October 23

I thought that I was fairly well-versed in U.S. election laws and procedures. However, something in our article on

Could it just mean that those are states which allow write-in candidates for President, in the general election ? StuRat (talk) 05:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. The states that allow write-in balloting may or may not require that the candidate file in advance to even be counted. Michael J's state apparently does not require this. Alaska does. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(I am in Pennsylvania, by the way.) So then what happens in Alaska, for instance, if a vote is written-in for someone who has not pre-filed? There is no way to prevent people from voting for whomever they want to. Is the vote just not counted? (That doesn't seem fair.)    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 05:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The linked document states that "the votes will be counted for each individual write-in candidate if the candidate has filed a Letter of Intent with the Division of Elections as required...". So I'm taking that to mean that the votes just aren't counted. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In California, I know that write-in votes for non-registered candidates are not counted. I think to register as a write-in candidate (for president) you have to have a slate of electors, which does make sense after a fashion — suppose enough people did actually write in someone who didn't have electors. Whom would California appoint as electors, then? --Trovatore (talk) 05:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical matter, since write-in candidates almost never win, they probably don't go thru the effort to try to read all the names and figure out who they meant, as long as the total number of write-ins is less than the winner. In those rare cases where there are more write-ins, then they have to read each one. At that point, it certainly would be helpful to have a list of possible names to compare each ballot with, to determine who they meant. So, those states that require that write-ins register would indeed toss out all other write-in ballots. StuRat (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really the case? It would seem in cases when the candidate has complied with whatever requirements (like registering to be write-in candidate), votes for them have to be counted, otherwise it wouldn't be possible to report how many people actually voted for that candidate in the final tally (amongst other things) which I presume is the norm in most US states as it is in most of the world. (It seems to be for California

United States presidential election in California, 2008.) The only way I could see this being an exception would be if the law actually says it's not necessary to count and report them unless the total number or percent/proportion exceeds something rather then just some adhoc practice. Nil Einne (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd say the reverse. The law likely states that the officials must determine the count for the winner and perhaps the 2nd place count. Unless it also states that every vote be reported, then this requirement does not exist. Considering that states without a requirement for write-ins would have thousands of write-ins with one or two votes each, it seems absurd to require election officials to determine and report each of them. StuRat (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a bit strange, I haven't heard of anyone having an election that doesn't require you to actually report who was voted for, particularly for official or listed candidates. (In particular, even when cuttoffs exist, they are usually fairly low way lower then 50%-1.) And I don't really see what's so hard about reporting write ins. For states which require registration of write-ins, simply determine if the write-in is a registered candidate. If not, then it can be safely ignored.

For states which allow them without (pre-)registration, then simply report what's written in. The fact you have no idea who Tom Kelvin or Jane Leah are doesn't necessarily matter unless you actually have to worry about appointing elector for either of them (in which case as highlighted above and below, you have other problems like who the heck are going to be the electors even if you can work out who Tom Kelvin is), you are still reporting who was voted for. The fact the Tom Kelvin, Thomas Kelvin and Thamas Kelvln were actually votes for the same person also doesn't necessarily matter to you, as highlighted in the Pennsylvania case if people want to handle something like that they likely need to work with you or by themselves, if you report the votes to the best of your ability you're still reporting who was voted for. There may be a lot of different people but since the number of votes is small even if proportionally you spent 200 times longer counting and reporting a vote for a write in (really the counting won't be that much longer, the extra time would primarily come from needing to write each candidate in your report) as you do for the Republican/Democratic candidate you aren't actually spending that much time. (You may be using a lot more paper.)

