Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 June 29

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.

June 29

Nigel Farage quote source wanted

Quoted in the Guardian], the Telegraph, the Spectator, the Independent, and elsewhere as enjoying denying the claim to the press, UKIP leader Nigel Farage it is said to have been described in an otherwise critical article in Rupert Murdoch's now-defunct News of the World, as being "hung like a donkey" and able to "do it seven times." Is there any way on-line to read that exposé? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 4:47 pm, 26 June 2013, last Wednesday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)

It doesn't look easy online, News of the World archives don't appear to be readily accessible. If you had an approximate date of publication of said "exposé", a physical search in a British library might reveal the truth behind the "donkey" (although Farage denies this....!) The Rambling Man (talk) 5:04 pm, 26 June 2013, last Wednesday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)

Much as I feel kindly toward Medeis much of the time, this question looks to me like a BLP violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 6:26 pm, 26 June 2013, last Wednesday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)

I have reposted this question with a different headline and sources provided after comments made by BB and on the talk page. μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I am also curious if the author of the NotW piece can be identified. μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I might be alone in this opinion, but I personally would prefer it if Mr Farage was hanged rather than hung. Horatio Snickers (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, the News of the World is backed up on [archive.org], or at least some of it is - most accounts suggest that the alleged sexing took place in 2006 - so if you can find an approximate date for when the NOTW article was run, you may be able to find that particular page there. Horatio Snickers (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Update - ok, if this blog is to be believed, it contains the original text of the article: [#NF002* - Liga HOWELLS & The NotW]. There's a NOTW news archive here [[1]] but you'd have to know the month in which the story was printed. No indication as to the author, but often with hatchet jobs (and indeed more flattering sex stories, as this appears to be) they don't attribute it to a specific author, just a "staff writer". Horatio Snickers (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I just found the piece in NewsBank (our local library has online home access): "Euro MP cheats on his wife with ... A WOMAN - Exclusive. News of the World (London, England) - Sunday, January 29, 2006. Author: Neil Mcleod". I can confirm that the blog transcript Horatio Snickers linked is accurate. It doesn't say he was "hung like a donkey"; it says "He was quite well endowed", and the only equine aspect was that she said "he was snoring like a horse" afterward. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Question about "Nothing to hide argument" - Who are the proponents?

I am having trouble finding names or arguments of proponents of the "Nothing to hide argument" which says that citizens who have "nothing to hide" should not fear surveillance, and if they do have something, they shouldn't be doing it anyway. I know the UK governments uses it in their campaigns for surveillance, but I need arguments (I.E. Mr. So and So from ABC said XYZ)

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't it Dick Cheney who said, "Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear"? That might be a good starting point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll see if there are sources that state him saying that, and under what context. Thanks for the tip :) WhisperToMe (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The "all citizens" aspect is a new twist on this however the argument goes back decades if not centuries and whatever modern expansive definition it has adopted really goes back to the logic of those somewhat more limited uses, such as the oil industry in the 1970s, union bosses in the 1950s, and African politics from the 1960s. The argument is not new, the application given the advancement (and voluntary adoption into things such as facebook, cell phones and social networks) of technology is.

As far as "arguments" I am not certain you will find many detailed, in-depth arguments for it however there are some rationalizations or excuses for it, such as Google CEO Eric Schmidt's comments in 2009. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 08:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for finding Eric Schmidt! I added him to the list. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Glad to help, there was also a comment by Facebook's Zuckerberg to the effect of calling users of Facebook idiots, suckers or something worse when the subject of digital privacy came up. I am sure a google search will provide better info on that. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Can we get a source for the Dick Cheney 'quote'? He may be Satan, but even then he's protected by BLP. μηδείς (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • This article associates the quote with Cheney, while not directly crediting it to him.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Which is why I originally phrased it as a question: "Wasn't it Dick Cheney...?" and then someone put a redundant "citation needed" tag. It appears that although the quote is associated with him, it predates him quite a while. Although even in the last couple of weeks he has said Americans have nothing to fear from the government programs Snowden brought to light. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
      • The "quote" in the CNN hit piece Bugs linked to, with a very bizarre kidnapping fantasy by the editorialist imagines the phrase said to Cheney:

        What terrifies Cheney (and perhaps should terrify his boss, Bush, as well) is that one morning he will be sipping his café au lait in Paris or strolling along the Thames in London or examining Picasso's "Guernica" in the Museo Reina Sofia in Madrid (would he recognize Iraq in that painting?), only to be suddenly tapped on the shoulder and escorted to a nearby police station. Politely, of course -- there would be no roughing him up, no extraordinary rendition, say, to North Korea, certainly no waterboarding in Guantánamo to get him to come clean, no one whispering in his ear, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."

