Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 September 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.

September 29

Voting intention polls

Look at Opinion polling in the next United Kingdom general election there is variation of several percentage points for different polls taken on the same day. What is the margin of error of these polls? If the difference isn't within that margin, what causes it? --Tango (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

In Statistics we learn that the Margin for Error is part of a Confidence Interval, and in this case the Confidence Interval is for the Proportion of Voters out of the whole number sampled, compared to a control source, say, the actual vote at the last election, which itself would be as true a poll of any nation as ever one could get. The complicated thing here, is that there are a number of political parties, and each proportion for each one has to be compared with how the party did at the previous election. One concern is how representative the poll is of the British population as a whole, but another thing I thought of, is the fact that each poll is done at random, within the guidelines of making it representative. My thought would be to poll the same people every time, and see how their opinions changed over five or so years. These people, preferably great in number, say, for a country the size of the United Kingdom, even as many as 100, 000, like what the US might refer to as a type of " Neilsen Voter " would be replaced gradually as some of them pass away or move on, just as occurs in the country as a whole. After all, the General Election will still be having most of those who voted last time in there, so the overall population only changes gradually over time. Certainly most of the electorate that brought Clement Attlee in at War's end were not there to return Mrs. Thatcher to power after the Falklands. So the margin is due to the uncertainty that those one has polled really do reflect the actual national opinion as it is, even if representative in many ways, since people are individuals, and even variables within an election. An analogy might be understood. Think of those polled as a sample of the whole population. Imagine then a factory making three inch nails by machine. Even then there will be variation in the lengths of these nails to say ± ⅛ ", or so. If the population of the nails is large enough, they become normally distributed, taking on the shape of a bell like curve, with the greater frequency of average ( mean ) values near the middle, and the outliers - either uncharacteristically large or uncharacteristically small, towards the ends. If we take a sample of nails, and a large enough one, then the distribution of this sample may mimic that of the population, with the same or a similar mean value and such. But how can we be sure ? We can't - that is why the statistician analyising the poll calcuates a margin of error or uncertainty, such that, to a given percentage of certainty, we can be confident that the proportion of those voting for the parties in real life are those shown in the poll. In calculating averages, this is to do with standard error, which is the value of one of the measures of spread for the data, divided by the square root of the number of respondents - the sample size. For proportions, and exspecially multiple ones, it will be more complicated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopherlilly (talk • contribs) 05:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC) The Russian Christopherlilly (talk) 05:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you are incorrect. The results of the previous election and the size of the population shouldn't have any significant impact on the margin of error. See Sample size. I just don't know how to work out what the margin of error actually is for this kind of poll (if it was just a yes/no poll I could do it, but it isn't). --Tango (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No, matey, I am always right ! Just kidding. I get what you mean. If your sample is greater than thirty, then, yes, it should have a Normal distribution similar to the overall population. My concern is, why leave it to chance ? There of course has to be a balance between getting as accrate an answer as possible and not spending too much money and time on conducting too large a survey. I am sure those who take a poll on the eve of the election then go and compare their results to the actual vote to see either how wrong or right they were, or how fickle the electorate really is. In New Zealand we used to call them Heylen Polls, but now each of the two major networks, Government owned ( but not controlled ) TVNZ and the private TV3 network, will each do their own. Former PM Jim Bolger didn't trust polls - of course, as I said, the best poll is the election itself. They should be as often and as democratic as possible, so that only then does the Government have a mandate to do what they want for the next few years, without consulting us. I cannot think of how to do this either. But certainly it does have to do with confidence intervals and the Z values relevant to tables for the Normal Distribution. Of course, this distribution concerns Party alleigeance and is qualitative, as much as anything else. Keep thinking. The Russian.Christopherlilly (talk) 04:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I know nothing about the specifics of these polls, my guess is that they all have a sampling bias and thus should not be taken at face-value. Given they seem to come from different newspapers, this appears rational to assume.--Leon (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