But anyway you seem to be partially correct on the earlier point. I only looked at those without a registration requirement but in the Pennsylvania case it's even more complicated then the earlier link suggests. Although writeins are allow not all countries even bother to count them let alone report them [1] (the state itself only seems to report 4 candidates I presume with a cutoff around 0.1% or something [2] although perhaps you can get a more complete tally somewhere [3] has one (including writeins counted but not individualised) although I'm not sure if they got the stuff besides the write-in info from the county data or the state themselves. I'm not entirely sure how Pennsylvania handles the theoretical case when a write in gets enough voted to have elector/s, it sounds to me like they have no provision if the counties themselves aren't even always reporting the total number of writeins. Edit: Actually it turns per the FM link below Pennsylvania did report some of the writeins based on those counties which reported them, but they didn't do all (it sounds like they they did something similar to NH in deciding who to report but chose even fewer people).

Delaware state reports the number [4] but I couldn't find any evidence even the counties themselves report who was voted for.

Alabama does actually give tallys for the writeins [5], you can see amusingly enough GWB received a vote for the Alabama board of education 6.

Iowa is an interesting case, the official information doesn't seem to mention write-ins at all unless I'm not understanding it correctly but it seems the counties do need to report each write-in candidate [6]. (Per the blog [7], Iowa does recommend candidates need to work with their voters to insure consistency in names.)

New Hampshire seem to partially report the individual candidates [8] (original page is broken for the write-ins). I'm not sure what criteria they use to decide, it may be a minimum number of votes (the candidate with the fewest had 13) although more likely I think they only listed those when they had some idea who the person was, I'm also not sure and couldn't be finding out if the counties report the actual names including those listed as 'other'.

New Jersey doesn't seem to report writeins at all (not even tally) at the state level [9] no idea what they do at the county level but the blog [10] said they would only tabulate it if there were enough to win I'm not sure if that means on an individual or overall level.

I was getting bored by this stage and probably going to stop but from the New Jersey search did come across [11] which has info on which state releases what. (It sounds like Delaware may actually release info eventually, whether they did in 2008 and if so where you can find it I don't know.) BTW that blog suggests you may be partially mistaken, a number of these adhoc practices appear to be questionable under state law, it's just that no one has ever bought a lawsuit about it, in some cases ballot access is easy enough that anyone who is going to want to sue (because votes for them were not properly counted or reported) is unlikely to actually be a write-in candidate. (I note that the earlier blog also suggested in a few cases where the state either said they won't count write-ins at all there was some question in the blog of the legality of the practice.)

The other states which are supposed to allow write-ins without registration are Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wyoming. Some of these explicitly mention the need for some sort of paperwork after the election if the candidate wins (I think), but I presume this doesn't affect reporting. It's possible I missed some others, particularly if I misunderstood something about the need for paperwork after the election to mean (pre-)registration, it may pay to check my list with that from the FrankMooreforPresident08 site. Of course as you suggested it's also possible a state despite requiring registration of some sort for writeins won't bother to count and report all of them anyway as strange as that may seem to those unfamiliar to the oddities of US elections.

Nil Einne (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also suspicious of absentee ballots. If they clearly won't influence the outcome, do they really bother to count them ? StuRat (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how accurate and current it is but see http://writein2008.blogspot.com/ which shows varying requirements in each state, if write-in candidates are allowed at all. In many states you must have signed certificates from the people you want as electors. See http://writein2008.blogspot.dk/search/label/Pennsylvania for the apparent mess in your own state. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It does not surprise me that my home state has a messed-up voting law. If I recall correctly from four years ago, it doesn't list the office as "President" but something like "Presidential Electors for...", then there are the five or six named candidates, and a blank line for a write-in. I do know that in my county, they are quite diligent in accounting for spelling variations among write-in votes; I can't speak for the other 66 counties. Anyway, then I guess in Pennsylvania, in theory someone could win without being declared. Then I imagine that person, if he or she accepts, would have to name Electors. I do know that write-in winners for local office (yes, it does happen on that level) must file the same paperwork that candidates on the ballot had to file pre-election, or else forfeit the office. . . . . . . Well, I thank you all. My confusion arose from my residing in a state with very old laws. But I think I'll stick with them. Thanks again.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 09:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A fairly related question, aside from the US, are there any places which have separate voting laws for different jurisdictions? In

csdnew 10:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The United States is fairly unique in having different state laws govern a national election; however, most federal countries have electoral laws that vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, for elections at the sub-national level. In Canada, for example, some provinces have adopted elections at a fixed date, and others not; financing laws vary from province to province as well. --Xuxl (talk) 12:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no national elections in the U.S. That is, there are zero elections which are done on a national level, officially. To state it again: among the entire population of the United States, exactly and no more than zero offices are elected on a national level. Every single election is done by the states according to state law.

