Miscellaneous desk
< February 21	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 23 >

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.

February 22

Why are casinos and slot machines and all that illegal in so many places?

Of all the things to make illegal, why is gambling one? Especially since alcohol is usually allowed everywhere, which must be far worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk • contribs) 02:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the article Blue law. Doesn't exactly answer your question, but may be informative. Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 02:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Effects of Casino Gambling on Crime and Quality of Life in New Casino Jurisdictions(pdf), Casinos, Crime, and Community costs(pdf). A quick google search on "effect of casino on community" will give you many similar results. Royor (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Situations defined as real are real in their consequences." The fact that citizens believe crime has risen and that the rise is in some way due to the casino presence is important. (first pdf, p92). The second pdf concluded that the effect on crime is low shortly after a casino opens, and grows over time,(p1) (and in the long run) casinos increased all crimes except murder (p17). So to answer your question: gambling is illegal in some places because of the negative perception (whether real or not) and the very real long term social cost. As to alcohol, look at the US Prohibition - they tried it, didn't work. Royor (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casinos have also historically offered almost unlimited possibilities for money laundering (almost all cash transactions, lots of room for "skim", hard to follow for tax purposes), which is why they have been so appealing to organized crime in the past. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gambling can be every bit as addictive (and bankrupting) as drugs and alcohol. They tried banning alcohol. That didn't work. But it's regulated, as are drugs and alcohol. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are classed aspects to the selective banning of gambling. Totalisers have been state monopolies at times, illegal Starting Price bookmaking has been both a proletarian, and criminal, tradition. Lotteries are regularly run as state monopolies, occasionally even with the money generated ear marked for "public goods," such as the use of part of the UK lotteries to partly fund films. In other places such lotteries are used for consolidated revenue. Poker-machines used to be limited in NSW to clubs, as clubs were a system of semi-communal places. These days they're legal in pubs and clubs, and clubs and club alcohol licencing are as closely related to their social ancestor as the RSL is to a returned soldiers association. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Originally they were illegal because of the harm they caused to society. After all, unlike farming or manufacturing, they don't create any wealth, they just take it from some (mainly the poor gamblers) and give it to others (mainly the rich casino owners). However, in recent years, governments ceased to care about the harm to society, and now are mainly concerned with getting their "piece of the action". Thus, they legalize forms of gambling where they will profit the most, and keep other forms illegal. I like to call lottery tickets "paying your stupidity tax". StuRat (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I agree with the sentiment I have to put up a ^{[citation needed]} Royor (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely a common perception...or a stereotype...associated with customers/operators of casinos as being "undesirables." The mafia/money laundering aspect was mentioned in an above post, but there is also a popular belief by some that casinos/gambling/lotteries are, at the core, akin to a tax on the poor and/or uneducated (basically, highly-susceptible) people looking to get rich quick. Also of interest is that, in many cases lawmakers tend to "find reasons" or loopholes to legitimize gambling, because some of the positive aspects of casinos include job creation and increased tax revenue. In Mississippi for example, for a long time casinos were only allowed on Native American reservations, being that they were "outside of" the State's purview. Then riverboat gambling on navigable water ways was permitted, which eventually turned into casinos being built adjacent to waterways with a ditch (commonly called a moat) dug around them, to fulfill the "over water" requirement. Now, after Hurricane Katrina, Casinos are permitted to be built on land, but within a certain proximity of waterways, due to safety concerns (many water-based casinos were swept away during Katrina, most notably one- I thing the Beau Rivage- that "rolled over" on top of Hwy 90 in the storm surge). Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 04:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like God doesn't want them to gamble. :-) Which reminds me, I believe there are also religious objections to gambling. Having people hoping to get rich by gambling instead of working is definitely counter to the Puritan work ethic, for example.

Economists would also argue that "gambling" on the stock market is better for the nation, in that it provides positive rate of return (versus casinos) and also provides capital for corporations. But governments prefer gambling on the lottery, because the tax rate is higher. StuRat (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I question your premise. Is gambling completely (or almost completely) banned in significantly more countries than alcohol is completely (or almost completely) banned? Most countries regulate and license gambling in the same way as they regulate and license the sale of alcohol. --Tango (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Texas

