September 2

There's a book coming up in 2018, a novel by James Patterson. In the United States, its title is "17th Shooter". In the United Kingdom, it's "17th Scandal". Are there lots of novels with different titles depending on the country?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHAAOE: List of works with different titles in the United Kingdom and United States#Literature. A famous example is that the UK Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is called Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the US. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note also as the list itself says, the list is likely to be very incomplete, perhaps intentionally so depending on the sourcing requirements and whether the works need to be notable. Offhand, I know one book in Elizabeth Moon's Vatta's War series Marque and Reprisal was published as Moving Target in the UK (and as is common, also NZ and Australia), mentioned in both these articles but not the list. Well it wasn't until I added it, and I probably wouldn't if we didn't have an article on the series and I didn't easily find sources. (Well probably many library databases will note the difference, but I'm not sure of their acceptance so I likely wouldn't have used them.) I'm sure I've come across other science fiction or fantasy novels with different titles before but can't remember them offhand and I don't read nearly as widely as I should. Nil Einne (talk) 06:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience (45 years a fan) it's not rare. Spurred by this query, I've already added an Isaac Asimov title (The Death Dealers / A Whiff of Death), and I think I'll now go and add Alfred Bester's The Stars My Destination / Tiger! Tiger!. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}

[Edited to add. . .] I've just been reading the full bibliography of Brian Aldiss (for sadly obvious reasons) in the online The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (which gives both US and UK editions and titles), and no less than 12 of his works qualify (excluding more minor variations). 90.204.180.96 (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The Madness of King George μηδείς (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Not a novel, and the film has the same title in both the UK and the USA. DuncanHill (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading this news story[1] and initially thought it was talking about drawing blood from a drunk driver. But it turns out the suspect had actually died in the crash and that the cop was trying to draw blood from the victim of the crash. Is this a normal thing in America? What's the purpose of drawing blood from a crime victim? Mũeller (talk) 06:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how widely it's practiced but the article you linked to explains the reason why the officer wanted to draw blood A neighboring police department sent Payne, a trained police phlebotomist, to collect blood from the patient and check for illicit substances, as the Tribune reported. The goal was reportedly to protect the trucker, who was not suspected of a crime. so I'm not sure why you're asking here about the purpose.

I would note that it's always possible there's a risk initial impressions about the accident aren't quite accurate. So one party may not be entirely the victim even if they initially seem to be, and this isn't just in the US. In some cases this would apply even if the other driver is fleeing the police since either the law or insurance may not, for example, allow a driver to intentionally ram someone regardless of that person fleeing, if this driver isn't the police. (Actually I'm not sure whether intentional ramming by the police is generally covered by insurance or instead the government. Also in most countries the police also have guidelines and limits on how they can engage in chases.) To be clear I'm not saying this happened here, I have no reason to think it did, my point is solely that without a careful analyseanalysis of precisely what happened which generally takes quite a long time, it's often difficult to precisely assign fault and responsibility in a car crash so you should always be cautious about saying someone is solely a victim of the car crash.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC) Edited at: 08:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that at the time of the incident the officers had no reason to assume who the victim was. Not even sure that the officer who was sent to draw the blood was ever at the scene of the accident; that sounds like a specialty where you call in the officer with the proper certificate.

I would also note that it is standard police procedure pretty much anywhere that when there is a collision and someone dies, the other driver is compelled to undergo a quick field sobriety test. There have been cases where the family of the dead driver accused the other driver of being drunk, and he ended up glad having a record that he blew a 0.00 on the breathalyzer.

The full video from one of the other officer's body cam is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJPVglqR4yM

There is a lot of standing around at first; the action occurs around 5:30. Also note the part starting around 11:00 where the officer's supervisor talks to the nurse.

This article provides some information. According to this article a blood sample was being requested not from a deceased individual but from an "unconscious" or "comatose" individual. Bus stop (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of your point, Bus stop, as I don't think anyone thought or has suggested otherwise. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.204.180.96 (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I misread the question. Bus stop (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible reason for the blood draw from the victim is to find drugs and thus shift blame for the accident on him, and away from the police pursuit. StuRat (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, per StuRat, the police can be liable if a bystander is injured as a result of a police chase, so there are rules about exactly when the police are allowed to chase someone. However, going by news discussions (IANAL etc), the liability doesn't apply in Utah if the injured person was intoxicated. There were people saying that the chase was improper to begin with, so they wanted the victim's blood on the off chance they might find something to get out of the liability. And of course since the guy was in a burn ICU, he was probably pumped all full of painkillers and whatnot by the hospital, so they would have found that and maybe tried to use it. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 04:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It seems there's been lots of attention paid to the false arrest of the nurse, but very little to the illegal attempt to draw blood from an accident victim, without his consent, which caused it all. That must be considered a crime, too. I am unclear on if they actually did the illegal blood draw once the nurse was removed. If they did draw blood, that would be assault, I imagine, since it does cause some minor damage to the body. (If somebody stuck you with a needle while walking down the street that certainly would be assault.) Then there's the issue of the police pursuit. I've seen no info on why they were chasing the suspect and if this pursuit was within departmental guidelines. StuRat (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• ER nurse’s arrest now the focus of criminal investigation
• SLC mayor, police chief apologize for officer who arrested nurse; criminal investigation to follow

--Guy Macon (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that we've had an article

the nurse since 2012. Bus stop (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

