December 25

Last chance to get your mince pies and sherry ready.--Aspro (talk) 00:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please post your Christmas wishes in the form of a question. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK Newyorkbra. Let me rephrase it: Dear reference desk. On the approach to this Yuletide, what do I have to do, to persuade father Christmas to ignore the fact the I don’t have any chimney in my house to squeezes himself down,.. but if my stocking is not filled, then I may stop believing in him. I know the scientists have trouble explain qubits, just as they could not explain continental drift -once upon a time. Yet, this guy seems to be able to be able to achieve super-duper superposition and so by, descend every chimney at once. So. Mince pies and sherry at the ready!--Aspro (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Can Krampus swim? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not when the pond is frozen. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is creepy now. My little cousin asked me my question a few days, after a bunch of snow and creosote fell down the chimney and onto our fire (we neglect it as often as we do Santa). She was particularly worried about him drifting to this continent "across the pond". Good answers! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hristos raždaetsja! μηδείς (talk) 04:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I unable to see the higher resolutions of photographs. Often when I click on the linked photograph I am taken to a smaller file. I was able in the past to view the larger file. Its disapointing I am no longer able to see a higher resolution photograph of Michelangelo's Pieta sculpture for example. Pieta 70.181.197.25 (talk) 03:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try hovering your cursor over the image. If it changes (for example, to a magnifying glass with + sign icon) click the image. It should be full size. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 05:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And sometimes there's a list of available resolutions below, and you can pick on one of those. (If it doesn't fit on the screen, it may still give you a preview that fits, then you have to click on that to get the full sized image with scroll bars.) StuRat (talk) 14:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Jack Wild he is refered to as having been a "registered alcoholic". Can anyone explain what this term mean to a Yank like myself? A citation or dictionary entry would be extra appreciated. F6697 ^{FORMERLY 66.97.209.215} _TALK 11:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a well-worn phrase in the UK, but a quick Google didn't reveal any official status for it. Alcoholics (and other drug and substance addicts) have access to a range of benefits and services in the UK, which I imagine would need a medical practitioner's certification that you do indeed have a problem. Getting this done might be what is known as "registration" although I don't believe that there is any national register. Sorry that I couldn't be more definite - maybe another editor can do better. Alansplodge (talk) 12:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having spent a good part of my life in the NHS as a nurse I am not aware of any type of register for alcoholics or any form or certificate that was given by a medical practitioner to indicate a person was a "registered alcoholic". I think this is a dramatic journalistic artifice that is similar to a person being on "the danger list" or taken off "the danger list". In the UK there never was a "danger list" kept in any hospital that I ever knew. Of course the USA may have a different arrangement. Richard Avery (talk) 08:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It could be a joke of some kind. Americans talk of someone being "certifiably insane", or "certifiable" for short - even in reference to themselves sometimes, whether "officially" declared mentally ill or not. Also, thanks to the days of the Red Scare, where the expression "card-carrying communist" turned up (and likely a reference to something early, such as a card-carrying member of a union), anyone who's heavily into something might say that they are a "card-carrying" member of that something's real or imagined "fan club". We might use "registered" that way too, though I haven't heard it too often - maybe because the term "registered sex offender" is a real thing and is not a joke. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK in the 19th century, certificates of insanity were indeed issued, and here's a law mentioning them. It's quite hard to research this thanks to a Mr Alice Cooper, but I shall have a go at seeing what else I can find. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC) It seems to go back to the 1774 Act, according to this site. As to "registered alcoholic", again I have been unable to get a reliable source for this, but at least I've managed to find stuff about certified lunatics! --TammyMoet (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Certificates of insanity" are completed in the UK today as part of the operation of the Mental Health Act 1983 where two doctors are required to explain why the afflicted person should be detained in a safe place. Richard Avery (talk) 08:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the article out of its misery and removed the word "registered". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Soviet Union appears to have used the term 'registered alcoholics' in the sense of "the nation has more than 4.5 million registered alcoholics who receive medical treatment."[1] Sweden used the term registered alcoholic.[2] Registered alcoholics may be a term used by Alcoholics Anonymous. However, it generally seems to be used as a dramatic journalistic artifice as Richard noted above. I liked Jimmy on H.R. Pufnstuf. I didn't know about his troubles until now and wished his life turned out better. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I looked in to this a few days ago but didn't post because I didn't find anything that great but I might as well mention this. I don't think it remains totally a journalistic invention that no one uses any more (regardless of how it started), as e.g. some people appear to have called themselves that in trials [3], [4] and by solicitors describing their clients or people the are prosecuting [5], [6], [7], [8] and by judges describing people [9] as well as in local government reports [10], [11], [12], [13]. Also plenty of cases of people describing their spouses/parents/neighbours and other random stuff like [14].