538 people do vote for the President, but the election of those 538 people is not specified in national law, and each state is allowed to elect (or appoint!) their electors in any manner they see fit. That's why the U.S. works the way it does: the sovereignty of the states is such that each state gets to have its own election laws, and so long as those laws don't directly violate the constitution, they can do whatever they want. --Jayron32 16:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I think we get that, but there is still a "national election" in the sense that the entire country votes for (members of the Electoral College who choose) the President and Vice President on the 1st Tuesday in November every leap year. Is it possible that Arkansas, say, could have its presidential election on a different date from all the other states? Or does it every 2 years instead of every 4 years? Or only once every 10 years? I seriously doubt they have such options. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Not necessarily the first Tuesday. It's the first Tuesday after the first Monday Your Username 21:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)][reply]

Thanks for the correction. I was getting confused with the Melbourne Cup. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They could not do it every two years because their electoral votes would not be received. There is a Federal law requiring all states to have their popular votes for electors for president and vice president on the day after the first Monday in November. At one time, there was no such law, then there was a decreasing list of states which voted early, and now we have dull uniformity.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not total uniformity. Now different states have different time ranges in which they allow early voting. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, there is a federal (national) law requiring the states to hold a certain election, and on what dates and at what frequency. How the states individually go about conducting that election may be their own affair, but I would not characterise that situation as "there are zero elections which are done on a national level, officially". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The national law determining the date of the Presidential Election only mandates the date which the election must be completed by. One state, Oregon, doesn't even have in-person voting (see

Electoral_College_(United_States)#Joint_session_of_Congress_and_the_contingent_election, which is usually some time in December, to accommodate the possibility that the election could end up in the House of Representatives; the House of Representatives would need to choose the President before the Inauguration Day (January 20). Since Congress is inaugurated on January 3, that gives them three weeks to elect the President if they needed to. So, the election itself is in Early November so that there's enough time for recounts if needed. The date was set in a time before electronics (or even high speed transportation), so there was a real need to have the time to do all of the counting, traveling, voting, and recounting necessary to elect the President according to the terms of the Constitution, and there was just never any impetus to change it to a later time. But the fact still remains that other than the date itself, and laws regarding the franchise (as in, who is allowed to vote, and what the state can or cannot do to restrict the vote) the actual procedures of the elections are left to the states, including how the states choose their Presidential Electors. Until fairly recently, many states printed the actual names of the electors on the ballot, I think a few still do. Some states didn't print the name of the Presidential Candidate at all, just the slates of electors. Also, the national law doesn't even require a popular vote to choose the Electors. In the early decades of the U.S., most states selected their electors via the State Legislatures, and there was no popular election. The election day in those cases was just the day when the Legislature voted on whom the electors would be. The national law still doesn't require a state-wide popular vote, though every state holds one. Please read Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_2:_Method_of_choosing_electors, which has never been repealed or amended by any later amendment. That every state legislature has chosen to use a state-wide poll to determine the slate of electors isn't anything codified in the national law in any way. --Jayron32 04:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

All that detail was encapsulated in my "How the states individually go about conducting that election may be their own affair".