They are commissioned by newspapers, but they aren't done by them, they are done by independent polling organisations. I would hope the bias is reduced as far as is possible. (The newspapers then choose the results from the poll that most support the point they want to make, of course, but I look at the polls themselves, not the newspaper articles based on them.) --Tango (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't mean to be cynical(!) but why do you believe that the bias is minimized in as much as it is possible, given who commissions them?!--Leon (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Because ICM, YouGov, Ipsos MORI etc are reputable organisations, who pride themselves on providing accurate, rather than partisan data. Whilst there is some dispute (e.g. YouGov having nicknames such as 'WhateverYousay,Gov', and a reputation for polling to the right), for the most part they wouldn't be believed if they let the leanings of whomever hired them influence their data. As part of this, all UK pollsters release their full data set, questions asked and crosstabs, to allow anyone else to analyse their information and determine its neutrality - short of lying about the raw data, which would be considered heinous, it's quite difficult for that bias to be present without being obvious. --Saalstin (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Because most of the polling agencies are members of the British Polling Council, which has rules intended to increase the confidence people can have in the results. While they are commissioned by newspapers that often have biases, the agencies doing the polls are independent and, I would hope, have some professional pride. --Tango (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I could probably find a reference, but there are known variances between the methodology used by ICM, Mori etc, in converting "raw" poll results into the published figures. Given a sample of ~ 1000 people who have answered the survey, they will have to adjust the proportions of respondents (age, sex etc) to match the proportions in the population. Some "pollsters" will adjust for each respondent's answer to "How certain are you to vote in the next election?" so as to reduce the weight of those who may not vote. Some will ask "How did you vote in the last general election?" and weight the sample to match the historically true results. Or they may adjust the answers given by the sample voters by a formula designed to correct for the supposed tendency of right wing voters to lie more than left wing ones.

So as you can see there are enough factors to explain the differences between polls. If you study the table, you may detect the consistent variation between the respective series of polls. Sussexonian (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone rem Australian radio show the Argonauts Club?

I joined the Argonauts Club (an Australian radio show that ended in the early 1970s) when I was about 13. I was Democritus 48, and looked forward to the show, 5:30 p.m. each week day. I rowed Jason’s trireme with enthusiasm but not enough enthusiasm to get to Golden Bar or Serpent’s Tooth. What I remember most (now) is the quality and depth of the show’s segments on music and the arts, far in advance of what anyone expects a child to absorb these days. And of course those sing-a-longs and the Muddle Headed Wombat and Jimmy’s antics, and the stable loveable Mac, surely the most comforting father figure one could imagine. Until Dad bought a TV.

I recently added some comments to the very brief article in Wikipedia on the Argonauts Club, and I am going to make it a little project to get a decent article going there. I would be so happy to hear from anyone who was a member, or just a listener. I do remember Mac and Jimmy well, and you can read some of my initial notes, rather unreliable memories, on that Talk Page to the Wikipedia article I mentioned. I will circulate your contributions to me to other people who write, so we can all hear what others recall, and what pieces of this radio history we can put together. There will never be anything like it again. We listened to Phidias, while today’s children watch Big Brother, and now much worse on the Internet.

My email (deleted for privacy)

Let’s share some memories! Myles325

Yes, I realize that privacy is not what you are looking for but neither, I suspect, do you want spam. If you sign your post (with 4 tildes, or click on the signature block on the edit screen), people can contact you at your talk page. (I have signed for you this time.) Enable your email function on your talk page, and anyone interested can contact you that way, too. To the extent that you are gathering sourced information for the WP article, this is an unusual but likely acceptable way to go about getting others interested. To the extent that you are setting up a fan club or social club, it is not. // BL \\ (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the above thinking Myles325 was a new user. I should have checked the linked page first. Miles has been on Wikipedia since early 2007, so, if anything in what I have written sounds inapporpriate because of your long service, Miles, I apologize. // BL \\ (talk) 04:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, Bille. (That's getting you back for calling me Miles, (;|) ). I am trying to gather PUBLISHED information on this club, which was, for its time, a very popular and remarkably intelligent children's program. I think that Australian history and culture is poorly represented in WP, but that is nobody's fault except our own. Myles325a (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Myles, I certainly remember the program. I was never an Argonaut, though; I was just content to listen in, which I did on countless occasions. My memories of it these days are rather unreliable, so I don't think I'd have much if anything to contribute. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Educational Pioneer

