhere. -Modocc (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Atheists often make statements like that. It's part of the mantra of the "religious" aspect of atheism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, we're actually having this argument on a factual site? We're actually supposed to pretend religion is normal? Once again, the reality is that I'm right, and I know. Religion is incompatible with the laws of physics, therefore it doesn't exist. How hard can it be? I know years of indoctrination are hard to shed, and that when you're living in a state that is basically a fundamentalist theocratical state, like the US, it may be hard to express rational thought, but this is reality. I am genuinely amazed to see so many people that otherwise post many sensible things actually defend religion. The mind baffles! Fgf10 (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I've never mentioned religion. The OP asked whether such a thing as a succubus exists. No religion claims succubi exist, as far as I know. You said "As for the OP, those people are either lying or mentally ill". That's what I've taken exception to. You can prove that something exists, by giving evidence of it. But how can you prove that something does not exist? And be so hard-line about it? The record of science is a long litany of things that were said, categorically, just like you're doing now, not to exist, only for their existence to be later proven. I'm not saying I believe in succubi, but neither do I dismiss multiple claims over many centuries as manifestations of mental illness or as lies. I maintain an open mind. I recommend it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

More importantly, for me anyway, his claim they are "...either lying or mentally ill..." is still a false dilemma given that succubi don't exist, since it is actually quite normal for people to believe in things that happen to not be true, which is why scientific progress can be sloth-en. -Modocc (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Religion is something that has been ubiquitious in humanity since the dawn of history, and almost certainly much longer. No matter how much you or I dislike it, it cannot in any way be described as not being "normal". (And religion clearly does exist, even if some of its claims are false or nonsense). Additionally, while I'm not a qualified psychiatrist, I am not aware that "believing in something that isn't actually true" is an overriding diagnostic of mental illness. Iapetus (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Not quite answering the OP's question about purposefully summoning, but related - there is such a thing as Sleep paralysis, which is interpreted in many cultures around the world as a Succubus, as in many cases, it feels like someone or something is lying on top of you, and in other cases it feels like there is someone or something in the room (and, indeed, sometimes multiple entities). I started to get it when I was 16 (during exam time), then it stopped for a few years until I moved to Japan, and then I was getting it regularly. I knew it was just my body not 'waking up yet' even though my brain had, and therefore had no reason to think there were 'entities' in the room. It's a very unpleasant feeling, but I didn't seek medical help for it, because I knew what it was and it didn't interfere with my life. We talked about this a few weeks ago on here, and as one person noted (something which I already knew), it is claimed that it is very common in Japan. Bizarrely, that is where I got it most - probably just a coincidence, but there you go. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 13:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is not a delusion in the sense of being the result of a mental illness, but it is a hallucination often associated with night terrors and hypnagogia. For a surprisingly specific folkloric take on it, see The Terror That Comes in the Night, which discusses the common succubus manifestation known as the Old Hag. From reading accounts and talking with people who have experienced it, these "visitors" combine the intensity of dreams with the realism of waking life, resulting in experiences that are very hard to shake. Matt Deres (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• Two things. What really disturbs me is people who are so concerned about what others believe, to the point of making windows in mens' souls. I don't care if that's Puritanism, Climate Alarmism, or Islamism, Political Correctness, or Radical Atheism.

I am an atheist. So what!? I don't think or worry about God or Santa Claus or think or worry about the beliefs of others, unless they start shouting things about "Death to the Indifidels!" or advocating the murder of climate "denialists". See also these recent publications, in case you think the British public terror announcement was a joke.

That being said, according to an article several years back, night terrors and associate deaths are not uncommon in South East Asian men. That could easily stoke fears of demons among the less informed. μηδείς (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

With regards to intentionally summoning "...a demon/succubus for sex..." see Lucid dream. --Modocc (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

In a lucid dream, we can definitely imagine screwing a demon, but can't ask for the paralysis that makes it feel like the demon's screwing us. That's one of (or some of) the many separate, involuntary mechanisms we leave to the part of the brain we typically don't believe is "us".

Shamans can rock the voluntary trance, but like unicorns, the usefulness of these in perceiving other worlds is without any value for empirical research. Also quite like unicorns, we can't say fakirs absolutely haven't gotten real, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of mixed messages, false conclusions and seeing hidden worlds, nevermind the unicorn. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

How do you know a medium is not really listening to the ghosts of your departed ancestors? Because he has a 'fake ear'. :) KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 21:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Also because the phonebook you find these guys in explicitly says don't trust these guys. Not sure how that helps anyone locate the legitimate kind. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)