Also, any_chance_of providing_links_without_underscores_in_future? Long_ones_are_very_hard_to_read. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As_soon_as_they_stop_replacing_spaces_within_URLs_with_them. --Jayron32 11:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just copy the actual title, rather than going anywhere near the URL? That's what I always do. (Mind you, I hate underscores with an ever-burning passion and I would cut my grandmother's arms and legs off before ever using one; except as above.) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do normally, but for section links it takes two pastes instead of one. I'm lazy. But point taken, I'll go through the trouble of copy-pasting both the article and section titles separately and typing the # sign. Your piece of mind is worth three or so extra key strokes. --Jayron32 16:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Packs vobiskum. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While there is no actual requirement for popular presidential elections, the requirement in the Constitution that the federal government guarantee that the states have a republican form of government probably means that whoever picks the electors be responsible to the people. It can't be done by the unelected Duke of Delaware (sorry, Joe). In 2000, in the legal battle in Florida, the legislature, as I recall, was quite prepared to pick electors on its own (the Bush slate) if the court battle hadn't ended. That of course would have meant another legal battle ...--Wehwalt (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my post above in particular [12] and [13]. It sounds like in the Pennsylvania case not all counties even bother to report writeins even though they're supposed to and the state can't force them to. As I highlighted above and by the first link here, it seems it's not uncommon for states which don't require registration to not bother to report writeins in the state tally although in some cases the legality is apparently questionable although possibly only a candidate who received a vote which wasn't counted (rather then a voter who's vote wasn't counted) can test this. (As I also mentioned above, per the earlier blog it sounds like the legality of denying writeins in some states, e.g. Arkansas [14] is also questionable.) Nil Einne (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(I started this whole mess, I might as well go on.)This is

OR: Perhaps many Pennsylvania counties do not report every write-in, but I know for certain my home county does. On election night, a printout from every voting district is posted in the courthouse, with the names of the candidates on the ballot followed by the number of votes received. Then comes a line-by-line listing of every write-in vote cast in that precinct. When the official count is done later in the week, the election officials review the write-ins, combining those they are reasonably certain refer to the same person, and leaving all of the others separate. These are entered onto the official data sheet and submitted to Harrisburg. As I noted, the write-ins are never significant when it comes to state/national elections, but they do on occasion become relevant in local races. ... I am fascinated by this discussion, because it stuns me that some (apparently most) states tell voters that even if they vote for a qualified person, their vote might not be counted. If I cast an honest ballot, I expect every name on it to be counted. That is only fair.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 07:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I served as an officer of election for several years in the early 90s for the money (not much). In filling out the official returns sheet (posted outside the door to the polling place) we did count write ins. That being said, the precinct return sheet and the official, statewide return are two different things and I don't think the write ins made it that far.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the proper industry term for the kind of retail packaging where the product is placed in a plastic bag with a piece of printed cardboard folded over the top and stapled - with a hole punched in it for hanging in a store? Can't find a Wikipedia article about it, none of the links in the {{packaging}} template even mention it or have a photo. SteveBaker (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Header card packaging? 1.23 M results on Google. 20.137.2.50 (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the third US Presidential debate, Obama countered Romney's accusation that the US has fewer ships than in 1917 by mentioning the smaller number of "horses and bayonets." The comment on horses is understandable, since cavalry units were discontinued in WW2, but the comment on bayonets is puzzling if taken literally. Per the Wikipedia articles the M7 bayonet is used with the M16 rifle and the M4A1 carbine by US Army and Navy forces, while the M9 bayonet is also used by the Army. US Marines use the OKC-3S bayonet. Does each US military rifle at present still get issued with a bayonet to the person expected to carry it for possible combat use? How would the number of US military bayonets compare to the maximum issued in 1917? The number of active and reserve US military personnel now is 2.3 million to 3 million in different places in the United States Armed Forces article, while World War I says the US drafted 2.8 million men in WW1 (in addition to the small prewar military). But in WW1, soldiers drilled with sticks due to a lack of actual weapons in mid 1917, suggesting a lack of stockpiled weapons. If the comparison had been to the small peacetime military of 1916, it seems clear that the US has more now. There have been effective bayonet charges, at least by UK units, in recent wars, so it is not just a utility tool or a ceremonial relic. So as a good encyclopedic factcheck, how do the bayonet numbers for the US military for 1917 and 2012 compare? As for horses, presently there appear to be 47 horses and 2 mules in the only official US cavalry unit (ceremonial, exhibitions, parades), the "Horse cavalry detachment" of the 1st Cavalry. How many did the 1917 US military have? (Likely tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, used not only for cavalry, but to pull wagons and artillery). Edison (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's got to be fairly rare that the enemy gets close enough to bayonet, in modern warfare. Thus, the added weight, risk of accidentally injury, cost, etc., must be considered in this light. On the plus side, perhaps the bayonet can be used for other things, like cutting through wire. StuRat (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soldiers are still trained to use them, but they are almost never used and are made to be more effectively used as a combat knife instead of a makeshift spear anyway. Because of this, the army has all but replaced bayonet training with calisthenics. The last time US soldiers went on an actual bayonet charge was 1951 (even if a couple of other nations have found use for it). - [15].