        Note that these are not reports from an interview, but rather the author's suppositions. A statement like this would certainly not be allowed under BLP and various other policies. μηδείς (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

According to MAINWAY#Government and public response, Trent Lott said in 2006 "What are people worried about? What is the problem? Are you doing something you're not supposed to?". Scott McNealy#Opinions mentions the famous 1999 quote "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it.", which is not quite the same but is similarly dismissive of the idea of privacy as a basic human right. -- BenRG 06:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for finding these! WhisperToMe (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Mary, Queen of Scots requested burial

Where in France did Mary, Queen of Scots wanted to be buried? Saint Denis?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 06:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You can read the text of her last letter to Elizabeth here. She asks her cousin to " ... permit my poor disconsolate servants to remove my corpse, that it may be buried in holy ground, with my ancestors in France, especially the late Queen my mother ... ." No location is mentioned but her mother Mary of Guise ended up buried at a convent in Reims, so if her request implies burial alongside her mother, that's where she would have ended up had Elizabeth allowed it. - Karenjc 07:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

According to Find a Grave, she was actually first buried at Peterborough Cathedral, but was exhumed and reburied by her son James VI and I at Westminster Abbey, where her remains are today. Again, to piggyback on Karenjc's answer, however, I can't find any more information about a specific burial ground in France where she wanted to be buried, just "with her ancestors in France". --Jayron32 20:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Was her mother's gravesite in Reims desecrated during the French Revolution or even those of the House of Guise elsewhere in France? Also were any royal graves in Scotland desecrated during the Reformation or just the Catholic churches and not the graces?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

American politician who worked the jobs of his constituents, in the 1980s

Pretty sure it was a Governor, he did at least 400+ stints working 8-hour shifts as teacher, policeman, etc. Not sure where I read that, maybe Cracked.com, can't find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.114.192 (talk) 06:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It was Florida Governor Bob Graham, first elected in 1979; it's mentioned in our article. --Xuxl (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Taxes

What are the most popular and least popular taxes? Horatio Snickers (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Most popular tax: lotteries. Least popular tax: depends on who you ask. For the richest people, perhaps the capital gains tax; for the poorest people, perhaps sales taxes. Looie496 (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The most popular tax would be any that you don't have to pay. For example, taxes on cigarettes if you're a non-smoker. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Per Bugs, there are no taxes that the masses will pay gleefully. All taxes are pretty much universally despised, despite Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s quip "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.", which while probably pretty accurate, always raises the question of whether or not we're getting good value for our admission fee... --Jayron32 20:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree. For a general population taxes can't be considered "most" or "least popular". Objectively they can be divided into "most widespread" and "less widespread". The most widespread taxes are income tax and VAT (but if you have some kind of online job like written translations the tax paying is rather optional since you are not legally bound to disclose and register your employment information for tax purposes). Brandmeister^talk

That last sentence (in small) is contentious, Brandmeister. In many/most jurisdictions, you are legally bound to disclose all forms of income and pay the appropriate tax on it. Saying it's "optional" amounts to legal advice, and pretty poor advice at that. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

There are actually taxes that the masses will pay gleefully, and I already mentioned them -- lotteries. A lottery is functionally a tax that people pay voluntarily, because a fraction of it is returned to a few of them in the form of large prizes. Looie496 (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Libertarians like to call the lottery a "voluntary tax", but they say the same thing about the sales tax, or any tax associated with a "voluntary" purchase (including food, in some states). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Gonna have to ask for a cite on that, Bugs. Sales taxes are obviously not voluntary in libertarian theory (I'm using the term in the sense common in the States), any more than the income tax is (in both cases, the State requires payment on the basis of what would otherwise be a simple exchange between two private parties). Not the same at all as voluntary taxes such as the lottery or highway tolls, where you are paying fee-for-use, although the lottery example is somewhat tainted by the fact that private competition is usually not allowed.