I have heard that Texas has a provision in its State Constitution (or some such governing document) that allows for it to be divided into multiple, smaller states. Tue or myth? If true, what are the details? Has it ever been considered? Is this unique to Texas? (I read the article on Texas and didn't see anything about this, but its a rather large article, and I may have missed it.) Thanks! Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 02:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is true. I think it is unique to Texas. See here [1] and here [2] RudolfRed (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to get off subject here, but the first link (Snopes) mentions that the "right to secede from the Union" is a myth. I had always took that to be fact, and much more "common knowledge" than the provision to divide into five states. Didn't Rick Perry mention something about Texas being able to secede in one of the debates (of course, that was Rick Perry...his grasp of governmental workings is not exactly one of his strong suits.):) Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 04:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there is no mechanism set up to allow for secession doesn't mean it's prohibited. I imagine if all parties agreed (or at least the majority), we'd find a way to get it done. StuRat (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess it does seem kind of silly to include a "secession provision" into a statehood-agreement simply because if, for example, Texas decided on, and was firmly committed to, secession, they probably wouldn't give a shit whether the Federal Government thought it was legal or not (assuming that they were so firmly committed that they were willing to back it up, as the worst case scenario, with armed conflict You'd think that would be considered beforehand). But maybe I'm missing something. Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 04:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page section Texas Annexation#Options for the formation of new states mentions a possible constitutional issue, if the splitting of Texas were ever actually attempted. Pfly (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The joke in Alaska is that if Texans can't get over it that when Alaska became a state Texas became the second-largest instead of the largest, we'll split Alaska in half and Texas can be the third largest. Course we also have our very own secessionists as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't this resolved in 1865? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Just because one attempt at secession resulted in war doesn't mean that all must. Heck, there are large parts of the nation I'd like to encourage to leave the Union. :-) StuRat (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, let's say California decided to secede from the U.S. b/c their environmental and civil liberty policies were at odds. And assuming that, if that were the case, California would not acknowledge any sort of U.S. supreme court ruling as having baring on the secession after the fact...do you not think the U.S. Fed would invoke military action to "bring them back in line?" What other alternatives would there be? Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 06:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see many peaceful alternatives:

1) Allow them to become fully independent.

2) Form an EU style confederation, where CA is no longer under the US Constitution, but still maintains other key economic links.

3) Revise the laws in question to give CA more leeway. For example, trying to arrest Californians for the production, distribution, and sale of medical marijuana is one of the worst Federal policies. StuRat (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a very similar situation as is currently happening with regards to Scottish independence. The legal position is very clear that Scotland can't unilaterally break away from the UK and all the major UK political parties are very clear that they don't think it would be in Scotland's interests or the interests of the rest of the UK for Scotland to break away, but everyone is agreed that if the Scottish people really want to then they will be allowed to. I would expect the rest of the US to view Calafornian independence in much the same way (although there are a few differences - Scotland was independant until 300 years ago, while Calafornia has never been a sovereign state, and the British tend to be a little more pragmatic than the Americans when it comes to patriotism). --Tango (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

California historians might disagree with part of that. See Republic of California (1846). Rmhermen (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What an em-bear-assing mistake. :-) StuRat (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]

That article doesn't remotely contradict what I said. It says "the "republic" never exercised any real authority, and it was never recognized by any nation". A 26-day revolt does not a sovereign state make. --Tango (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical matter, the federal government could deal with that fairly readily if it ever got to that very silly point by not allowing planes to enter California airspace, or trains. Refuse to clear people at the ports of entry. Have the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco refuse to issue any money (not just currency) to California banks. Really, it would never get to force.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not 1861 any more. The United States has a long-standing tradition of supporting various independence movements in every corner of the planet. It consistently operates under the banner of self-determination of peoples to such a degree that it routinely uses the term "freedom fighters" to describe movements which should properly be labelled as "terrorists". (Some recent examples include Chechnya, Kosovo, and Kurdistan.) It's hard to imagine that the federal government would be willing (or even that it would have popular support) to conduct any hostile actions towards any state that tried to secede, assuming that secession is approved by a statewide referendum. --Itinerant1 (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather skeptical that anyone in the US called Chechnya a case of "freedom fighters". Do you have a source for this ? StuRat (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google news archive search produces a number of sources dating 1992-2000, including articles in Chicago Tribune, New York Times, and Los Angeles Times, but almost all of them are paywalled.

There were, I think, two phases, before and after 9/11. Before 9/11, Chechens were often described by the media as "freedom fighters" or "separatists", the attention of the West was mostly on the alleged human rights abuses committed by Russians in Chechnya, and the White House was exhibiting a bad case of cognitive dissonance by claiming that Russia had sovereignty over the region, while at the same time firmly denouncing any military actions in the region (to the point of threatening sanctions.) Two weeks after 9/11, the White House came out and made a formal statement declaring that there are terrorist organizations in Chechnya with ties to Osama bin Laden. After that, Chechens increasingly became "terrorists" and "insurgents".--Itinerant1 (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After the Beslan school hostage crisis it became apparent to all that they were terrorists, although the earlier apartment building bombings and theater take-over would be more than enough for me. StuRat (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Texas matter, the treaty provision did not place Texas under any different status than any other state for splitting. The provision allows Texas to be split with the consent of Congress and its legislature. But that's true of any state.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reading between the lines, one could say that the wording of the treaty was a bit of a scam - basically extending Texas some theoretical "special privilege" that in fact every other state theoretically had as well. Sounds like Uncle Sam kinda put one over on them good ol' Texas boys. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, I didn't read the whole thing, but I did skim through the Texas Constitution at http://www.constitution.legis.state.tx.us/ and I don't see any such provisions. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in the state constitution (as far as I know), rather the Annexation of Texas Joint Resolution of Congress and Ordinance of the Convention of Texas. Pfly (talk) 07:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medical license