Back in about 1980, in our Intermediate ( 11 - 12 year old ) class, our teacher suddenly one morning singled out certain students and gave them harder exercises and appeared to treat them unfairly. He later revealed this was an experiment based upon what a US schoolteacher had done years before. I later saw her on a news story also, and the idea was that she was trying to prove that if children are treated badly by a teacher based on say race, then of course they will not perform as well, and their race has no bearing on performance. ( This assumes all children have the same schools regardless of race, and that the only difference is a teacher's prejudices - of course, black children for example will do worse also when their schools are not up to the standard they should be. Racists try to show how non whites are inherently inferior, forgetting that if people aren't given equal chances, then naturally there will be differences ) My question is, what was this woman's name. where and when exactly was she, what inspired her to do what she did, and where is she now ? The Russian.Christopherlilly (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe she lived in the midwest, and was active about the 1960s —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopherlilly (talk • contribs) 05:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You're talking about Jane Elliott. See the article, and her web site at www.janeelliott.com, for further information. --Anonymous, 10:02 UTC, September 29, 2009.

See also The Third Wave. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Now it is all very clear. Our teacher those two years was a very insightful, intelligent man, who could see how pecking order occurs naturally in schools. Those he singled out were the better, more confident students who would not be as adversely affected by it. I kind of agree with what she did. My only concern is using children as an experiment, especially without their parents' permission. However, how else would she have gotten anyone's attention. Those opposed to her could complain, but perhaps they needed to get off their backsides and make sure all children received equal treatment in school. After all, Jane Elliott only carried out a test. Blacks and Hispanics among others were treated far worse for real in schools. I even recall a Jane Curtin ( isn't she lovely ) movie made in the nineties and set in 1975 about primarily Irish parents not wanting Black kids bussed into their schools. How quickly they forgot the words " Irishmen need not apply " which probably affected my Irish ancestors when some moved to England themselves. I also recall the Wave ( 1981 ). Shame we haven't had it on NZ TV since. Even here, Maoris and Pacific Islanders fall behind in education, in a society where Whites make the vast majority. But one Maori friend of mine has said that such inherent unfairness should not be used as an excuse to fail. What could I say ? I can't be bothered learning because I must be thick seeing I'm part Irish ? When in fact the Irish are among the best educated in Europe. In any case, help should be given to those who need it , and a level playing field during the test match that is our education. The Russian.Christopherlilly (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

UK/US drug bust in South America

[1] I have a few questions after reading this news article.

1. What is the UK navy and US coastguard doing in South America in the first place?
2. Why do they have authority to seize the cocaine, arrest the suspects and destroy the ship in a place that is not their territory?

thanks F (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The BBC article gives some more information.

1) "HMS Iron Duke's primary task, while on a six-month deployment, is to reassure and assist the people of the UK Overseas Territories during the hurricane season.

The warship, which was launched in 1991 and cost £140m to build, is also on stand-by to take part in anti-narcotics operations. "

2)They were in international waters. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up on (2): You may find our article on the UN Convention on the High Seas useful, as it sets out the rights of warships to pursue and combat piracy. I would guess that either another treaty has extended the same sort of rights to combating the drug trade or that this case was classified as piracy due to false registration or the like. — Lomn 13:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

For a similarly historic case of the U.S. doing something similar, but in the sovereign territory of another country, see Manuel Noriega. Basically, the U.S. Military went in and arrested the president of Panama on drug conspiracy charges. Going into a sovereign country, arresting their Head of State for breaking laws in your country, is the definition of chutzpah on an international scale. --Jayron32 04:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"We are the cops of the world." →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Louis, Rhineland-Palatinate

Tamara Bach was born in 1976 in Limburg an der Lahn and grew up in Louis, Rhineland-Palatinate.