Now, many Libertarians (note the change of capitalization) may prefer the sales tax to the income tax, on the grounds that it's a tax on consumption rather than production, or because they are opposed to the graduated nature of the income tax, but it's not a question of "voluntary". --Trovatore (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"Voluntary" in the sense that you choose whether to buy something or not. You don't choose whether to pay income and FICA taxes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You choose whether to work or not. If you want to pay less in income taxes, you can always work less and get less income. --Trovatore (talk) 04:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd have to agree that pro-market liberals are the ones who tend to prefer sales taxes. I voted Herman Cain even though he had dropped out by then. μηδείς (talk)

Republicans want to reduce income taxes (helping the rich) and increase sales taxes (harming the poor). Nothing "liberal" about that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Come on, Bugs. Look up classical liberal and progressive income tax. I can't speak for Republicans. But there's nothing problematic with a flat sales tax. And I am unaware of any free marketeers who have a problem with exempting people from sales tax on necessary purchases of food, shelter and clothing. I am also surprised you are unaware the filthy rich, like our last GOP pres.can., pay no income tax. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. :(
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Read what the Republican-controlled North Carolina state government is up to, and you might rethink. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC) If you give me a not-too long and objective source for that I will. μηδείς (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

For a tax to become unpopular, people have to know about it. In many cases the taxes on an item are not disclosed to the public. There are also hidden taxes, such as the premium all US health care consumers must pay to support the medical care of the uninsured, since the government requires health care facilities to treat them, yet refuses to provide the money to do so. StuRat (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

" ... not disclosed to the public". I assume you mean at the point of sale, because it would be impossible for Congress or a state legislature to pass a law creating a new tax in a way that nobody outside that body knew about, if "open and transparent government" means anything. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Unlike passing a law abrogating the fourth amendment requiring a warrant affirmed by oath on probable cause in order to allow a secret organization to record all your electronic communications? μηδείς (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

How do you know about that? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I and a lot of other people I know regard traffic fines as an excellent form of voluntary taxation that we quite consciously avoid. HiLo48 (talk) 07:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

What's the average time a Japanese death row inmate spends on death row?

WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Considering he accepts all his appeals to be filed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelebrity One (talk • contribs) 17:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Edit: For example, when will Tomohiro Kato be executed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelebrity One (talk • contribs) 17:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC) According to Capital punishment in Japan#Stays of execution, the typical time on death row is five to seven years, but some have been there much longer -- the record is 32 years. Looie496 (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC) If the OP isn't the banned user "Timothy here", he's doing a good imitation of it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Virtue ethics compared to deontological ethics

Do obligations (not necessarily towards anyone or anything else besides the actor) have anything to do with virtue ethics like they do with deontological ethics and how do these two types of theories differ? I ask this because Ayn Rand's position is that there are no moral obligations, only morally proper act, virtues, and values, she is a virtue ethicist (albeit, a morbidly fascinating one), and viewed Immanuel Kant's concept of duty as evil. — Melab±1 ☎ 21:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

She holds there are no unchosen obligations. If you make a promise (caeteris paribus) you should keep it, for example, which would be the virtue of integrity. You can read her on obligation here: "Accepting no mystic “duties” or unchosen obligations, he is the man who honors scrupulously the obligations which he chooses." μηδείς (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I was asking in the general context regarding virtue and deontological ethics. I already have somewhat of an understanding of her philosophy and that she thinks Kant is a "mystic" (I happen like his tone of writing). I think deontological approaches sound valid, so isn't it an obligation under her philosophy to not violate people's rights? It seems there is no effectual difference. — Melab±1 ☎ 02:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