However I'm not disagreeing the term doesn't actually seem to mean anything in the UK. The term seems to often be used in concert with the claim that "registered alcoholics" receive more benefits so I wonder if this may be partially how it arose.

Incidentally, this claim is also unsurprisingly largely bullshit. It does appear a small number of people with alcohol dependency/abuse problems as their primary condition do receive additional support. But it's a lot rarer than people suggest and the figures seem to include both alcohol and other drugs anyway [15], [16]. And not surprisingly from what I can tell e.g. [17], [18], [19] (I obtained a copy of this but it appears to be a copyvio so I'm obviously not linking to it), [20], you do need other conditions/problems caused by the alcohol dependency.

And it is fairly contentious with a fair degree of inconsistency and unclarity, about precisely what you can receive when and what evidence or effect there needs to be for that to apply. And support here doesn't of course necessarily mean direct financial support but other forms of support which obviously have a financial cost but the money isn't going to the person needing the support. In fact it's possible that people with such problems may receive less direct financial support with e.g. rent instead being paid direct to the property owner/manager [21] (although not a great source). I saw one source suggesting it used to be the case many years ago that "registered alcoholics" would automatically receive more support but I strongly doubt this claim too.

I assume then that in so much as the term "registered alcoholic" means anything, it generally refers to those who have had their alcholism assessed and accepted as contributing to their disability either as a primary or secondary condition (although I'm not totally sure if it's always made clear whether their alcoholism was accepted). Perhaps it could also include those who have their alcoholism on record with the NHS or the GP, although I'm less sure of this. There definitely does not appear to be any central register of alcoholics. And all the aforementioned would I assume be covered by privacy legislation meaning unless the person tells people about it or shows documents relating to it, there's no way anyone except for the select few involved who aren't allowed to spread it, can know. (I would assume this would apply to most court cases as well.)

Despite its prevalance in some sources, it doesn't seem to get much discussion although a small number of sources did mention that the idea is basically meaningless [22], [23] although the later source does mention an addicts (not sure if it included alcoholics) register may have existed in the 1950s. Funnily enough this source [24] which despite the nonRS nature of the site hosting is apparently from a FOI request of the contract between Department for Work and Pensions and Atos (specifically that mentioned inWork Capability Assessment I presume) mentions "Registered Alcoholic" as a condition requiring medicial examination. And the quotes are not mine suggesting even they're aware of the term but recognise it doesn't mean anything. You can see [25] to confirm it isn't an OCR artifact. (They also mention alcohol dependence.)

Nil Einne (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack of Oz: Thanks for the mercy deletion at Jack Wild. :)

Everyone: Much appreciate all the info. Interesting tangential discussions too. What is "the danger list" exactly? Sounds a bit like "the critical list" which also does not actually exist at hospitals. I think it is a triage term used in large scale emergencies where there are lists of the injured (minor, major, critical) and the dead (not yet, mostly, really really).

And just to close the loop, "registered alcoholic" is definitely not an AA term, it would go against the "self-responsibility" core of the program. Putting a person on some sort of mythical oversight list would allow the psychological crutch of letting someone else be accountable for your actions. However, perhaps someone in the AA org might have insight into this apparent slang terminology. I'll send AA an email and ask. F6697 ^{FORMERLY 66.97.209.215} _TALK 17:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]