The bayonet's use today: minimal, almost extinct. Glancing over the articles on the OKC-3S bayonet and M9 bayonet, there's maybe 500,000 out there, and they're being used as knives.

The bayonet's use in World War I: "commonplace," even if the use in combat was starting to decline. I can't find actual numbers, but 4,743,826 Americans fought in World War I, and it's safer to assume more of them were carrying bayonets than not. Just because they were drilling without bayonets does not mean a lack of bayonets: their use in the field was more important, and it's not a bad idea to train with a safe blunt stick.

That'd mean bayonets today are about a tenth (maybe a fifth) of what they were in 1917. Obama's point that there are fewer horses and bayonets stands up. If someone (*glare at Dad's co-workers*) wishes to completely lie about what he said, and pretend he said no horses and bayonets, it doesn't stand up, but that's not what he said. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My local news just reported the current number as 600,000 bayonets. More than you'd think. StuRat (talk) 03:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the figure I gave was "maybe 500,000." In comparison to the number used in WWI, its really not that much of a difference. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know, in recent US conflicts, how many enemy soldiers/terrorists were killed with a knife? Attached to the end of a gun or otherwise. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd associate that with special forces (

Navy Seals, Green Berets, etc.), since you can kill silently with a knife, ideal for covert actions. However, the victim's mouth must be covered while they die, and an attached bayonet would put you out of range for that. StuRat (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

How about a 2 person assault: you hold him, covering his mouth, while I lunge at him with my bayonet equipped rifle?( I'll try not to push too hard). A Vietnam era US soldier said to me "If I'm close enough to stick him, I'm close enough to shoot him." On the other hand, another said "If you're out of ammo, a bayonet charge would be more satisfying than begging for mercy." If the US military has 2.3 million to 3 million actives and reserves, and only 600,000 bayonets, how many rifles do they have? Do 1.7 million soldiers fight with a humongous artillery piece, a tank, a plane, a sub, a keyboard, or their command presence and bare hands rather than a rifle? The US Marines say every one is a a rifleman, and the Air Force, Navy and Army claim they train personnel for base defense. Have they no warehouses with sufficient rifles to equip at least all active duty personnel with rifles? Do they lack sufficient bayonets to provide one per rifle? Edison (talk) 04:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This ABC blog states the Army has 419,155, while the Marines are holding onto 195,334. It goes on to say that "bayonets had not been issued to soldiers deploying in Iraq and Afghanistan", though "one soldier said they were available if needed." Clarityfiend (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bayonets are usually saved for those deep kimchi moments when you've run out of ammunition. Jarheads still train with them. This is instructive. Zoonoses (talk) 04:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the issue of horses, their use by cavalry units constituted only a small proportion of their total numbers; they were a major form of transportation up until World War II. --Xuxl (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two related points:

1) The strength of an army was sometimes stated in a figure-of-speech as (so many thousand) bayonets (a metonymy?); "I fear three newspapers more than a hundred thousand bayonets.”[16] "England Holding Ireland With Two Hundred Thousand Bayonets"[17] are the first examples that I could quickly find. Personally, I certainly concluded that President Obama was using "horses and bayonets" as a rhetorical figure to mean the total strength of the US Army. If this is the case, then it wasn't a good tactic, as it seems to have puzzled everybody else.

2) The US Army in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was miniscule in comparison to the immense armies of Europe. "by 1917 the Federal army had only expanded to around 121,000, with the National Guard numbering 181,000". Compare that with 2,200.000 mobilized by Germany in 1914, 1,125,000 by France and even Britain's "contemptible little army" managed 711,000.[18] So, Obama was correct if he intended to state that the US Army is many times stronger now than it was in 1917. The 2010 total was about 600,000 Army, 360,000 National Guard and 205,000 Army Reserve although I understand that there have been substantial cuts. Alansplodge (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concluded that the President saying that the US has fewer battleships (which is why this retort came up) because modern naval warfare has made the battleship nearly obsolete, much like the automatic rifle and the gasoline engine have pretty much nullified the use of melee combat and horses. I didn't take it as a jab at the power of the standing army. Obviously, there are exceptions to soldiers using bayonets (as illustrated below), but its use has declined greatly in the last 80 years.

talk) 22:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

And you may be interested in a paragraph found in our Bayonet article; "British forces in Afghanistan have used bayonets on numerous occasions. In 2009, Lieutenant James Adamson, aged 24, of the Royal Regiment of Scotland was awarded the Military Cross for a bayonet charge whilst on a tour of duty in Afghanistan: after shooting one Taliban fighter dead Adamson had run out of ammunition when another enemy appeared. Adamson immediately charged the second Taliban fighter and bayoneted him. In September 2012, Lance Corporal Sean Jones of The Princess of Wales's Regiment was awarded the Military Cross for his role in a bayonet charge which took place in October 2011." Alansplodge (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it imporant for construction to be enviornmentally friendly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.94.192.6 (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For much the same reasons as any human activity needs to be eco-friendly. You'll discover those reasons when you do the research for your homework. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See environmentally friendly.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Think of how important construction is as an economic sector. If it is not environmentally conscious, how much damage can be done? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Environmental Impact Of Building Construction Can Now Be Predicted by

Science Daily

.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLUE FRONT AMAZON PARROT

MY QUESTION IS WHY WOULD THE BIRD START LAYING EGGS WHEN IT HAS'NT DONE IT IN THE LAST 15 YRS. AND IT HAS NOT BEEN BRED WITH A MALE BIRD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.12.253.66 (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a title (hey, if you don't add a title yourself, you take your chances). :-) StuRat (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Also, many people consider using all caps here to be a capital offense. StuRat (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I Googled "parrot not bred laid egg" and found many articles confirming that parrots may do this, and it's not unusual for it to start suddenly after many years. It seems that when an unmated pet bird begins to lay eggs (which will be infertile), it's a sign that its hormones are telling it to breed. Most of the articles suggest that it can be bad for a bird's health to keep laying unnecessary eggs, so it's important how an owner reacts when their pet begins to do this. I'm not going to link to the articles here, or repeat any of the advice in them, but if you can't find the answers you need by searching online or in a reference book then you should consider consulting a qualified person, such as a veterinarian, to ensure you get the right advice on managing your bird's health at this time. - Karenjc 21:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been a change in its diet, location, exposure to daylight, social interactions? What else has changed? μηδείς (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our canary started laying eggs after it established a social relationship with a guinea pig in a nearby cage. As always a veterinarian is a better source of info than random people on the internet, and contributors to the Ref Desk are specifically not permitted to provide medical or veterinary advice. Edison (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got a canary that was impregnated by a guinea pig, that's front-page news. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got a canary that was impregnated, that's front-page news. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purely platonic, but they clearly vocalized to each other for hours.Edison (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guinea pigs can sing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. On-stage participants in the opening night of a new musical or opera. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]