Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 September 28

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 28

Singaporean Dietary Statistics

percent singaporeans who 1. vegetarian? 2. halal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.61.51.210 (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You may want to look at Religion in Singapore. In particular, one would expect that the percentage of Singaporeans who eat halal to bear soem relation to the percentage who are Muslim. --Xuxl (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Three insurance contract questions

1. Would an insurance contract which pays you a certain amount of money if/after you will reach age 100 be contrary to public policy?

2. Would an insurance contract which pays a crippled person a certain amount of money if/after his or her, say, finger will grow back be contrary to public policy?

3. Can a judge impose a cap on a total insurance payout which he or she considers to be excessive and disproportionate to the actual loss suffered?

Any thoughts on these three questions of mine? Futurist110 (talk) 04:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

In which jurisdictions do you inquire about? Laws vary around the world... --Jayron32 05:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

In the U.S.--or at least in some/various parts of the U.S. Futurist110 (talk) 05:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Insurance rules vary from state to state. You could call your insurance agent and ask those questions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

[Banned user's posting deleted]

I agree when it comes to life insurance. Not sure if you're correct on personal injury insurance. I suspect many policies do place limits depending on the nature of the injury, and would not pay a multimillion-dollar payout for an injury from which the person insured will ultimately fully recover. Many Critical illness insurance policies place specific dollar and / or percentage of total insured sum limits on certain "minor" conditions. But this is a matter for the insurance company and its specific policies it offers, not the law. 110.140.84.37 (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

OK. Futurist110 (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

[Banned user's posting deleted]

Disagree once again. Many jurisdictions do have consumer-protection statutes which provide at least some protection from at least particular kinds of bad bargains. Also, Insurance brokers usually have a explicit statutory fiduciary duty to get a good bargain for their clients - that's the whole point of putting a broker between the insurer and the insured. If the broker got the client a lemon of a policy, the client may well have a case for legal action for compensation against the broker, in the event that they need to make a claim and discover that they are not covered. (I know this for a fact, at least in my jurisdiction, as I'm studying to become an insurance broker myself. There must be a "reasonable basis for advice" to take out a particular policy, and the broker must demonstrate that they have acted "in the best interests of the client" - the insured individual - when recommending a specific policy. This involves an obligation to both "know your client" and "know your product"). As to fingers growing back, Regenerative medicine has definitely managed to make this happen, at least in certain specific situations. 110.140.84.37 (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

OK; also, though, what about insurance which pays you when your cauterized nails grow back? Futurist110 (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

[Banned user's posting deleted]

Re: point 1, see Longevity insurance. This is a fairly standard insurance product, and seems to be perfectly legal (although I don't think they normally cover centenarians specifically). Smurrayinchester 12:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

OK. Futurist110 (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Re question 3, it totally depends on the terms of the insurance contract. Some contracts pay a fixed amount specified in the contract on the occurrence of a specified event. For life insurance, this is almost always the case. That said, insurers WILL consider just how much coverage they are willing to offer on any given individual's life, and some insurers do have caps. But this has nothing to do with judges or legal restrictions.

Really? Indeed, isn't the purpose of insurance to return you to the state that you previously were (as opposed to enriching yourself)? Futurist110 (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding other types of insurance, such as income-protection insurance, there is usually a mechanism in the contract which specifies the basis on which the payout will be calculated. Insurers are generally careful to avoid or specifically forbid "overinsurance", as it creates moral hazard - a clear incentive for arson or insurance fraud. Our article on Replacement value may be of interest. But yes, if the parties could not agree on the replacement value, it may well go to court.

This *doesn't* hold true if a replacement value was already agreed upon--only for the insurance company to renege on this later, correct? Futurist110 (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

In practice, however, most of the answer to question 3 of yours lies in the insurance company using its brains when it writes its policies, to ensure they are not liable for more than the actual loss suffered by the insured, rather than a judge or law ordering a cap. Only if there was a dispute about the size of the "actual loss" would it likely end up in court. 110.140.84.37 (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

OK. Also, to clarify--if you insure your vas deferens for regeneration and then your vas deferens regenerates and your insurance company refuses to pay up and this issue ends up in court, a judge can impose a cap on the total possible payout from such insurance (even if this cap will be below what the insurance company itself actually agreed to in the relevant insurance contract) due to this judge's belief that too large of an insurance payout can be emotionally traumatizing and/or psychologically traumatizing to the child who was conceived as a result of this vas deferens regeneration, correct? Futurist110 (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems like your real question is about the topic you've repeatedly brought up of unintentionally fathering a child. (For anyone who isn't a ref desk regular, see his past questions.) I think you have an unhealthy obsession with this topic. Consider seeing a therapist. I think it would be helpful for you. There's nothing wrong with seeing a therapist. I've been to therapists myself. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Re question 1, I don't see any particular problem with longevity insurance, and it does in fact exist, but I'm not sure it could be classified as true "insurance", as opposed to essentially being a specific type of annuity. "Insurance" generally refers to covering a "loss" of some sort, and simply living to a ripe old age can hardly be considered a loss.

What are the differences between an insurance and an annuity, though? Futurist110 (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

"Insurance" generally refers to a contract which pays the holder of the policy should some misfortune strike them. There are some "grey areas" around things like health insurance, which often do cover routine medical care, but the misfortune rule is still the general yardstick as to what can be defined as an "insurance policy". An annuity, on the other hand, is basically a form of savings product with a guaranteed return, which specifies that if you pay $x per month for x number of years, you will later get paid back $x per month (e.g. once you reach a certain age). As I said, if you want to know more about annuities, wikipedia has an article on the subject.

Two things: 1) How exactly does one actually define "loss" for the purpose of insurance? 2) Can you purchase an annuity for *anything*? Futurist110 (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I presume a "loss" is just that - a "negative event". Someone dying or getting killed. Coming down with an illness or suffering an injury or disability. An accident in which property is damaged or destroyed. Being robbed or burgled. Being sued (liability insurance). Losing the ability to care for oneself. These would all be examples of events which a person is suffering a "loss", and thus policies which compensate for the loss would be deemed "insurance". The example you mention, of a sterilisation procedure failing or reversing itself resulting in an unwanted pregnancy, would probably also qualify as a "negative event", as the patient does not want it to happen.

OK. Futurist110 (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

That said, I don't know if there are any insurance products on the market which would cover your child-support bills in such a situation. But if someone decided to offer such a policy for individuals who have been sterilised, whereby if the procedure fails through no fault of the performing surgeon (merely the inherent risk that the procedure may spontaneously reverse itself), the insurer will pay the costs of raising the child - I see no reason in law or public policy which would prohibit offering such a product.

What about having a judge strike down such an insurance contract due to his or her fear that this insurance contact makes a child feel unwanted, like a burden, and/or like a loss, though?

Indeed, since judges in wrongful conception and wrongful birth tort cases can use such logic to refuse to award childcare costs to parents, can judges likewise strike down insurance contracts using such logic? After all, it certainly *doesn't* appear to make sense to tell a doctor who screwed up a vasectomy that he doesn't have to pay childcare costs (due to the possibility that the child's feelings and/or self-esteem will be hurt and damaged) and yet simultaneously being willing to uphold an insurance contract which has a *greater* payout in the event of a vasectomy failure (in comparison to the compensation that you would have gotten in a wrongful conception and/or wrongful birth case *even if* you successfully retrieved *full* childcare costs in such a case)! Futurist110 (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Which cases are you referring to, where a doctor who screwed up a sterilisation procedure was held not to be liable for the costs of the resulting child? I think it may well vary by jurisdiction. Here in Australia, a woman who had IVF only wanted one embryo implanted, but the doctor implanted two, and she gave birth to (perfectly healthy) twins. She sued for the cost of raising the additional child, and ultimately won around $300,000 on appeal (the initial trial court did say "no" to her claims, but I'm not sure it was public policy issues or concern for the child's hurt feelings, as opposed to her own fault in screwing up the paperwork by which she requested two embryos to be implanted, only later changing her instructions to the doctor). She lost badly in the court of public opinion, though, I'd say - most women who are desperate enough for IVF (remember, they're suffering fertility problems, and are desperate for a child - the very opposite of your situation) would see twins as a double blessing, and felt that she was showing gross selfishness towards the doctor who had given her the gift of children.

Obviously if the sterilisation procedure was properly performed, but self-reversed, the patient would have no claim against the doctor, as long as (s)he explained the risk of this happening to the patient prior to the patient consenting to the procedure.

See Miller V Johnson (not to be confused with the supreme court case on gerrymandering), where the court did apply your logic, in saying that the joys of raising a child cannot be accurately balanced against the costs. 110.140.58.225 (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

(If it was the surgeon's fault in bungling the procedure, the surgeon, or his / her liability insurer may well be liable).

OK. Futurist110 (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm just not sure there are enough people who would be interested in such a product. I also wonder whether offering such an insurance product might be a PR disaster for the insurer - imagine the headlines about insuring against "unwanted life".

I agree that this is unfortunately a real concern. :( Also, though, this "unwanted life" idea makes me concerned that a judge will *not* uphold such an insurance contract; after all, even if this insurance technically insures the vas deferens itself rather than child support (which in turn means that even if one's vas deferens regenerates but pregnancy *doesn't* occur, one will still get paid the full insurance payout), what I am concerned about is that (from a judge's perspective) a child raise the question as to why exactly his or her father's vas deferens regeneration insurance had such a huge and disproportionate payout and will conclude that his or her father considers him or her to be a loss (and unwanted children in general to be losses). :( Indeed, since judges apparently have the ability to refuse to award childcare costs in wrongful conception and/or wrongful birth cases due to their fear of the psychological and/or emotional impact that this will have on the child, can't judges likewise apply similar logic to strike down such an insurance contract? Futurist110 (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Merely living to an old age, on the other hand, is hardly a "negative event" - most people want to live a long life! It's a very different kettle of fish from the aforementioned events, which the insured person or company doesn't want happening to them!

OK. Futurist110 (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

As to annuities, check our article on the subject (annuity). There are various sorts of annuities, to cover people in all different kinds of financial situations, and which structure their benefits in myriad different ways. I don't think there are necessarily any restrictions on offering "niche" annuity products, but whether you'll find a bank or financial institution actually offering a specific product is a separate question. But this being the free market, if there's a market for it, someone will probably offer it. But there are almost certainly annuity products which are geared towards helping save towards the cost of raising a child or family. 110.140.84.37 (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

OK; also, though, exactly which annuities, if any, are contrary to public policy? Futurist110 (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

None that I can think of, subject to the usual rules of offering financial products. It'd be a bit like asking what sort of banking or retirement savings products are contrary to public policy. A savings plan which will pay out upon the birth of a child hardly seems to breach public policy, and does not view the child as an emotional "burden" - merely a financial cost that needs to be met, similar to annuities designed to pay out upon retirement (also hardly a "burden" - people look forward to retirement - but they need income to replace the loss of income from their employment). 110.140.58.225 (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Now if the policy merely covered specific ailments or negative situations suffered by the elderly (such as their inability to continue to live an independent existence - toileting, feeding, dressing, dementia, etc), that would be an "insurance" product. And yes, such products do in fact exist, I believe. It would usually be a form of Total permanent disability insurance. But most, if not all insurers have a cut-off age for eligibility, to ensure that you've been paying your premiums for years (and remember, past age 70 at the latest, the premiums are "stepped" - the older you get, the more it costs to keep the policy - each year, your premium jumps) before the likely age where the insurer will be required to make a payout for "loss of independent existence". 110.140.84.37 (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

OK. Futurist110 (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I see a banned user posted again, and I wrote a reply to him, which is now mostly obsolete, but here it is anyways. Or rather, what remains which isn't simply a reply to him.

OK. Futurist110 (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing I can see in public policy or law which would prohibit insuring against sterilisation failure, by covering child-support liabilities. As to a cap, in the case of the non-custodial parent, it's pretty clear - the law sets out a formula for calculating child support, and the insurer would simply cover these bills until the child turned 18. In the case of a custodial parent, calculating the cost of raising the child would be somewhat more complex - but as long as it's a fair reflection of the cost, there'd be absolutely no reason for a judge to impose a cap. I totally fail to see how the sum awarded will affect the psychological well-being of the child. I suspect there are jurisdictions which, as a matter of public policy, prohibit insurers paying criminal penalties, such as an insured driver's speeding fines. But once again, that's a totally different kettle of fish. 110.140.84.37 (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

A judge's logic might be that the sum awarded could a child's psychological well-being since it could make the child feel unwanted, like a burden, and/or like a loss. Futurist110 (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you point to any actual such case? See our relevant articles on Wrongful birth and Wrongful life, which give an overview as to how courts have dealt with such claims. 110.140.58.225 (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes--specifically Wilbur v. Kerr (1982). Futurist110 (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Has a politician intentionally shown their underwear/bra (or more) in public?

I dreamt Wikipedia said the House of Commons spent 10 minutes on whether to break for lunch 10 minutes early then an MP of so-and-so constituency stripped to her underwear and lost the next election. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Ilona Staller, Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović see [1].John Z (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

If you're counting beachwear (as in the Grabar-Kitarović example) then David Cameron. Smurrayinchester 14:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, lots of politicians go to the beach. A simple google image search for /[politician] beach/ will return many images. E.g. Obama in his swim trunks [2], both Clintons [3], etc. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Eric Weber, see here (go to ca. 4:57 in the clip). He is a member of the Grand Council of Basel-Stadt, and that body's next election will be held in less than a month ... ---Sluzzelin talk 14:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Justin Trudeau has gone shirtless as has Vladimir Putin. The Trudeau pic is, I believe, from before when he entered politics, however the Putin pic is definitely from when he was serving as leader of Russia. --Jayron32 19:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I had a horrid recollection of Harold Wilson posing on the beach in the 1960s, but it turns out that he wisely kept his shirt on. Alansplodge (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

This picture of a future prime minister doesn't exactly qualify as "showing underwear (or more)", but still seems notable enough to mention. --69.159.61.230 (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that the images of Tony Abbott at the beach in his budgie smugglers are what has endeared him to both the populace and his party, and why he will live in our hearts forever. Not. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Anthony Weiner μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Anthony Weiner's requirements for who he'll expose himself too don't seem to be very high but he hasn't intentionally exposed himself in public AFAIK. Even if by sending photos to random people means they have been publicly shared. Nil Einne (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Weiner was found out because he publicly tweeted an image he meant to send privately. I am not sure that incompetence negates intentionality. μηδείς (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

NZ MP Keith Locke walked down a major Auckland street wearing "shoes, socks, a G-string, and body paint" after promising to (as per our article) run through the streets of Epsom naked of a certain politican won the electorate (who did). [4] Nil Einne (talk) 05:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Antonio García Conejo stripped to his underwear in the Mexican parliament to protest against privatisation (news story and pichere in Spanish) Valenciano (talk) 07:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Not MPs, but Bob Harvey (mayor) was the patron of a nudist club and at least once swam nude in their pool [5] [6] [7]. Someone who's truly nude isn't of course weating underwear but if they start off dressed, they may undress where others are present. (Also you said "more".) Whether you consider the club "public", I don't know nor do I know details about the rules of that particular club but I believe it isn't uncommon you don't have to join the club to participate. This [8] says Dove-Myer Robinson another mayor was a nudist. I'm sure there must have been nudist MPs in various places and depending on local laws it's likely some have participated in activities in places which you could call public. Note in particular (since you mentioned bra and more), that in a number of jurisdictions going topless isn't necessarily an offence in most public open spaces for either men or women. On the other hand, this photo of a topless male Kenyan MP was controversial when it was shared? publicly? intentionally? [9]. Nil Einne (talk) 07:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Koleen Brooks was briefly the mayor of Georgetown, Colorado and had a previous career as a "topless dancer" according to our article, but this newspaper report calls her a "one-time stripper". Moana Pozzi, apparently a "pornstar", entered Italian politics as the co-founder of the Love Party. Alansplodge (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Almost forgot one of the more famous examples. John Quincy Adams used to regularly skinny dip in the Potomac River. --Jayron32 13:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Well it's not "public" but apparently in Finland it's customary to conduct diplomatic and business discussions while nekkid in a sauna. The president of Finland reputedly had a long negotiating session with Nikita Krushchev in that setting in 1960.[10] If a photo were published I'd probably have to avert my eyes (shudder). 50.0.205.96 (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Similarly not public, but here is a discussion of the famous "I have nothing to hide from you" incident between Churchill & FDR.John Z (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Alessandra Mussolini posed nude. I'm not sure whether you would call that "public" or not — the photo shoot, as far as I know, was not public, but the pictures were publicly available. --Trovatore (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

library science

Can you explain me what is library science please ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.52.198.250 (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Library science. Basemetal 15:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

See also information science. The "iSchool at Illinois" is often ranked best in the country [11]. Until very recently it was The Graduate School of Library and Information Science. Dominican still uses the GSLIS [12] naming, UNC uses "School of Information and Library Science" [13] The field is growing and changing, and while some institutions are devoted to the older "library school" approach, many are re-naming and explicitly broadening their scope. UC Berkeley [14] and U. Texas [15] are other places that used to have schools of library science but now have "iSchools". SemanticMantis (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Muslims winning battle of tours

Are there any alternate history books that take place after Muslims win the battle of Tours? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 20:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I imagine that would mean more Muslim Tours guides. :-) StuRat (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The Muslims won in the major timeline of The Wheels of If by L. Sprague de Camp (although that has two events of divergence). I'm not aware of any other book that uses this counterfactual. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

A famous speculation by Edward Gibbon is in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: "A victorious line of march had been prolonged above a thousand miles from the rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire; the repetition of an equal space would have carried the Saracens to the confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland: the Rhine is not more impassable than the the Nile or Euphrates, and the Arabian fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames; and perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet". [16] Alansplodge (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Not exactly what the OP has asked for, but in Lion's Blood by Steven Barnes it is a Muslim Africa rather than a Christian Europe that becomes the main global colonial power. This is due to the counterfactual defeat of Rome by Carthage and Egypt, rather than a different outcome at the battle of Tours.--Wikimedes (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)