This is what the new article on Tamara Bach says, but I am unable to find Louis as a village or town in Germany. Can anyone help figure this out? --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The article in the German Wikipedia says that she was raised in Ludwigshöhe. Although, as the article on the town explains, its name does mean "Louis's Heights", I don't think we want to (partially) translate it in our article about Ms Bach. The appearance of "Louis" in the article is probably a result of someone's use of a computerized translation program. Deor (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I am the someone, using the Google translation program. I will make it Ludwigshöhe. Thanks for the help, there is a lot to learn when contributing to Wikipedia. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Naval presence on lakes

Do any countries maintain a naval presence on large lakes, such as the Great Lakes, Lake Victoria, Lake Titicaca, or perhaps the Caspian Sea? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 14:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

See Bolivian Navy Googlemeister (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Also Swiss Navy--Saalstin (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"Swiss Navy" is a brand of sex lubricant. :) Mac Davis (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And Caspian Flotilla. Recury (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Any on the Great Lakes? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 14:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The US Navy does seem to have some presence there, like the Naval Station Great Lakes. I'm sure Canada does too. Still looking for more info though. Recury (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Has there been anything resembling military hostility between the U.S. and Canada since the War of 1812? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Not seriously, no. There was a boundary dispute in 1859 nicknamed the Pig War, but cooler heads prevailed before any humans were hurt in that one. And anyway, "Canada" as we now understand the term was not involved either in that dispute or the War of 1812, as it did not exist until the confederation of Canada in 1867; the areas were British colonies before. (Even after confederation, Canada was not really independent until after World War I; see dominion, Chanak crisis, and Statute of Westminster.) --Anonymous, 20:55 UTC, September 29, 2009.

Looking through the Canadian Navy articles, I don't see a mention of anything on the Great Lakes. Now's our chance! Recury (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the Webster–Ashburton Treaty (or some other treaty) barred any sort of naval build-up on the Great Lakes by the United States or Canada. —Ed (talk • contribs) 14:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Ed, that the W-A Treaty is a part of the openness and demilitarization of that border, but the earlier treaty that first established the non-military character of the Great Lakes was the Rush–Bagot Treaty. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The only Canadian Forces naval facilities that actually operate warships appear to be on the coasts: Canadian Forces base#Navy. (The Canadian Coast Guard and other law enforcement agencies are generally responsible for search and rescue, customs, and other Great Lakes tasks.) In addition, the Naval Reserve operates a number of stone frigates at inland locations: List of Canadian Forces Naval Reserve divisions. At least one of these stations – HMCS York – is located on Lake Ontario. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

HMCS Prevost is on a large-ish river...Adam Bishop (talk) 04:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget the mighty Ohio Naval Militia, which consists of a few unarmed boats and about 30 volunteer sailors between the ages of 17 and 67. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

See http://www.uscg.mil/d9/. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This dockyard has a couple of warships in case of American invasion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Aye matey, we Bee ready if Tecumseth that. Arrrr! Have I missed International Talk Like a Pirate Day? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

During WWII, the US Navy needed a lot of flight decks for pilot training. So they converted two coal-burning paddlewheel passenger vessels into rudimentary aircraft carriers, Wolverine and Sable, and deployed them on the Great Lakes. These vessels carried no armament and no facilities for aircraft beyond their flight decks. The invasion of Canada was not on the program. PhGustaf (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the peaceful relations between Canada and the United states, having a naval/military presence on any of the Great Lakes is totally unnecessary. Instead, there is a "policing" presence that meets the needs of each country. If it ever became necessary for there to be a naval/military presence on the Great Lakes, I wonder how each country would get their respective naval forces on the Great Lakes - there are too many shared points (including the St.Lawrence River). However, it would be very possible (if not probable) that an American aircraft carrier parked near the mouth of the St. Lawrence (or even further away) would suffice to keep us Canucks on our own side of the lakes . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.136.118 (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