There are times when I wonder if there is really any definition of "consent" at all. A guy and a girl get drunk at a university and end up in the sack - maybe they say the guy raped the girl, maybe not, it seems random. Police get drunk suspects to "consent" to blood tests and other tests all the time. Can a drunk person consent to an emergency hospital procedure, or to a bank transaction at the casino? It seems like in each instance the ethics, such as they are, are situational, tailored to the specific stakeholders surrounding the transaction. Wnt (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Age of consent is related. That is, isn't it remarkable how children develop the ability to give consent at such dramatically different ages, depending on their nation and the era in that nation ? Often their ability to give consent varies with their gender, if they are married, and whether they are consenting to heterosexual or homosexual activity. StuRat (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How many people have transitioned/are transitioning/have identified as trans in each direction (M-->F, F-->M, or other directions if they exist)? I'm particularly interested in U.S. Military statistics, but any statistics would be appreciated. (I looked through several Wikipedia articles and found the Transgender Service in the U.S. Military handbook online, but no statistics on direction that I could see.)--Wikimedes (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A quick web search[2] indicates mtf is more frequent. I've also been told it's possible to transition more than once. No idea how often that happens. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) This source [3] mentions data from

National Transgender Discrimination Survey which tried to cover the general US population and which found that 60% of participants were male assigned at birth and 40% female assigned at birth. The definition for transgender the NTDS used was

broadly to include those whose gender identity or expression differs from those traditionally associated with their assigned sex at birth. This includes, but is not limited to, those who self-identify as transgender, transsexual, genderqueer, gender non-conforming, and cross-dressers.

While none of this directly tells you how they transitioned, if at all, it's a start. And if you wanted more detailed stastics, even for the US military, looking at the NTDS and seeing if you can glean more detailed info would likely be a resonable idea. In the case of the military, you could probably replicate their methodology (assuming you can still make the adjustments) to come up with your own estimates using any more detailed statistics derived from the NTDS albeit with the understanding the more detailed you go, the more you are making assumptions that could be wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 04:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Interesting information. Thank you both.--Wikimedes (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The

Not sure if it answers your question, but there are examples of evacuated embassy buildings simply being left alone to decay for decades. --Soman (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dimly recall a news story from a decade or two ago about a US(?) embassy building in Russia(?), being re-occupied after a temporary gap in occupancy, having to be stripped internally and completely refurbished in order to remove all the listening devices that had been installed during the absence. I haven't managed to find a reference, however. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.204.180.96 (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugged Embassy Case: What Went Wrong Nanonic (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1988? Doesn't time fly! OK, a decade or three. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.23.195} 90.204.180.96 (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In China, from 1950, when many embassies moved to Taiwan, the diplomatic facilities they left behind tended to have been confiscated by the new government, and used as government facilities. When those countries established relations with the People's Republic, quite often one of the things they needed to agree on first was compensation for the confiscated property. The UK's case was relatively unique, as it was the only major Western power to recognise the new Chinese government early on. However, a series of disturbances in 1967, including a fire at the Beijing embassy, led to some British diplomats leaving China and some properties being confiscated in 1967-1969. Relations resumed in 1971, when the Chinese government paid to restore the embassy in Beijing. Compensation for other British diplomatic and consular property confiscated in 1967 was eventually dealt with in a 1987 treaty. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did they mandate this so that participants would not spend on unnecessary things, because their basic necessities were provided? I can't find a satisfactory explanation online, and would really appreciate some help understanding.

Thanks HarryOtter (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is referring to the Civilian Conservation Corps. Nanonic (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly sure he is referring to the CCC. μηδείς (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nanonic is right, and as to the question, I'm sure the original poster's guess is right. Right in the WP article it says that "The CCC was designed to provide jobs for young men, and to relieve families". Here it says that their families "were often quite destitute". Here, "for his parents' subsistence". Here, it "was a blessing to many poor families". By not letting the men spend it themselves, it ensured that the families would get some help. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And getting drunk, gambling, and going to prostitutes would be how many young men would spend the money, if they could, whether legal or not. So, a government relief effort could end up being seen as responsible for this. That wouldn't look good. StuRat (talk) 03:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By way of additional supporting evidence, here is the president's first fireside chat to mention the CCC. He does not talk about the money sent home, but he does say that the program is "especially" intended to employ "young men who have dependents". The implication that the dependents' welfare matters seems clear to me. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 04:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that this type of paternalist attitude which we would find intrusive today was more widespread then. Henry Ford had all sorts of moral rules for his employees, such as no unmarried cohabitation. Violating those rules would get you fired and evicted from company housing. During the Great Depression, this combo could be a death sentence.StuRat (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're living in someone else's property, you're subject to their rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Within legal limits. StuRat (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See article Company town. For the ugly side of company-town paternalism, see the 1894 Pullman Strike. Even many of George Pullman's fellow industrial magnates and gilded-age plutocrats thought he was kind of an asshole... AnonMoos (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm editing

List of largest LGBT events 173.228.123.121 (talk) 04:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, but I need an specific link for Guinness, or at least something that references information from the Guinness book. Anyone?

✉️ ! 01:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Is this the sort of thing that Guinness records? Blueboar (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest, I don't really know. I just know that a few articles, including the portuguese language wikipedia article about the São Paulo Gay Pride Parade, make such claims.

✉️ ! 02:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

This article pt:Parada do orgulho LGBT de São Paulo includes Guinness data for 2006. According to [6]: