Humanities desk
< October 20	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 22 >

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.

October 21[edit]

Lots of homeless people die due to cold weather each year. I DON'T UNDERSTAND.[edit]

You see, we can assume that all the options for the homeless to stay in shelters weren't available to them, due to lack of bedspace, criteria not met, and so forth, so they have to stay out in the cold and die in a blizzard.

Well, if anyone's life was shot to hell to the point that they became homeless, and a blizzard was moving in, why wouldn't they try to find a police car to vandalize and bash in, so that the officers would get them a guaranteed warm free room, a hot shower, and a hot meal? Why can't the homeless who die in the elements think of that last-ditch tactic to save themselves? --70.179.178.5 (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)\[reply]

How can the Reference Desk help you?--Wetman (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think some users here may have been homeless at some point of their lives, or worked in a charity that helped the homeless, so that's how they might know first hand.

But Wetman, do you have a hypothesis? --70.179.178.5 (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the homeless are not capable of the kind of coherent thought or planning that your question assumes. For others, being indoors anywhere (police station or shelter) is impossible and even the threat of possible death from the elements will not get them there. Many others have no source of information about changes in weather conditions until it is too late. Others die because of unforeseen changes in those conditions: they were fine when they lay down but .. . Physical illnesses may leave them too weak to do what you say. And then there is cultural conditioning; it isn't as simple as you present it to break into a police car. And for others, to the extent they think about it, they have survived up 'til now, why should tonight be any different? Bielle (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be onto something with that last comment especially. It's kind of the same answer to the question of why don't some people leave when there's a hurricane coming? Why didn't Harry R. Truman leave when Mt. St. Helens was on the verge of erupting? It's what Scott Adams might call one's "inner weasel", lying to oneself about one's mortality. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, many homeless people have had unpleasant interactions with the police. Here in Toronto, a homeless man was beaten to death by police within the last decade, and that's only one case which actually hit the media. Cops tend to respond ungently to damage of their equipment in general, and are not always kind to those on the bottom rungs of society. Were I homeless, I would certainly avoid interacting with police wherever possible. → ROUX ₪ 03:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the book Citizens Without Shelter: Homelessness, Democracy, And Political Exclusion (by Leonard C. Feldman) may address issues related to your question, OP.

But your question is "Why can't the homeless who die in the elements think of that last-ditch tactic to save themselves?" and the simple answer to it is "Because they are dead." There could be any number of reasons that they might not have thought of it, or thought of it but didn't want to, or couldn't, act on it before they died. Note also (eg. on page 71 of the book I mentioned) though that in some places even just sleeping in the park is against the law -- homeless people don't need to go so far as to trash a police vehicle to attract police attention! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the psychological effects of Hypothermia, which reduces the individual's ability to think and act rationally.--TammyMoet (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Substance dependence, which is the cause of many individuals to be in a homeless existence. This also reduces good decision making skills. Then, on the opposite side of the spectrum are people who are striving very hard to work themselves back into a life of domestication and shelter. The last thing someone in that category would want to do is suddenly obtain a criminal record. 10draftsdeep (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are usually, in most cities, a group set-up to help. In London, The Manna Centre, to name just one. MacOfJesus (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a story called The Cop and the Anthem by O' Henry that portrays such an event.Smallman12q (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, your assumption that jail would be a warm and restful experience seems rather unwarranted. Have you ever been to jail? How about beaten by a cop and then put in jail? (Which may or may not happen when you bash a police car deliberately. And if this were a regularly occurring phenomena, I suspect the police would take either official or unofficial measures to discourage people from doing this.) And then followed that up with dealing with a public defender, staying in jail for god knows how long, eventually getting either released or sentenced or fined or what have you? It's a ludicrous idea to assume that going to jail is seen as an attractive option, and obviously the homeless person in question does not know whether this will be the cold night (one of many they have no doubt faced) that kills them or not.

In general, if one does not understand why other people act the way they do, you need to approach the question from their point of view, not an abstract point of view of what they don't do that you imagine you'd do in their situation. The latter approach won't really tell you anything other than how wrong you are. The former approach is the only one that will actually lead you to understand others. (If you actually care about understanding, and not just making silly points to try and show how clever you are.) --Mr.98 (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone interested in this topic, I strongly recommend George Orwell's Down and Out in Paris and London. The grim reality of homelessness, poverty, and desperation has changed little in the 80 years since he wrote his own first-hand account (yes, Orwell was homeless, a Depression-era "tramp", and not by choice). Not only is it a precise account of life in those circumstances, but it happens to have been written by one of the great prose stylists of the twentieth century. Don't miss it. (Occasionally I have to remind people that Orwell wrote things other than 1984 and Animal Farm!) Antandrus (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The grim reality of homelessness, poverty, and desperation has changed little in the 80 years since..." Huh? Maybe in Amerrrika its still just like that, but in Britain I am proud to say we've had the Welfare State since 1948, so you'd have to be very determined and very crazy to dodge all the services and safety nets that prevent people becoming homeless or rescue them from that situation. May I ask if you've ever visited London? The minimum wage and other employment legislation means that what is described no longer happens either in London or Paris. 92.24.182.216 (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mental illness is, sadly, often a hallmark of being homeless. And many forms of mental illness, particularly schizophreniform disorders (disproportionately represented amongst the homeless population) carry within them a distrust of any sort of authority. You don't need to be 'determined' to dodge services and safety nets; some homeless people are unaware of them, some homeless people don't trust them, some homeless people live in such an alternate reality that they don't even understand these services exist, some homeless people have had awful experiences with outreach organizations. Not all such orgs are entirely benevolent (as is the case with any group of people trying to help others), and sometimes it's actually safer to stay out on the streets than to be in a shelter with its attendant disease vectors and possible violence. And umm... minimum wage and employment legislation is far from a guarantee of being able to have a roof over your head. That sort of thinking is shockingly naive. → ROUX ₪ 00:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of care given to the poorest varies from country to country, so its unwise to assume (as so often happens here) that Europe is just like North America but with funny accents. I understand that in America there is little care for the lowest stratas of society compared with the UK or western europe. 92.15.31.47 (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

92, have you actually visited London? It's not like homelessness is an unknown problem there, and anyone wandering around London with their eyes open would be able to see that right in front of them. It's not quite as shocking as I found Chicago, but hardly difficult to spot. Other cities in the UK also have homeless people, but London probably has the largest homeless population. If you live too far from London, try looking around Oxford or Manchester or any UK city: it's not a simple problem, and it still exists. Why do you think The Big Issue still trades? And, just to break with the usual narrative, did you see the BBC documentary Evicted a few years ago, about homeless families gradually slipping through the cracks in the system? 86.163.212.182 (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have lived in London for many years. I think you are grossly exaggerating - it would be very difficult to find a homeless person, although if you did see one you'd remember them. Its long-term unemployed rather than homeless people who tend to sell the Big Issue. The last time I saw homeless people in London was decades ago. Every UK local authority has a statutory duty to house homeless people. 92.28.246.6 (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they do (within bounds), and yet last week I saw 3. And I didn't think it was unusual: I was in fairly touristy areas, so it was fewer than I generally see in other areas. I remembered them because I make a point of remembering, not because it was an unusual sight. 5 years ago, I walked the streets of Manchester with a group, handing out blankets to homeless people sleeping on cold paving slabs in December: the local authority had a duty to house them, too. Homelessness is a complicated problem, and the Big Issue is sold by a lot of homeless and vulnerably housed people: it keeps working with people after they have a roof, because homelessness is a complicated problem that isn't simply solved by giving someone a warm room. If you don't see any homeless people in London, I don't know what to say. Do you look? I also strongly recommend the documentary Evicted, since it explains some of the ways that even a family can fall through the cracks. 86.163.212.182 (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and look at Homelessness in England, and notice how many hoops have to be jumped through for a given local authority to feel absolutely obliged to help, and how many ways there are to wriggle out of providing help. People can be surprised to find they are, apparently, voluntarily homeless. It also has links to discussions of the way official figures are massaged. But anyone who has seen how many visible homeless there are in our cities would be able to see the official figures are too low. 86.163.212.182 (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You saw some scruffy or eccentric people, but why assume they are homeless? The criteria in the article seem reasonable. I wouldnt call people living in bed and breakfast accommodation homeless. The more detailed criteria seem to be about giving people their own house or flat. If you want to give charity, then its better directed to the poorest parts of the third world. 92.28.246.6 (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the Londoners above: it might help to distinguish between homelessness in general and street homelessness ("rough sleepers") in particular (as for categories of prostitution, the former is much larger, but the latter often more visible). Shelter, the largest charity on the issue, [1], "You don't have to be living on the street to be homeless. You may be legally classed as homeless if you are sleeping on a friend's sofa, staying in a hostel, suffering from overcrowding, or other bad conditions." Crisis, another influential charity, explains the so-called "hidden homeless" here: they may not appear on any official statistics but "Crisis has estimated that there are around 400,000 hidden homeless people". BrainyBabe (talk) 08:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling people homeless who actually have a home of some kind, even if its not what they like, is just manipulation. 92.24.186.217 (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Orthodox names[edit]

Why do Eastern Orthodox have only one first name rather than a collection of name as it is in Protestants and Catholics?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who says they do? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian and Greek royal families started out as Protestant German-Danish princes that had more than just one names and then after their conversion to the Orthodox faith they only have one name. Have anybody wonder why many royals had other names that represent their different ancestors, godparents or relative while the daughters of Tsar Nicholas II have one name (not including the patroynm). --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aristotle Sokratis Onassis, Georgios Kyriacos Panayiotou, Athina Mary Livanos and her father Stavros George Livanos are or were all people from an Orthodox background, although the choice of middle names for some indicates a more western influence. Rojomoke (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's simpler this way :)) As recently as four centuries ago Russians (even the lowest classes) routinely had bunches of Christian and "household" (pagan) names. East of Borschov 18:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are deluded on this point. Old East Slavs had a Slavic name given at birth and a Christian name given at baptism. They also may have had one or several nicknames. But these names were never used simultaneously. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can a company sell a piece of stock outside the market?[edit]

if someone wants to inject a few million into another of their companies, but which is publically traded, could they buy a single share from the public company for the few million? (even though the shares trade at $22/each on the public market). Thanks. 85.181.49.255 (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In German law, yes. But if the donor is a corporation (rather than a natural person), they have to have something in return, apart from a share certificate - it's a matter of the donor's accountability to their own shareholders. East of Borschov 18:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada, the transaction would be said to be "not at arm's length". Say for simplicity that the share had originally been worth $10 and had remained on the market at that same price, and then had been sold at $5,000,000. Then the company selling the single share would pay income tax on a capital gain of $4,999,990 while the company buying it would have to treat the stock for capital gains purposes as if it the price had been at $10. --Anonymous, 02:11 UTC, October 22, 2010.

House of Commons bill introduction[edit]

In the first reading of a UK parliamentary bill, a typical Hansard entry might read:

"Secretary David Miliband, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Straw, Secretary Jacqui Smith, Secretary Des Browne, Secretary Alan Johnson, Mr. Secretary Alexander, Mr. Secretary Hutton and Mr. Jim Murphy, presented a Bill to make provision in connection with the Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon on 13th December 2007: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 48]"

A simple question: why are some secretaries of state referenced in the form "Mr. Secretary X", and some as "Secretary X"? As for Jim Murphy, is he referred to differently because he is a minister, not a secretary.

Thanks Sam 23:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs)

Let's see. The "misters" are Alistair Darling (Chancellor of the Exchequer), Jack Straw (Secretary of State for Justice}, Douglas Alexander (Secretary of State for International Development), John Hutton (Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise, and Regulatory Reform), whereas the "non-misters" are David Miliband (Foreign Secretary), Jacqui Smith (Home Secretary), Des Browne (Defence Secretary), and Alan Johnson (Health Secretary). Evidently the use of "mister" is not a mark of rank or importance. But notice that all the "misters", except for Jim Murphy, are identified only by surname or title ("Mr. Secretary Straw", "Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer"), whereas the non-"misters", with the sole exception of the PM, are called by their full names ("Secretary David Miliband", "Secretary Jacqui Smith"). That's the only pattern I can see. As patterns go, it's pretty arbitrary. LANTZY ^TALK 04:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... my first thought was that Mr Secretary Surname is the default, but the other form is used to avoid ambiguity when there is another MP with the same surname. After all there's certainly another Miliband in the Commons - and several Smith's. Looking at List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2005: Jeremy Browne and Diana Johnson were also MPs at the time, and possibly Boris Johnson. Whereas there was only one MP unfortunate enough to be saddled with the surname Darling. But Douglas and Danny Alexander seem to mess up that theory. the wub "?!" 09:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is their own preference. Looking at this index from Hansard, you see that many MPs are listed as "Mr" or "Ms" and many others are without. My understanding is that this represents their individual preferences as to how they are listed in Hansard. Because on that list, the cabinet members are named as "Rt Hon" we can't confirm this is what is happening. But look at this page reporting a question answered by "Alan Johnson" and this one where "Mr Douglas Alexander" is replying. A large number of MPs prefer not to be cited with "Mr" or "Ms" but rather their first name and surname. Sussexonian (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]