In Clive Cussler's Night Probe!, I believe that Canada sends a destroyer and the United States sends a guided missile cruiser up the St. Lawrence... —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The US Navy does built warships on the Great Lakes, Marinette Marine in Marinette, Wisconsin is on the Menominee River which empties into Lake Michigan. The most recent warships built there include the new Littoral combat ships USS Freedom (LCS-1) and USS Fort Worth (LCS-3). -MBK₀₀₄ 00:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. BUT, are they used on the Great lakes for naval/military purposes or are they built (as described above) and then enter into naval/military service once on the oceans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.136.118 (talk) 13:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Viscount Exmouth served on Lake Champlain during the American Revolutionary War. This is the main character Sir Edward Pellew from the Hornblower television series.
Sleigh (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

meal frequency

Why is it typical for Western societies to have 3 meals a day as opposed to 1? Are there any cultures that typically only have 1 meal a day (assuming they have sufficient food)? Googlemeister (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

OR alert Have you ever tried it? It sucks. You eat a huge meal early in the day, then you get lethargic and tired and feel generally deplorable. Those are eventually accompanied by continued hunger late in the afternoon or evening. See Thanksgiving for what is probably the closest we get. Seriously though, it's not healthy. Your body has to divert resources and blood (oxygen) to deal with the massive influx of food, most of which will get stored as excess reserves. Then, later, your body has to break all that down to get the energy it craves. It's much healthier to eat small amounts frequently. Plus, you get less headaches from dehydration and hypoglycemia. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 20:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You would only get headaches from dehydration if you were not drinking enough liquids. That would not really be related to how many meals one eats each day. Googlemeister (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I often eat one meal per day. On 60 Minutes last night, General Stanley A. McChrystal revealed that he ate one meal per day. Mac Davis (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's just a matter of training your brain and stomach to expect one feed per day. After a while, it becomes normal. As a benefit, you regain the time expended on preparing and consuming those other two meals. I doubt any healthy people other than athletes in training need eat more than once per day. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I know of no source that would recommend only one meal per day for anyone. For children, teens, nursing or pregnant women, the elderly (all of whom may well fall in the "healthy" category), as well as the ill, such "advice" as Weepy is giving is likely to be dangerous. For the rest of us, it is nutritionally unsound. That we can do it is not the point; nor is the example of a few who do eat only one meal per day. There are also people who manage, even appear to thrive, on 3 hours' sleep per day, but that would not be a sensible goal for most of the rest of us. // BL \\ (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

A number of small meals per day seems to be what's recommended, not stuffing yourself like a turkey for one meal. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

By Jewish tradition, on a weekday one eats two meals, one during the day and one at night. In addition, some eat a snack (for example, bread or cake) known in Hebrew as "pat shacharit" after the morning service. It should be pointed out that there is no prohibition against eating a lesser or greater number of meals on a weekday. However on the Sabbath, one is obligated to eat three meals.Simonschaim (talk) 05:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

During Ramadan, people fast during the day. Even then, people eat two meals, one at each end of the day. I'm told (OR) by friends who've fasted for Ramadan that you stuff your face before dawn just to get through the day, and still get hungry and lethargic. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 05:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

So all known cultures eat 2 or more times a day? Googlemeister (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Assuming food is available, yes. This doesn't count nations suffering from famine, of course. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it has a lot to do with what naturally feels best to people, not just culture. People tend to get hungry more frequently than once a day, so they eat more than once a day. Some of that may be due to habit, but there's probably a pretty large physiological component. Hunger isn't learned. Rckrone (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The ancient Greeks ate two meals a day: a light lunch (ariston) and a dinner (deipnon). I can confirm the claim above that eating fewer than three meals a day will make you sluggish. It will also contribute to weight gain, as it decreases your metabolism. Athletes often eat five meals a day. They don't have to be large meals. They can be five snacks a day if you want to keep your weight down.--Drknkn (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, what about for religious purposes? Perhaps some of the ascetic or monastic groups? Googlemeister (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)