Is a U.S. medical license recognised by other countries (except Canada), permitting the holder to practice medicine there without going through further exams? Thanks. --Gidip (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd expect it to vary by nation, with those which are able to perform their own certification being pickier than third world nations, in general. StuRat (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, my old college roommate went, as a cosmetic surgeon in later life, down to Fiji as a volunteer to perform reconstructive surgery (cleft palates, thing like that), and had to be officially "invited" by the corresponding agency in Fiji (so he had to have papers). But it was really just a formality, and, from what I recall, was facilitated entirely by the Red Cross. Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 05:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Japan, the Medical Practitioners Act prohibits non-holder of a Japanese medical license to practice medicine. --Kusunose 10:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most countries would require you to get a license to practice in that country, but they will usually recognise your existing training and qualifications as long as they aren't considered significantly easier or less complete than the local ones. --Tango (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My brother graduated from an American medical school, but he says he would have to take exams to practice back in Canada. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese astronomer with a Japanese name

I was in the imperial chinese history portal. There is a picture of a Chiinese astronomer 1600s but he has a Japanese name. Very confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.157.87 (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what is your question for the Reference Desk? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I browsed Portal:History of Imperial China and Portal:History of Imperial China/Selected biography but none of them seems to have a Japanese name. Please be more specific. --Kusunose 10:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:History_of_Imperial_China currently has a picture of "A 1675 painting of Kuniyoshi Utagawa, a Chinese priest-astronomer". This is incorrectly labelled; Kuniyoshi Utagawa is the Japanese painter and Chicasei Goyô (Wu Yong) the subject: see [3]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OP is refering to File:Utagawa Kuniyoshi, Portrait of Chicasei Goyô (Wu Yong) (1827–1830).jpg. This picture is shown on Portal:History of Imperial China. The image caption on the portal is misleading: it says “A 1675 painting of Kuniyoshi Utagawa, a Chinese priest-astronomer”. The image page suggests that the picture was painted by Utagawa Kuniyoshi, a 19th century Japanese painter; whereas the image depicts Chicasei Goyô who is also known as Wu Yong, a fictional Chinese astronomer who is described as having lived in the 12th century in the 15th century classical Chinese novel Water Margin. Thus there seem to be two errors in the description of the painting on the portal: firstly the date 1675 is probably wrong, secondly it confuses the painter with the person depicted; unless the errors are in the image description or the articles. – b_jonas 11:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it (be bold!) 59.108.42.46 (talk) 11:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But hold on, "ca" is not a valid syllable in Japanese. IF "Chicasei" comes from his nickname as written in the label in the upper right hand corner of the painting, that is 智多星 ("a very clever star"), which should be chitasei, and the actual name should be "Go Yō", given that the first character is his surname and the second is his given name. The whole thing should, I think, be "Chitasei, Go Yō", and the corresponding Mandarin Chinese is "Zhiduoxing, Wu Yong". But I don't speak Japanese so I'll wait for a native Japanese speaker to confirm whether I'm reading it right. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, not in the biography section but in the selected picture section. I missed it. As for his name in Japanese, yes, his nickname is Chitasei and it should be "Chitasei Go Yō" in Hepburn romanization. Using a circumflex to indicate a long vowel is a feature of Kunrei-shiki romanization and Nihon-shiki romanization. --Kusunose 00:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so now what about the date in the caption? Should that say 1827? – b_jonas 08:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Research Project

Hello Wikipedians, My name is Raffaele and I'm a Master student in Social Anthropology at Goldsmiths College (University of London); I'm writing to ask for your help with my dissertation project: I'm currently looking at knowledge sharing practices and it would be extremely helpful to have a small contribution from you, as the biggest knowledge sharing community. I will only need a small amount of your precious time for a short interview. If you think it is something you would like to take part in, please let me know; I haven’t decide how to conduct the interviews yet, but probably I will send you a list of questions which you can decide to answer, or if you are based in London, or maybe in Europe, you could share your answer with me in front of a coffee! Thank you very much for taking the time Best RaffaeleRafTer (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst there may be people on the ref-desk who'll happily take part in an interview on their knowledge sharing practices, they wouldn't be able to speak for Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself does have a contact us page Wikipedia:Contact_us where it suggests you can contact the founder Jimmy Wales. ny156uk (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But then, again, does Jimmy Wales talk for Wikipedia any more than it's editors ? The nature of such a collaborative process is that "nobody is in charge". StuRat (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you'd know from your ethics committee application, soliciting for interviews in this way, particularly when the object of research has a formal interface for researchers and approved projects, is not a good thing. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh ? StuRat (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? It's normal for an anthropologist to solicit interviews. Falconus^{p t c} 09:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CERN

How on earth is the abbreviation for "The European Organization for Nuclear Research" become CERN? 117.227.51.48 (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it used to be the 'Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire' and when they changed the name, they kept the old acronym, because that's what everyone remembers. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have to admit, CERN is easier to say (and less silly-sounding) than EONR. Sern vs. Ee-Oh-Ner. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really a matter of "used to be", or is it just that the real name is the French one because that's the language they speak where it is, and the second name above is an English translation? HiLo48 (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From CERN:"The acronym CERN originally stood, in French, for Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire (European Council for Nuclear Research), which was a provisional council for setting up the laboratory, established by 12 European governments in 1952. The acronym was retained for the new laboratory after the provisional council was dissolved, even though the name changed to the current Organisation Européenne pour la Recherche Nucléaire (European Organization for Nuclear Research) in 1954.[2]"99.245.35.136 (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sern? I've always said "kern". There you go. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But either way, still easier than EONR. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of these help? --Dweller (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the others, but I'm pretty sure the Scottish island is pronounced to rhyme with 'eye', which isn't how I would attempt to pronounce EONR. Though wouldn't the correct acronym be OERN? 130.88.99.218 (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

um, I mean the initial vowel is pronounced to rhyme with 'eye'. 130.88.99.218 (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them definitely are pronounced more like EONR, eg the Russian ones. --Dweller (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genisys Credit Union

I recently wrote an article on Genisys Credit Union, and I put down 1936 as the foundation date, because the majority of the sources and the organization itself use that year as the foundation date. Genisys Credit Union was actually created in 2008 as the result of a merger of two credit unions, T&C Federal Credit Union (which was founded in 1936) and USA Credit Union (which was founded in 1954). So 1936 is used because it is the date the oldest merged organization was founded. I am not sure if this the right place to ask, but what is common practice on Wikipedia? Is the date of the merger used as the foundation date, or is the original foundation date of the oldest organization used? Thank you for your time. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The general principle on Wikipedia is to go with the sources. This is just one of many examples of why infoboxes are a "bad thing". The true situation is easily explained in full in the article prose, but the infobox forces one to state a definite and single answer which will be misleading whichever date one chooses. Spinning Spark 21:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you are right, this was not the right place. WP:EAR or WP:HD would have been better. Spinning Spark 22:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. So the best solution is to explain the conflict using prose? Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I would be tempted, if the infobox in question supports it, to list both dates, or neither. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 12:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mae West Road, Fayette County, Pennsylvania

Why is there a Mae West Road in Fayette County, Pennsylvania? Wasn't Mae West from New York City? Or is the street named after another Mae West? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People don't have to come from the place where the road is to be honoured in this way. See Stalin Road, Colchester, UK - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just like they honor Martin Luther King, Jr. by naming roads after him in the worst part of every big city. :-) StuRat (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it's not common in America to name rural roads after controversial film stars from other states. (Not common to name streets after Stalin, either.) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to one up Mae West Road, there's the town of Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania. I'm not sure Jim Thorpe ever visited the town while alive. Though he did while dead. --Jayron32 22:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's also possible it was named indirectly after Mae West, as that name was adopted to describe WW2-era life jackets, which inflated in front of the chest on either side. Perhaps such life jackets were manufactured there, or saved the life of whoever named the road, etc. Or maybe the people who live there just want you to come up and see them sometime. StuRat (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's also one in Wisconsin. No indication as to why, though. She was from "Greenpernt", as she used to say. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Roosevelt Road in Illinois, Michigan, Arkansas, New Hampshire, Scotland and Taiwan (among many others, I'm sure). DOR (HK) (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some googling suggests that a number of roads around the country got nicknamed—and maybe in the case of the Pennsylvania one actually named—"Mae West" because they are "curvy". About a road in Wyoming: "...the tight curves of Skyline Drive (nicknamed the Mae West Road by the CCC boys)...".[4] This blog post, [5], about the road in Pennsylvania: "...a road they called Mae West because it was nothing but curves...". More research is required! Pfly (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]