No one is going to be able to give you an answer to the wider question that is not either their own OR, or quotes/references to another philosopher. I can tell you there are Objectivist (i.e., Randian) writers who criticize Rand for too often making her own virtues and values into duties, and who criticize her for presenting a virtue-focused ethics, rather than a value-focused ethics. But I do think it is quite clear from the link I gave that she essentially has a consequentialist ethics based on the metaethical question, "Do you want to live (the good life) or not?" If you don't, no system is necessary, you can act like an off-balanced washing machine if you like. If you do, then you are accepting certain obligations based on your nature and needs as an organism of voluntary rationality. If you want this then you must do that. Whether that is TRUE or not is something you have to decide for yourself. There is no reference that will make anyone decide between Kant or Nietzsche or whomever. μηδείς (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting perspective. I've thought for a few months that she had a consequentialist component based on the way she established rights, which she said were necessary for every person to pursue their values and live their lives. — Melab±1 ☎ 04:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You've obviously read The Virtue of Selfishness. If you really want to get Rand, the four other books to read are Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, and her three books on aesthetics (in a broad sense); her Romantic Manifesto, and her Art of Fiction and Art of Non-fiction. (In fact, all writers and wikipedia editors should read the last two books, regardless of political ideology.) μηδείς (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Haha. I've actually never read The Virtue of Selfishness or any of her non-fiction works. I gathered all that stuff that I mentioned by combing pages on the web (both critical and explanatory) and an Objectivist forum. I'll take it that I did a good job learning about Objectivism for someone who hasn't read her philosophy books. From what I know, it seems like she could be described as what you get when you put John Locke and Aristotle into a particle accelerator. I might look into those. One big flaw, though: I think her conception of collectivism (indeed anyone's conception of it) is too muddled to be of use. Thank you. — Melab±1 ☎ 21:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd warn you away from such fora, and towards her own works. You'll tend to get either orthodox nastiness or bizarre self delusions in them, or a combination of both. The big problem with TVoS is that she quotes her own fiction as a reliable source, strangely enough. But her arguments are cogent, and I would still suggest the five books I mentioned. It is curious why anyone would have an interest in such a detailed issue regarding her philosophy not having read her. Her fiction is quite excellent too, although The Fountainhead takes about 70-100 pages to get into. μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I think The Fountainhead is far and away her best work. Atlas Shrugged is too long and too preachy (John Galt's speech could be cut by a factor of 10 without losing any essential point), whereas We the Living is too much a Russian novel (and too depressing, but I repeat myself). Anthem is also good. --Trovatore (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't really disagree with that. I do find Atlas Shrugged more fun, but less art. I haven't read the speech again since the first time I read the book--but I could probably reproduce every point from memory, and didn't mind it the first time. The big problem with the Fountainhead is that a lot of the beginning was cut, and because of this the first 70 or so pages seem very odd--a bit of high art mixed in with a lot of pro-forma drivel, lmost self-parody. Much of the cut material is included in The Early Ayn Rand, and well-worth reading. I have only read We The Living once. It is indeed very Russian, but still very good. It was her only book which had a flawless (magnificent) adaptation into film. The two part Italian Noi Vivi/Addio Kira is a great work starring Rossano Brazzi and my favorite of all actresses, Alida Valli (also of The Third Man (film) and the Paradine Case. μηδείς (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I read The Fountainhead with my English class in twelfth grade and Anthem in tenth grade. Anthem introduced me to the concept of collectivism and I've pondered exactly what it means for several years now. Before reading Anthem, I only thought about government/politics in terms of 'freedom' and 'dictatorship'. The individualism-collectivism still seems faulty because it would appear to me that "collectivism" collapses into relating to individuals. — Melab±1 ☎ 03:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have to say I am curious where you are from, because although I first read Rand on my own as an 11th grader, when a former best enemy threw Virtue of Selfishness on my desk between classes, saying I would like it (and I laughed, Howard Roarklike at the title), we were never assigned anything more recent than Truman Capote's perverse and disgusting In Cold Blood to read in high school. When I was in college I saw NYC children were being assigned Rand, Tolkien and Herbert among others, all of whom were favorites I'd read on my own. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW, your ethical question implies a fourth-year undergraduate education. You must have other areas of interest worth inquiring about, if you pardon my whoring. μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)