Does anyone know about major industry deregulations (laws) after the year 2000? This page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation) lists many of them from late 1970s to late 1990s. However, I am curious if much has happened since year 2000 in any major industry in the US. Need this information for a research project.--[[Special:Contributions/130.160.161.93|130.160.161.93]] ([[User talk:130.160.161.93|talk]]) 18:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone know about major industry deregulations (laws) after the year 2000? This page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation) lists many of them from late 1970s to late 1990s. However, I am curious if much has happened since year 2000 in any major industry in the US. Need this information for a research project.--[[Special:Contributions/130.160.161.93|130.160.161.93]] ([[User talk:130.160.161.93|talk]]) 18:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
:I looked at [[Domestic policy of George W. Bush#Regulation]], since Republicans are generally the party of deregulation in the US. It says that Bush was big on regulation, but it's entirely sourced to an article in ''Reason'', a libertarian publication, so that should be taken with a grain of salt. I can't think of any ''major'' deregulation after 2000; the focus in the main [[Deregulation]] article is probably about right. Checking Google under {{Google|deregulation under bush}} (it all seems to focus on 43) yields mostly a partisan mix of the left saying Bush deregulated and caused the financial crisis and the right pushing back against that. And while less intuitive, {{Google|deregulation under obama}} offers some similar, mostly partisan, sources. --[[User:BDD|BDD]] ([[User talk:BDD|talk]]) 19:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
:I looked at [[Domestic policy of George W. Bush#Regulation]], since Republicans are generally the party of deregulation in the US. It says that Bush was big on regulation, but it's entirely sourced to an article in ''Reason'', a libertarian publication, so that should be taken with a grain of salt. I can't think of any ''major'' deregulation after 2000; the focus in the main [[Deregulation]] article is probably about right. Checking Google under {{Google|deregulation under bush}} (it all seems to focus on 43) yields mostly a partisan mix of the left saying Bush deregulated and caused the financial crisis and the right pushing back against that. And while less intuitive, {{Google|deregulation under obama}} offers some similar, mostly partisan, sources. --[[User:BDD|BDD]] ([[User talk:BDD|talk]]) 19:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
== UCAS ==
Do UCAS do CRB checks on all applicants or is that done by university admissions tutors for courses which require checks?
Revision as of 19:43, 10 October 2013
Welcome to the humanities section of the Wikipedia reference desk.
The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
French-Speaking Black/Sub-Saharan African Countries Being More Pro-Homosexuality Than Their (African) Neighbors
If you look at this map on the left and compare it with this map on the right, you will see a pretty interesting correlation between the fact that in contrast to most other African countries, most French-speaking (Black/Sub-Saharan) African countries (regardless of whether they are majority-Christian or majority-Muslim) don't have any anti-gay laws at all (of course, they also don't have any pro-gay laws, but they appear to be more pro-gay than most other African countries). This is even more true for Black/Sub-Saharan countries which were (already) under French rule/control in 1913 (right before World War I began). Even the French Black/Sub-Saharan African countries which were under German control/rule right before World War I but came under French rule/control right after World War I ended are more anti-gay than the Black/Sub-Saharan African countries which were under French control/rule (even) before World War I began. Is this fact/observation simply a coincidence or is there something more behind this extremely interesting correlation? For instance, did (previous) French and Belgian imperialism in these areas teach these African countries to treat gay people better than their African neighbors? Or, for instance, was there less anti-gay preaching and evangelism in these countries in decent decades? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice finds on the maps! I see that sub-Saharan former English and German colonies seem to be equal or greater in rights as the former French colonies. Looking at the map I suspect this has more to do with colonial religion when contrasted with the present reach of Islam rather than which ethnic group colonized each nation. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way00:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you mean by greater in rights? The former English and German Black/Sub-Saharan African colonies are more anti-gay than the former French Black/Sub-Saharan African colonies. Also, in regards to Islam, this would be inaccurate, since the former French Sub-Saharan African colonies of Niger, Mali, Chad, Djibouti, Burkina Faso, et cetera are Muslim-majority and yet do not have anti-gay laws. In contrast, the former non-French Sub-Saharan African colonies of Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, southern Nigeria, Ghana, Liberia, et cetera are all Christian-majority and yet all of them have anti-gay laws. Thus, my point about how former French Sub-Saharan African colonies (regardless of their religion) are more pro-gay than former non-French Sub-Saharan African colonies still stands. Futurist110 (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A map of Africa in 1913.
It's quite incredible and amazing. If a Sub-Saharan African country was under French rule/control in 1913 (right before World War I began; see map), it would be very unlikely to have anti-gay laws today. In contrast, if a Sub-Saharan African country was under non-French (British, German, Italian, and even Portuguese) rule in 1913, then it would be likely or even very likely to have anti-gay laws today. Futurist110 (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mauritania is an exception to this rule (and I'm not even sure if it is considered Black). Look at all of the other Sub-Saharan African countries which were French colonies in 1913. Futurist110 (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sub-Saharan Africa.
Here is some more detailed data:
Sub-Saharan, French colony in 1913, currently has anti-gay laws: Mauritania, Senegal, and Guinea (3 countries).
Sub-Saharan, French colony in 1913, currently does not have anti-gay laws: All other Sub-Saharan African countries which were French colonies in 1913 (11 countries).
Sub-Saharan, not a French colony in 1913, currently does not have anti-gay laws: Guinea-Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, and South Africa (5 countries).
Sub-Saharan, not a French colony in 1913, currently has anti-gay laws: All other Sub-Saharan African countries which were not French colonies in 1913 (25 countries).
I excluded small island countries in my data here. Someone can double-check my calculations, but even if I made an error or two somewhere in my calculations, my overall point here still strongly stands. Futurist110 (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If my data here is correct, 3/11, or 27%, of France's 1913 Sub-Saharan African colonies currently have anti-gay laws, while a whopping 25/30, or 83%, of Sub-Saharan African countries which were not French colonies in 1913 currently have anti-gay laws. 83% is more than three times larger/greater than 27% is, and there are many African countries who were and African countries who were not French colonies in 1913 (so it's hard to argue that the sample sizes here are too small). Oh, and here is a map of Sub-Saharan Africa. Futurist110 (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be hesitant to interpret this as indicative of any social/cultural difference between Francophone and Anglophone Africa. Rather the difference would lie in the role of the judiciary, and the process of decolonization. Overall, gay rights is a non-issue in African politics. It plays out in places like Uganda and Zimbabwe, but only as a result of activities from Western pressure groups. In many places were anti-gay legislation exists, it's rarely enforced through the official legal system. The fact that many French-speaking countries don't have any explicit legislation against homosexuality is probably more related that they haven't seen the need for it (existence of homosexuality in African societies is often denied) than a sign of acceptance. --Soman (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See LGBT rights in France. In 1791 no law was passed against it, so it remained legal. Not called the Age of Reason for nothing. As I recall, quite a few famous American expatriates sought freedom on this issue in France, but alas, I forget the details. Wnt (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to agree with Soman, there may be some relation to encoding such laws but the effect with things like LGBT rights in Mali and LGBT rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo have about an equal effect as those encoded in all the nations listed in yellow on your map.
Just as Alansplodge gave you an exception earlier to your Francophone thesis, the most glaring exception to your thesis is South Africa (the 4th most populous sub-Saharan), which by your map up above actually provides more rights than the majority of the United States and the majority of the world and yet was English and Dutch a century ago.
That doesn't mean that the French influence did not play a part in the current status but given the wikipedia articles on how those former colonies of France and Belgium are in effect the same as nations such as Namibia with the only difference being unenforced legal codes, the real effect of French/Belgium influence doesn't amount to much especially when confronted by South Africa's status as the only nation on the continent to embrace such rights. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way14:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this whole topic needs some work, because Wikipedia's summaries may be misleading. For example, Congo is listed as one of the "legal" countries, and I see no reports that a 2010-2011 drive to pass a bill against it was successful, but when I look I find sources with bizarre statements like "A Congolese journalist Blaireou Kajam explained that there was no law against homosexuality, but it was a taboo and anyone found practicing homosexuality was immediately arrested and jailed for not less than three years."[1] Supposedly they are so anti-gay that the hotels have a policy against letting two men share a room, which is a level of weird the U.S. never knew. Wnt (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You will never be as smart as they. Whatever language the laws are written in is for the benefit of those who understand that particular language. Of course this will not appear in any French. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.149.160 (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I presume from your source you're referring to the DRC. Our article LGBT rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo explains the situation. While there are no laws explicitly banning sex between people of the same sex, various more general laws are used to persecute those found. (This of course isn't uncommon, in fact even in countries where laws exist others laws may be used for a variety of reasons including for cases where it's no clear conduct violating the specific laws has taken place.) And it's perhaps worth remembering that some countries have very general provisions allowing people to be arrested and jailed without actually having clearly violated any law, so the idea that it's not against the law but people who do it are arrested and jailed isn't actually that contradictory.
And in many ways it's about more than laws. Consider for example that South Africa was the first country in the world to bar discrimination based on sexual orientation in their constitution and the fifth to allow same sex marriage, yet it's perhaps better to be LGB in a number of countries with discriminatory laws than in a number of communities and areas in South Africa LGBT rights in South Africa.
This is of course one of the problems with trying to summarise complicated situations so simply.
You get similar problems in other areas. For example the law in Malaysia on abortion [2][3][4][5][6][7] is not that different from the law in New Zealand (Abortion in New Zealand). In fact in some ways the law in Malaysia is more tolerant as it only requires one doctor.
Yet the actual implementation is vastly different with the mental health provision very commonly used in NZ to the extent that some opposed to abortions say it's basically abortion on demand and those who want to liberalise the law aren't really that strong a voice probably because most people aren't that concerned, it's only really doctors who generally express significant concern. (And definitely I think many people who may want one don't really think it's difficult or likely to be against the law.) But as the links attest, the availability in Malaysia is far more limited, particularly from what I've heard in government hospitals, with as the source attesting private hospitals and clinics quietly offering abortions while taking advantage over the unavailability and confusion over the law. (The sources suggest it's improving a bit but the law has changed since 1989 and by comparison I don't think the situation in NZ is that different from 10 years ago. If anything it's perhaps gotten a little harder due to concerns from doctors.)
The time periods when homosexuality was decriminalized in various countries worldwide.
I think that you guys and ladies are correct in your analysis -- http://pewglobal.org/files/pdf/258.pdf (this research (on page 35 of this link of mine) shows that certain French-speaking African countries (though I wish that more French-speaking African countries were surveyed here) have equally anti-gay views among their populations than certain non-French speaking African countries (as stated above, South Africa is a huge exception)). You are also correct that France and Belgium de-criminalized homosexuality in the 18th century, which was much sooner than even some other Western countries decriminalized homosexuality. If this map (which shows the de-criminalization of homosexuality worldwide) is correct, then it appears that most French and Belgian (which was led by Francophones until the 20th century) colonies appear to have simply "followed the lead" of their colonizing countries and never officially specifically criminalized homosexuality (while still enormously disapproving of it in many cases). Also, you guys and ladies might be correct that homosexual behaviour might be punished in at least some of these countries through the use of other, less specific laws (I suppose sort of how incest with minors was punished in France by less specific laws until 2010, when a more specific law in regards to this was written and passed). Thank you very much for all of your help in regards to answering this question of mine, everyone. I strongly appreciate it. Futurist110 (talk) 06:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Noise
Anecdotal evidence suggests that prolonged exposure to noise causes psychological damage. As in reports of victims of noisy neighbours committing criminals acts (brick through the window), becoming depressed and homicide and suicide. All these acts suggest being committed "when the balance of mind was upset". Out of all the knowledge of impaired pscyhological conditions, that psychologists/psychiatrists can identify (they can identify depression, PTSD, schizophrenia, etc) is there a known measure for identifying the psychological damage caused by long-term noise and that a given person is suffering from it. 31.25.4.14 (talk) 08:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the shorter term there is a lot of science about the Long Range Acoustic Device and other Sonic weapons. For more long term exposure you also have such phenomenon as the so-called "Suicide Song" of Gloomy Sunday that radio stations actually went to the extreme of banning it, there have been a lot of scientists that have studied these effects such as Vladimir Gavreau.
An additional curious way one can "go mad" with sound is the case of the Milgram experiment which had test subjects react to pre-recorded sounds and screams of pain followed by banging on walls of their "victim" for just $4/hour. There were a variety of emotions and psychological responses and effects on the test subjects from those experiments.
Hey JackofOz, on the article for Milgram Experiment there is an ad stating $4/hour (actually less than an hour), then again it was in the early 60s so we've progressed hopefully. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way20:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Noise is a type of psychological stress, and its effects have mostly been studied in that context -- the article summarizes them. The most important effects are an increase in emotional reactivity and difficulty sleeping. It's worth noting that many people with schizophrenia experience hallucinatory noise -- including hearing voices but also many other types of noise -- and the stress that induces is one of the most distressing aspects of the disease. Looie496 (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Define noise? I was thinking of neighbour noise specifically. Continuous traffic noise; disco at high volume from 6pm in the evening to 6am in the morning, immediately below you; noise pest upstairs, continuously slamming doors, banging, clattering, dropping objects; loud music. Noise, 24/7, for, ah, 10 years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.25.4.14 (talk) 08:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that it? OK. I was a bit surprised at the interpretation of the Milgram experiment as testing response to noise. I thought that experiment was stimulated by the Nazi's at the Nuremburg Trials claiming - they were only following orders. The experiment was to see if ordinary people out of respect for authority would obey orders, even if they were outragous - like giving a life-threatening electric shock to someone with a heart complaint, for failing a laboratory word test. The majority of people followed orders. So, your conclusion is that out of all the knowledge of psychology/psychiatry, no-one has noticed a relationship between noise and pscyhological damage, either short or long term. OK. Thanks very much.
Who transforms gold scraps into gold bars, if at all?
What happens to the gold scraps being traded through pawn shops and the like? Does it get transformed into gold bar that can be traded as bullion in a regulated market? 15:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The simple answer to this is that anything the new buyer of "gold scraps" wishes to happen to it. Gold is like any other commodity on the marketplace, like sugar, brent crude oil or pork bellies so like those markets you do have "regulation" in the market but it has nothing to do with gold specifically--since at least the Democratic Party's Gold Reserve Act was truncated. I think part of what you are asking is if the price or state of gold is regulated . . . not officially but the market dictates what may be more useful for anyone buying or owning "gold scraps" in terms of both putting it on or taking it off "market" and whether to make it into gold bars. Gold bars simply being more efficient ways to trade or store larger quantities since they are all uniform weight and can be divided or combined into more easily marketable or accountable units. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way16:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some of it is made into jewelry, some into coins or gold bars. The big problem with gold bars is that they are extremely expensive -- a 10 lb bar, which is not very large at all, is worth a quarter of a million dollars. Looie496 (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If gold is like any commodity, I still wonder where it gets transformed into a commodity. I know that for agriculture commodities you deliver your wheat or pork bellies to an regulated warehouse, where you get a warrant stating its specific characteristics and quantity. When people trade commodities, they trade these warrants and emit futures, or other financial product based on this. I wonder if there is a list of official banks (or whatever, I have no idea) that accept gold and emit warrants. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's all a commodity. See Wickard v. Filburn (a "regulation" that deems every piece subject to the largely self regulated market), even gold you may wear on your ring is a commodity that affects world prices (or at least interstate commerce), not to the same degree perhaps as stacks of bars but any gold (or anything else) in any form is legally (and in many schools-economically) a "financial product" as you put it. Also much of the "regulation" you speak of isn't about the market price (with "pork bellies" "warehouses" being inspected by the USDA etc.) The physical place gold changes form is usually a mint, private or public. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way03:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep a commodity complete with cheats who try an make their money by selling tungsten bars coated with gold. Gold foundries are regulated but for a bar in the market it needs to be checked or bought from someone who'll guarantee it. Dmcq (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading some of the responses I see a point of potential confusion, technically speaking most everything is "regulated" by the U.S. Government and to my knowledge it is the same throughout the first-world and through the UN and NGOs in other parts of the world.
The point I tried to make above however with the Supreme Court Case is that there is no difference between a warehouse of say Pork Bellies and a pork belly in a can on your kitchen counter when it comes to effecting and being effected by the market pricing of demand and supply--same with gold and other commodities.
"Regulated" is omnipresent but largely irrelevant when asking about price or demand and supply, though government regulators may be the ones physically setting prices of some commodities, they rely on market forces (supply/demand) to set those prices. The government regulators may be the biggest single force in a market but they follow the tidal wave of a thousand or millions of individual whims effecting supply and demand.
In short the same gold traded by the billions in London or Hong Kong is effected and effects the price of gold in your cabinet at home, "regulations" on the commodity itself really isn't on the minds of commodity traders nor the people in your home using the gold except possibly just one of several "cost of doing business". Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way20:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dmcq is on the money, but User:Marketdiamond not. It's not about governments regulating prices. As said, everything that's bought and sold is a commodity. But some have an underlying standard and are traded in a commodities market. It doesn't matter if the pork belly in a kitchen is the same as the pork belly in an official warehouse. The former cannot be traded on a regulated market, contrary to the latter, which can. Fulfilling a standard makes it different. Compare trading shares of a limited company with trading shares of a corporation with shareholders on a stock market. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OsmanRF34, lol you pull a quote from me just after you say I'm not "on the money" (As said, everything that's bought and sold is a commodity). Your conclusion later is correct, but is it relevant to what happens to a commodity at a pawn shop, and why it happens (my point about price & markets)?
I'd be cautious calling "on the money" a comment from another editor that starts with "a commodity complete with cheats", a bit hyperbolic, not limited to gold & potentially actionable. Interested in seeing a cite or 2 about "underlying standard" & how it may be different then what I mentioned that every commodity type has the same market price (and thus incentive for what a pawn shop or I may do with said commodity) in spite of its form. Is there an effective difference between the "underlying standard" & the spot price of gold aside from where the buy/sell takes place (one at say a regulated pawn shop the other at a regulated commodities market)? On that, your "cannot be traded on a regulated market, contrary to the latter, which can." & yet there are hundreds offering to buy my gold & pork bellies in my area all offering me market price + commission despite none of them or I being regulated/licensed nor having your "underlying standard" in the same way the actual market for these commodities are/do, both platforms dictating the same price & thus incentive/disincentive to "transform" it as OP asks.
Your "compare trading shares of a limited company with trading shares of a corporation with shareholders on a stock market." I see what your getting at, the contrast of 'privately held' & thus SEC & exchange "unregulated" (however a 'privately held' US limited company would still be "regulated" by the IRS, Attorney Generals office etc.) the larger point I was trying to clarify is public or private, SEC or just IRS/AG none of those "regulators" would effect the day to day price of the companies products (commodities) & thus a pawn shops incentive to "transform" its gold. The other important way this privately held/publicly traded comparison falls down is companies get listed on all types of exchanges (Amex, Nasdaq, Toronto etc.) all of which have different listing requirements, there is/was even the "pink sheets" where a "public corporation" can thumb its nose at all exchange listing requirements & trade without exchange & many SEC regulations (the equity equivalent of your "underlying standard"?), those "public corporations" then trade much like your private "limited compan[ies]" which actually do "trade" but unlike commodities all gold companies/corporations have their own & different price. Gold & pork bellies etc. don't lobby exchanges/work to meet listing requirements/play exchanges off each other to get listed, they trade on commodity boards that place them there by default.
Most importantly, commodities are complex & confusing enough & trade much differently than equities (your "limited company" & "trading shares of a corporation" examples) & sometimes on separate markets in separate cities. Gold the commodity trading ripples through every gold transaction in equal ways be it pawn shops or commodity exchanges, doing so 'globally' & in a 'pure play' way. In contrast a gold mining limited company goes down in its (privately held) say Australian market price due to CEO malfeasance while a lets say African gold miner or processor "corporation with shareholders on a stock market" remains unchanged because they are losing marketshare or ending its dividend--both of which aren't always global & almost never commodity price ripples. Gold the commodity (both in warehouses & on your kitchen table) is not effected by such "equity" concerns & thus doesn't effect a pawn shop's incentive to "transform" their gold. I understand the larger point you're trying to make but crossing the commodity/stock divide is always a confusing task. BTW, nice find on the pork bellies update, I was unaware of that. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way03:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How can you know if you "dr"? Perhaps there are too many questions being asked but my intent was to summarize some of the things I hit on in response to A) your own question B) your confusing equities with commodities in a comparison that raises many more questions than answers and C) your response to a "complete with cheats" comment by a 3rd editor. Yesterday I did consider adding a few Bloomberg or CNBC transcript links but they are about 2x longer then my summary, so I'll keep your tl;dr preference in mind. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way09:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, how does one regulate a pork belly? If it is too large, do they lop some off and sell it for scrapple? Or are they sold in large lots that average out? μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pork belly has the answer, although they were delisted for trading on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange: "The unit of trading was 20 short tons (40,000 lb or 18,000 kg) of frozen, trimmed bellies. Pork bellies can be kept in cold storage for an extended period of time, and generally it was the frozen bellies that were most actively traded." OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The most famous French writer was probably Voltaire, but he wrote mainly prose. The most famous French dramatist was Molière, I think. I'm not sure that French literature had a proper "Shakespeare". (For German literature, it would unquestionably be Goethe.) Looie496 (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
French is referred to as "La langue de Molière". Apparently, "Langue de Voltaire" is also used but I've never actually seen that used. Cervantes, Goethe, Shakespeare and Moliere are probably the four writers that are most strongly associated with their respective languages - at least in French culture, where their names are used to refer poetically to their language. Effovex (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And, of course, the French would never say that Molière was the French Shakespeare. But Moliere is to French what Shakespeare is to English. Effovex (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfectly alright to just explain that Pushkin is simply the Russian Dan Brown (or Shakespeare, or whoever you prefer). IBE (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same Romanization the English-language publisher Slavica of my Po-Moskowski 101 textbook., and it allows reserving y for ы. μηδείς (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I retract my German reference, but I still think that a system in which the sounds "ya", "yu" and "oy" are spelt that way - and not "ja", "ju" and "oj" - is a better one for anglophones. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]01:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't going to argue the point, since I knew what Jack meant. The bottom line for those who are interested is that as with Arabic there is no single accepted standard transliteration, which Russian grammar textbooks make clear. See Romanization of Russian. Ruthenian is even worse, as it has three i letters instead of two (и, і, and ы), and two geh's (г and ґ). Not that I was schooled in it. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Щербачёв requires only 8 letters in Russian but 12 in English (Shcherbachov) and 17 in German (Schtscherbatschow). There are probably even better examples of the typographical economy of Russian. OTOH, some of their words are sesquipedelian, so there are probably more letters overall in most Russian texts than their German translations. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]11:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In Hawaiian, the ʻokina ‹ ʻ › is a full and independent letter of the alphabet. It represents the glottal stop /ʔ/, which is a phoneme, meaning that if you omit a glottal stop or if you insert one where it shouldn't be (like mixing up ‹ʻa› /ʔa/ and ‹a› /a/), that makes the word a new word. In older texts, like the Bible, the glottal stop is not represented at all in spelling, making /ʔa/ and /a/ orthographically indistinguishable: both are spelt ‹a›. So, the letter ʻokina in old texts is infinitely many times longer when written in modern texts (1 ÷ 0 = ∞). --Theurgist (talk) 09:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a transliteration a la Jack, although it still has issues:
Ya Vas Lyubil
Ya vas lyubil: lyubov' eshe, byt' mozhet,
V dushe moei ugasla ne sovsem;
No pust' ona vas bol'she ne trevozhit;
Ya ne hochu pechalit' vas nichem.
Ya vas lyubil bezmolvno, beznadezhno,
To robost'yu, to revnost'yu tomim;
Ya vas lyubil tak iskrenno, tak nezhno,
Kak dai vam bog lyubimoi byt' drugim.
with its eshe which is pronounced YISH-SHAW and a hochu which would be jachú in Spanish or chotschuh with a final accent in German. μηδείς (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the French wiki actually has an article on the subject, and Pushkin or Tolstoi are used to refer to Russian. However, the ones that I've actually come across in my lifetime are those I named, plus Homer for ancient Greek and Virgil for Latin. Dante for Italian seems also fairly obvious but I don't recall having ever seen it. Effovex (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dante was perhaps just a little too early, almost 300 years before Shakespeare. His writing is surprisingly readable given that early date, but there was no unified Italian language at the time — you can argue that he wrote in "Florentine". --Trovatore (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since the US independence, has the unification (or even invasion) of Canada been ever a topic of political discussion? When the US was already independent, Canada was still British colony, couldn't that be a reason to try to conquer it? Was there any reason why the Thirteen Colonies expanded west and south, but not north? OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is only useful when there actually is a draft, though. Also, technically speaking, only a part of Canada needs to remain independent in order for this "release valve" for the U.S. to remain in place. Futurist110 (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My international law lecturer used to say that the only successful acquisition of territory by conquest in modern times was the British acquisition of Canada from the French, and that a good deal of the reason that it was successful was that the British government offered to ship any French settlers who wished to go back to France gratis (I haven't found confirmation of this, though I suspect that Treaty of Paris (1763)#Canada in the Treaty of Paris is the relevant clause). According to my lecturer, many of them took up the offer, and when the Southern colonies rebelled a few years later, those who had chosen to remain in Canada stayed loyal. --ColinFine (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting Adam Bishop never knew of those, thou War Plan Red also included the rest of the British Empire . . . you just left out Canadian Bacon, or as President Alan Alda put it: "Surrender pronto or we'll level Toronto". Hacker Hailstorm, activate! lol. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way03:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But Adam did know about them. He just told you about them. ........ Oh, I think I get it ("Interesting, Adam Bishop. I never knew of those ..."). Tricky stuff, this language thingamy. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]06:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly there was quite a serious movement for the annexation of Canada before the US Civil War. However because of the Missouri Compromise; any new states admitted to the Union from the north would be a 'Free State': a state without slavery. This was opposed by the Southern states, in particular US Senators from the south who were afraid of being outvoted in Washington over the slavery issue. Furthermore the Southern states have strong economic links to the British Empire— Southern cotton and British mills. So generally the Southerners were unwilling to go to war over Canada and any attempts at annexation were thwarted. Sodacan (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's also convenient cause Canadians can play the same game most of Europe does, where they act disgusted at the U.S., but essentially live under it's protection and benefit from its success. Not saying we're the best boyfriend in the world, but there are a lot of worse partners to have. Shadowjams (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well much of western & central Europe also "live[s] under it's protection and benefit from its success" with the US since World War II (see NATO, Berlin airlift, Marshall Plan, Irish tax laws re: Apple, US bases in Europe etc.), thou proximity also matters especially in matters like taxes, regulations for companies say in Maine or Minnesota that move across the border but still stay in the same general area. To be fair to Europe however it may be a case of the US needing them more then them needing the US, lots of NATO generals begging Congress not to end their so called "Kings in a fairy castle" duty stations. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way03:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You must not be very familiar with Canadian politics if you think Canada acts disgusted at the US. In terms of foreign policy, the Harper government has been the most rabidly pro-US and pro-unilateralist (the two are often synonymous) to date. Canadians don't like certain aspects of US economic and foreign policy, but being a protector, not that Canada has many credible military threats to fear, does not make one perfect in every way. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The greatest tragedy of the English-speaking peoples was the secession and cessation of the American colonies. Had they remained part of the British Empire, slavery would have been abolished two generations earlier, the Civil War avoided, the Plains Indians left in peace, protected as equal subjects of the King, as they were in Canada, and much of the malignant politics of race which scar this nation avoided. Questions like this raise the tantalising possibility that there are some Americans who realise the terrible mistake that was made two centuries ago and wish to rectify it. That would be possible, I suppose: both the USA and UK suffer from pretty second-rate politicians, but there is no reason why a figure such as Her Majesty should not be a unifying figure. A good start might be for the Americans to apply to join the Commonwealth, and later to repudiate the Declaration of Independence. On the other side of the coin, the American constitution, based as it is heavily on the Bill of Rights, could be transposed to English law, which would have the beneficial (and salutary) effect of rearming the citizenry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.25.36 (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Joining the Commonwealth would not be beyond the bounds of possibility. But repudiating the Declaration of Independence would be whole 'nother ballgame, involving becoming a colony of the UK once more. There's no evidence the UK would be remotely interested in gaining such a colony, and plenty to suggest the opposite. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]20:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Americans have any interest in joining the Commonwealth. Nationalism aside, I don't think we could get over that "queen" thing, even at the level of just having her titular head of a club we're in. --Trovatore (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You both raise profound and disturbing points. However, I should like to suggest that we might offer either the Duchess of York, apparently well known in the United States for her appearance on the 'Oprah' television show and commercials for the 'Weight Watchers' Corporation, or Prince Harry, who is apparently very well known in Las Vegas, and is said to be very popular amongst pre-pubescent girls.
The great advantage of having a constitutional monarchy, and a monarch as head of state, over an elected head of state, is that immediately a President is elected, all those who did not vote for him consider him an idiot and unrepresentative of their own views. Over time, even those who did vote for him also come to this conclusion, so that by the end of his term in office almost every voter considers their own head of state an incompetent charlatan. Worse still, this unflattering opinion is broadcast in newspapers and on the television, and is reported abroad, which reflects poorly on the nation as a whole. Compare this with the respect and admiration in which Her Majesty is held, above the sway of domestic politics. In addition, by and large, our monarchs are people of taste and refinement and thereby exert a beneficial influence over the culture of the nation; would you not, after all, prefer to be known as members of a nation represented by someone who has a private art collection which includes 6 Rembrandt's, 26 Van Dyke's, and 13 Rubens' rather than such individuals as Kim Kardashian and Hulk Hogan?
Whoever you are, comparing the UK Royal Family with those other personages is fallacious and absurd (unless Kardashian and Hogan have been elected to public office lately and the news didn't make it down here?). Maybe that's why you didn't sign your post. How about comparing the taste and refinement of Ozzy Osbourne or Vicki Pollard with Eleanor Roosevelt or Jackie Kennedy? -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]18:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't absurd at all; just as Her Majesty has not been elected to office, but is seen as exemplary of her nation so, unfortunately, are various ugly Americans seen as exemplary of theirs. Australia, of course, most people foreign to that country associate with such cultural titans as Dame Edna Everidge and Sir Les Patterson; Shane Warne, perhaps. It might be fair to add that Australia is not only largely a desert in a geographical sense. And finally, I can't really see what the difference is between not signing a post and hiding behind a pseudonym; but, in an effort to be pleasant - 86.183.79.59 (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How the hell did Australia get into this discussion? The only possible connection is the nationality of your interlocutor, and if that isn't playing the man rather than the ball, I don't know what would be. Pleasant? Hmmmmmmmmmm .............. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]21:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that the loss of the Thirteen Colonies might have been at the root of the later doctrine of allowing Dominion status, self-government and eventual independence to Canada, Australia et al. Alansplodge (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's more than possible, it's actually quite likely that the British Empire developed the doctrine of Responsible government in response to American Independence. The loss of the Thirteen Colonies was a bit of an debacle, and Britain found that managing its colonial empire a bit differently in other places had a better result... --Jayron3202:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
October 6
Has there been a German term "Judendot"?
According to the respective article, German speaking Jew "Max Nordau saw Muscular Judaism as an answer to Judendot (Jewish distress)" in 1898. Juden are the Jews, but dot is not a word in modern German. While it might be a spelling for Tod/tot ("death/dead") in older texts or dialect literature, this definitely wasn't the case in New High German around 1900, and would not be translated as "distress". Does anybody know where the term might come from? Is this possibly a typo? (As the source given How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization is not directly on the topic, this appears possible.) --KnightMove (talk) 12:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought 'not' means 'need', as in 'to be in need'. This logic is based on the Afrikaans/Dutch word 'nootgeval', which is translated as 'emergency', but literally translated as 'need-befall'. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The word has more than one meaning depending on its usage. It can be "in need" but it can also mean "in distress". "Judennot" seems to be the correct answer as googling the term does bring up some hits, especially older German book titles, containing the word. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Not is probably cognate with "need", but usually describes a rather severe situation, sudden or prolonged. Seenot is a maritime emergency, Notfallambulanz is an emergency room, Hungersnot is a famine. --Wrongfilter (talk) 13:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right in general. In particular, emergency room is "Notaufnahme". "Notfallambulanz" is not wrong, but it's not a word I have encountered often, and would usually be understood as "(emergency) ambulance". Maybe it's more in use in Austria or Switzerland. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking quite a few very specific questions that call for an expertise in a subject that it's unlikely reference desk volunteers are knowledgeable about. I recommend you post your questions on the Talk Page of Nizari. You might also look at see who has contributed a fair amount of research to that article and contact the Editor directly on their User Talk Page. They might be able to point you to reference materials you can use to find your answers. LizRead!Talk!02:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also you may wish to clarify "writer" to a wikipedian (edit per Liz) that would be in the know about the subject matter, the US Congress recently changed some provisions in law concerning "journalists" because of the advent of Twitter, Blogging, Youtube, the technology available to anyone to "write" home published and e-books. There could be a very extreme argument made that wikipedians are "writers" in certain senses of the word, if you choose not to print off the site sponsored "wikibooks" there are dozens of other "publishers" churning out our contributions here, the tangible difference between that & say a Stephen King or Robert Novak is diminishing by the day. I have no knowledge of this genre but if you were to draw the line at blogs or e-books then an editor (or a google search) may turn up additional answers. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way10:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The conventional wisdom is that Paul Verhoeven's film version of Starship Troopers is a deliberate satire on its source novel, a way to show what a reprehensible fascist Robert Heinlein was. Supposedly Verhoeven started work on the film before optioning the rights to the novel, then read only part of it, finding it depressing, and then made a film intended to subvert everything RAH was trying to say.
But you know, I must have seen the film several times by now in bits and pieces (it seems to be always on cable when I'm flipping through late at night). And admittedly there are a number of set pieces that fit the narrative above, mostly but not exclusively the Federal propaganda broadcast on television, plus some of the behavior of victorious troops towards captured Bugs. But outside of those, honestly, the movie feels fairly sympathetic.
An example: When Rico asks his History & Moral Philosophy teacher whether he should join up, the teacher replies, "the only freedom any of us really has is to figure things out for ourselves. Use that freedom." That's a line that could very easily have flowed from Heinlein's pen, and the context does not appear ironic at all (even if Rico's application of it is to be led into service because he likes a girl).
So what's going on here? Is Verhoeven's satire too subtle to register with me, or did he fail to get it across? Or does he have more sympathy for the supposedly "fascist" Heinlein (a complete slander in my book, BTW) than he lets on? --Trovatore (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heinlein's my third favorite author, and I have never been able to figure out what's going on with this claim. The movie has great integrity toward the novel. Some of the commercials are over the top, but that seems more a parody of American TV than Heinlein. I do think there's an interview of Verhoeven on the topic. μηδείς (talk) 06:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The movie shows a highly hierarchical society drenched in media that are obvious propaganda for the military state, so when the teacher says "freedom to figure things out for ourselves" it uses the chance that the students will have been sufficiently influenced, that is to say brainwashed, by these outside factors to choose what they are meant to choose. That is how sophisticated propaganda works and has done since the early 20th century when it was refined by the totalitarian states. I haven't read the novel, so I have nothing to comment about Verhoevens intentions regarding that, but the movie does seem to brilliantly explore the question of the theories of free will and political freedom in face of modern media and ideals influenced by power structures. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so glad to find someone else spotting out problems of this self-contradictory film like that. Thank you, Trovatore! My opinion is that Verhoeven just wanted to make another movie about which you could quibble greatly, which ensures public debate, viewers, and money. There's nothing else behind. --KnightMove (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just say that my impression is that Verhoeven has been obsessed with fascist themes ever since Soldier of Orange -- they are especially glaring in Robocop -- and he portrays them in a way that I find very unpleasant. In fact I have refused to watch any of his movies since Total Recall (1990 film), although I've seen snippets of Starship Troopers in various places. I don't think Heinlein would have liked Verhoeven at all, though. Looie496 (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to an interview with Verhoeven. Note that the director describes some of the effects (not the aliens) as kitschy, but nowhere does he speak of fascism. He says he was eager to do the film. (Kind of hard to be fascist in a free society when army service is voluntary and there is no war between humans. Unless maybe you define patriotism as fascism.) Then look at the caption added by the interviewer under Neil Patrick Harris describing him as Goebels! That's a disservice to those who haven't seen the movie, an insult to those who have, and an attack on historical dignity. μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well... (glossing Verhoeven the same way he glossed Heinlein) I can sort of see where the criticism comes from (even if I don't quite think it fits). Allowing full citizenship and voting rights solely to people who have served in the military sticks in a lot of people's craw, including mine. While Heinlein notes that the "Federal service" necessary to earn citizenship is not limited to the military, we never really see what other government duties qualify. Do they have a Peace Corps (or equivalent)? What do people do who want to serve and earn citizenship, but have serious moral objections to the means or even the ends of government policy? If you want to change policy, first you have to help enact it, no matter how horrific it may be? That's not an individualist position, no matter what else Heinlein has written elsewhere. I always thought he could have done a little more to ensure the reader's understanding that, having once looked into the Bug abyss, we must recognize that it looked also into us, and take care lest we become, like the Bugs, unwilling or unable to consider the individual in the face of the mass's interests (the H&MP class's "Men are not potatoes" line is insufficient given the government structure he's set up at such length). A claim that everyone who thinks this does indeed smack of fascism to some degree is "defin[ing] patriotism as fascism" is a straw man, I think. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠21:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're focusing on an aspect of how the workings of the State are decided, rather than what they actually are. Heinlein was indeed openly questioning whether voting should be extended on what he called the "warm-body" criterion; that was a theme he addressed in non-fiction essays as well. If the State is defined as the body with a monopoly on violence, then voting is tantamount to directing violence by proxy, and Heinlein explored various ideas about how that power should be allocated.
But there is no indication in the novel (and hardly any in the film, actually) that anyone suffers loss of personal liberty by not being a citizen. Now, you can question whether that's realistic — unfortunately, it really is questionable — but Heinlein's intent seems to be that, if you just want to direct your individual life, you will be as much as possible left alone to do it. --Trovatore (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I despaired of bothering to say that; thanks for doing so, Trovatore. I would just add, under Heinlein's system, no one would be prevented from volunteering for a private peace corps, which is a charity, and no one would be forced to pay for it through his taxes, either. μηδείς (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be starting to talk about two different things. All of the above was directed precisely at "how that power should be allocated," which is inextricably bound with "how the workings of the State are decided." I acknowledge 1) that there's nothing that necessarily or intrinsically means that restricting voting rights to veterans restricts the other civil rights of non-voters; and 2) that there's nothing stopping anyone from going out and doing whatever they can get away with to aid others. What I was trying to say is that there is something inherently flawed in a society that forces its members to participate in its policies before it will allow them the right to try to change those policies. In fact I imagine there must have been at least one debate in which Starship Troopers was brought up during the 26th Amendment ratification campaign, albeit as a corollary rather than a direct argument: in order to vote against a war which you know to be a useless, foolish waste of lives with no significant difference between victory and defeat, you must first sign up to fight in that same war. These are not exact parallels, obviously; Heinlein is writing a thought experiment about citizenship in general while 26th Amendment advocates were talking about allowing the people who fight wars to have a say in when we go to war. But the point is that just societies try to minimize the inevitable Catch-22s of governing, not build on them as cornerstones. All I was trying to say previously was that while I do not remotely agree with critics who describe Heinlein as advocating fascism, I do see why they were tempted to drop that particular F-bomb. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠16:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this may be a case where one's own views inevitably color things. Personally, I agree with Auberon Herbert that "that which one man may not morally do, a million men may not morally do", so I don't see why there's anything "inherently flawed" (and certainly not anti-individualistic) about not basing one's use of violence on any particular person's say-so, just because there might be a lot of people in the class that person belongs to. Now, as I say, it's probably not realistic to think that non-citizens' liberties would not be curtailed in some way, but unrealistic or not, it does seem to be the situation Heinlein describes. --Trovatore (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. But when that man or those million men disregard what they may or may not morally do, and the system of government is set up so that they are not subject to the votes of a broader population, even if that population has a clear view of their acts - that is not a situation set up to breed justice, except in the roughest frontier / guillotine sense. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠19:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No matter what Verhoven says, reading Robert A. Heinlein#Life suggests to me that the author was initially a supporter of various liberal causes - so much so that Isaac Azimov described him as "a flaming liberal" and in 1954 he described himself as having in his "...background much political activity well to the left of Senator McCarthy's position". Though it goes on to say "Isaac Asimov believed that Heinlein made a swing to the right politically at the same time he married Ginny [Gerstenfeld]" (in 1948). It is quite a stretch to suppose he suddenly became a "reprehensible fascist". Is it not possible that the satire was in Heinlein's original novel and that Verhoven missed that completely simply because he gave up on the novel? Astronaut (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I identify three elements. The basic parts are the plot and theme, which are a coming of age story set in a time of war with an inscrutable enemy. Vehoeven sticks to this and while he omits some of the plot as is necessary in any film adaptation he doesn't rewrite it or lose its spirit. The second is the over-the-top acting and direction, as with the history teacher/drill instructor. There's nothing subtle or underplayed, no ambiguity, no long quiet shots of misty horizons without bombastic dialog. The third is the addition of the pop-up military recruitment adds and documentaries within the story itself. Those last two elements simply make the movie "modern" and attractive to males 18-34. They certainly don't vitiate the moral of the story. As for Heinlein, he went from a New Deal liberal to a classic liberal. Anyone who thinks he's a fascist is misinformed, to be generous. Read Farnham's Freehold about the nature of racism, where the white hero abandons his corrupt son and wife to save the black teen next door, or Friday, which is about the rights and dignity of women and genetically modified humans. Heinlein is entirely pro-human and pro-individual rights. μηδείς (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One can't simply place Heinlein on the liberal-conservative spectrum that exists in the United States (or anywhere else that I know of). At some point Libertarian was a good word to describe Heinlein but now that this word has been recuperated by people who are very keen on restricting individual rights (regarding e.g. gay marriage) I'm uncomfortable making the association. I certainly doubt Heinlein felt attracted to either major political parties while he was alive and I doubt things would be different nowadays - although he probably would get along fairly well with Ron Paul (or at least better than with most politicians).
I think the movie does a decent job of presenting Heinlein's ideas (the writer is a huge fan of the book) and I'm pretty certain Heinlein would have approved of the shower scene (which is a brilliant exposition, btw). I'm also fairly certain Heinlein approved of corporal punishment - I remember reading him saying that punishment should be swift, that the reason for the punishment should be clear, and that there should be no grudges afterwards, although I can't find where I'm getting this from. Certainly imprisonment seems at odd with his philosophy as a form of punishment. People have called both the movie and the book "fascistic" but I don't know that that is accurate. Heinlein was pretty radical in his way but to call him a fascist is to completely miss the point. Certainly one should read his oeuvre and make an idea for oneself - or least read some quotes - the man is eminently quotable and extremely interesting (although not all his books are great from a literary standpoint) Effovex (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wish. Too small'. Non-jokes should not be smalled--it is hard for some of us old folk to read all that small print, and I am averse to CTRL +. μηδείς (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I always thought the film sequence that comes the closest to making the point Heinlein was most clearly trying to propound in Starship Troopers is the "His Name is Robert Paulsen" elegy in Fight Club (another book/movie that's been accused of smuggling "fascist" ideas into American culture). I'd insert a snide comment here about liberal commentators who still haven't noticed (much less gotten over) either the demise of the post-war consensus or the enormities wrought by its economic institutions and their successors, but this is WP:NOTAFORUM. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠20:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth considering that especially the movie, and perhaps the book, were not trying to portray a perfect society nor one which was absolutely evil, but merely sought a somewhat consistent set of ideas. It is pretty clear from the film that their society is dominated by propaganda, enters into war needlessly (remember the line about the disputed mining planets that led to war with the bugs), and makes a spectacle of suffering (a trait which is as much a sign of honesty as of brutality). Yet within the military citizenry it had preserved a sort of democracy. Though the logical contradiction of democratic rule with censorship and propaganda is unresolved - but it is also unresolved in real life, as with the PRISM controversy. Wnt (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any attempt to deal with fascism without dealing with its seductive nature is seriously suspect. In Starship Troopers Verhoeven manages to portray the seductive nature of fascism, in particular its idealisation of the subject's relationship to the national, concepts of service, etc. I find the imagery to be far more interesting though. Neil Patrick Harris in nazi regalia, genitally mutilating a giant psychic vagina monster and then claiming it is "afraid." The themes of war corruption, stab-in-the-back, and the weakness of the old in the fire base sequence. The mimicry of Pearl Harbour and its hysteric over reactions, and the prescient gesture towards the same recent cycle. Honestly, looking at the chief bug, my brain went T-34. I have no idea why, but it seems like nostalgia for the drang nach osten. Rather than a defilement of Heinlein, I'd prefer to think of this as a derivative work that would have failed if the source didn't provide such fruitful depth to explore these themes. Shakespeare's Hamlet is about a depressed student with Daddy issues, it isn't very faithful to the ur-text, but it is still a good play. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Signing of constitiunal amendments (USA)
G'day;
Do presidents sign constitiunal amendments? The only signed amendment I have seen is the 13th, signed by President Abraham Lincoln. The 25th does not show the signature of President Lyndon B. Johnson, but I have watched a documentary where he signed it. Interesting to note is, that congress passed it 1965, but President Johnson signed it sometime in 1967 when it became law. Or did he sign something else? Further, do governors sign amendments if their legislature approved an amendment (the constitution requires 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendments). Thanks in advance --84.160.155.45 (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The 1965-1967 time lag was to have enough states to ratify the amendment, 2-3 sometimes 4 years after being passed by Congress is somewhat typical for these. Good question on the signatures though. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way11:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Presidents aren't required to sign, but can, just as a show of support, if they wish. I'm not aware of governors signing US Constitutional amendments, although they might well symbolically sign amendments to their state constitutions. StuRat (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, each state can set up their own rules, but I doubt if any would differ that much from the federal constitution. Requiring a governor to sign would completely eliminate a major point of amendments, bypassing the executive. StuRat (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The President's signature is not required since amendments must be passed with a 2/3 majority of both houses, which is equal to a congressional override of a veto. No reason he can't have a ceremonial signing. μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
North/South split in Italy
The time periods when homosexuality was decriminalized in various countries worldwide.
The map from a previous question shows a division between the date homosexuality was legalised in the south of Italy (1800-1869) and the north (1870-1928). What was the legislative division at this point? Was there a simple north/south split or were/are there smaller administrative regions and those in the North just all happened to be slower in enacting this change? -- Q Chris (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See unification of Italy. Specifically, this date seems to correspond with the capture of Rome, which deprived the Pope of political power. This would make sense, since it's hard to imagine the Pope authorizing the legalization of homosexuality, at least at that time. StuRat (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody stole sensitive information from a person, which would get that person into trouble with the law, could the stealer be sued too?--2.245.192.102 (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With the caveat that we can not give legal advice here but can speak on general legal issues the best answer is anyone can sue anyone else for anything, absolutely anything, there are hundreds of cases every year that get dismissed before they are even given a court date as frivolous or worse have sanctions such as fees/fines assessed.
I think thouthough you're asking if they can prevail. Several factors play a part, was the thief under contract, under a non-disclosure agreement? Did it involve government work with a security clearance? Usually just simple data theft absence the above examples is not a civil matter but then one may end up like Brad Birkenfeld who despite being hailed as a "whistle blower" was convicted to jail time for the information, The Insider (film) also gives a blow by blow of what life is like sharing sensitive information that the ones your accusing of law-breaking are accusing you of what amounts to bad-faith or broken contracts.
Under which legal jurisdiction? The question is unanswerable without specifying that. And you probably need to say who it is you think might do the suing. (It may still be unanswerable even with those specified: I don't know). --ColinFine (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC
Jurisdiction matters a lot, even if informed of the geographic location in the USA & some other nations there is even a vast difference in statute & precedence in the state courts from the federal courts for that state division & appeals district. I don't feel it is "unanswerable" thoutho legal questions with a lot of details get into the 'should not answer per: legal advice', perhaps I'm in error but when I ask a legal type question on here I intentionally make it vague so no response could constitute something to the effect of how to do it in the 5th Federal District of Appeals etc. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way19:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please stop typing "thou" when you mean "though"? Thou is an actual word with a distinct pronunciation. If you want to economise, tho is available and has its adherents. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks μηδείς for catching that, I was thinking phonetically earlier in the thread but you seem to be right, been thinking that way this week too. Corrected it & thanks again. As far as the "purists" Bugs, it will be interesting to see if the Twitterization sweeps the current dialect to the modern equal of Old English or even Middle English. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way06:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Extortion is the wikilink I think μηδείς was meaning to type instead of -sion (spelling cultural?). It's cool, some minds think faster then the time it takes to type, I should know. :-).
I'd read OP to mean those times where the 'thief' is doing something based on principal or already 'burned his/her bridges' with the organization, making extortion less likely (though still possible) with a principled 'thief' refusing to accept any extortion or the 'burnt bridges' organization welcoming a public (& potentially litigation-bullying of the 'thief') fight. Then again μηδείς may be the most right, for every 'whistle blower' or 'insider' case complete with motivations & intents we hear of there could be dozens of organizations that were so successfully extorted that the secrets remain just that. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way10:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to Marketdiamond's earliest response — see Jonathan Lee Riches. According to his article, he sues deceased and fictional people as well as entities such as the Roman Empire, on top of real, living people. Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Use of the Romansh language in Swiss, legal citations.
Greetings!
I've been researching legal-citation guidelines from various countries, and have gotten somewhat bewildered by Switzerland's Civil Law. The country has 4 national languages, viz., French, German, Italian, and Romansh; also, their unique hierarchy of government dictates that only the court-of-last-resort is Federal, and all lower courts are those of the cantons.
According the Bluebook guide to legal citation (published by Harvard University) one may cite Swiss statutes and codes one of two ways:
A.) With parallel, French and German citations—as well as with parallel, Italian citations, but only if they're "available and pertinent."
or B.) With a citation in the one language "of which they are the most relevant."
Also, one may city a Swiss case:
In whatever language the court issued the ruling.
The Bluebook then goes on to say that all cantonal law must be cited in the "language or languages of the canton." It also lists the proper names—and appropriate abbreviations—of the courts, reporters, et al, in French, German, and Italian.
My question involves the fourth (and oftenest excluded) Swiss language, Romansh. Since it is one of three official languages in the canton of Graubünden, then mustn't one also cite cantonal laws from there in said language? Also, has the federal court in Bern ever issued a ruling in Romansh? And finally, if one must (in certain situations) cite Swiss laws in Romansh, then does anybody here know where someone could find the proper names—and appropriate abbreviations—of the courts, reporters, et al, in the language?
As for the abbreviations since you have the Bluebook, is a specific canton's abbreviations the same for all the languages?
I understand some languages may invert (or revert) the word order and thus the abbreviation but part of the reason for abbreviations--especially in a multi-language state--is to assign a simplified, universal series of characters to something, but I can see how ethnic concerns could override that.
My concern with the nature of this question thou is that jurists usually strive to be very clear & unambiguous in both pleadings & rulings. That is most likely why each canton can choose a language best for them but the Swiss stop short of having all cases in all languages. The focus for the courts isn't to appeal to all languages but to be clearly understood. For that reason I'd be surprised if the canton you mention would use more than one language in their court, the federal court as you mention may have resources for that and is forced to do that since cases are coming from different cantons but as you said "of last resort" which tells me the Swiss really try and keep the cases in the cantons where "lost in translation" will not be a problem usually. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way20:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. While the Swiss Confederation has four national languages, including Romansh, it has only three official languages - German, Italian and French. That is, although some important federal laws are translated into Romansh and native Romansh speakers may (in theory) write to federal authorities in Romansh, there are no federal authorities, including courts, that work in Romansh and the Federal Supreme Court hasn't ever issued an opinion in Romansh. The very thorough citation rules of the Federal Supreme Court mention all relevant terms and abbreviations in the three official languages but do not mention Romansh. The terminology database of the Federal Chancellery has Romansh translations for some terms related to court decisions, e.g. Bundesgerichtsentscheid, BGE - decisiun dal Tribunal federal, DTF.
In Grisons, Romansh is one of three official languages. According to the cantonal language law (art. 7), courts use the official language they consider most appropriate depending on the languages used or understood by the parties. In practice, this means that most opinions are issued in German as the most widely understood language. I recommend against citing anything in Romansh as almost nobody outside Grisons reads that language. Use one of the two other official languages, German or Italian, instead; as the most-used language, German is probably the most relevant. Sandstein 20:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the find, Standstein! That definitely obviates the need to purchase a Swiss, legal citation guide.
I'll definitely use that site to look up the proper Romansh abbreviations for the courts and reporters, but—even then—only for the laws of Grisons. (Parallel with German and Italian citations.)
Henceforth, my references to that canton's laws will no longer resemble Swiss cheese. :P
I realize that this will likely vary by state but I have a hypothetical legal question regarding laws in the US. Note: I am not looking for legal advice. It's just a curiosity.
Imagine someone, I'll call them a snoop, finds a way to hide a video camera in someone else's house and they manage to record the homeowner selling drugs, beating their kids, or some other crime. I would think that if the tape were turned over to the police that the homeowner could be arrested for those crimes, correct? Even though the snoop that put the camera in the house did it without the homeowners permission or knowledge. I realize that the snoop would have cause to worry about the potential legal trouble of breaking in to the house, illegally spying on the homeowner, etc. but I'm not as concerned about trouble that they would be in. Though if you want to tell me about that as well, that would be welcome. Is there anywhere in the US where this video evidence could not be used to arrest and try the homeowner? Dismas|(talk)02:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the context, I read Nyttend to be saying one government telling another government what rights it must not trample which was one effect of the 14th Amendment. The recent case of McDonald v. Chicago reminded local governments that it wasn't about what rights they decided on locally but what one might describe as the imposition of the 2nd Amendment on the city of Chicago.
"Imposing rights" is different; the point is that the Court imposed restrictions on the states and their subentities, e.g. municipalities, misusing a section that's basically meant to prevent the existence of state laws that discriminate by race. Nyttend (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Side issue, but as our incorporation article attests, the "misuse of one section" repaired an earlier misuse of the 14th amendment's original intent, understanding, and plain meaning - which was to incorporate. The restriction of the 14th amendment by the post Civil War Supreme Court was the true unwarranted imposition by the judicial over the legislative.John Z (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a question of admissibility, and the easy answer is, it's no good as condemnatory evidence if the police are in anyway involved in an illegal search. (If the evidence is disculpatory it will almost certainly be allowed.) If there's no standing law or precedent in a state, it will be up to the judge to decide. You can be sure they are going to weigh heavily against illegally obtained evidence. In a case like murder a judge might allow, say, the victims' cell phone recorded video to be admitted if he was killed and there was no other direct physical evidence, under, say, the dying declaration exception, even if the victim didn't walk into the killers house with permission to be recording. A judge will exclude such evidence if he thinks the case can be proven without it in order to avoid grounds for an appeal. This is extremely speculative, case dependent, and as you say, relative to the state involved. μηδείς (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Planting false evidence is different from what was mentioned above. It would bring evidence tampering and perhaps perjury and other charges, not entrapment, which is a defense, and means the government officer enticed the accused to commit a crime he would not otherwise have committed. If evidence is not obvious and conclusive to the layman the prosecution and/or defense will hire expert witnesses to testify about it. Overseeing this process is one of the chief roles a judge plays. See Federal Rules of Evidence for standards generally used in the US. μηδείς (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, if I'm understanding the comments thus far, the video would likely be thrown out and the homeowner would go unpunished because the video was obtained illegally even though the snoop did not do anything to encourage the homeowner to carry out the crime and thus entrap them. Seems odd but okay. Dismas|(talk)03:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The overall is it depends; especially since many jurisdictions are only now starting to pass laws & set court precedence (back to μηδείς's point about admissibility--lots of disagreement between judges since there is no X v. Y to cite that went through all appeal levels & had legal journals ponder it for years) to catch up with smartphone & mini cams/mics.
Aside from that, even with age old precedence & all the evidence admitted just because you go to trial doesn't mean the jury (or appeals court) will agree with the prosecution, so your "unpunished" comment could relate to most every crime. I could think of at least 5 "media" trials in the last few decades where the jury 'shocked the world' in spite of not having any of the complications in your question. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way03:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To emphasize MD's point, common law has had centuries to develop ways to deal with things like hearsay evidence, and much of it developed within the single jurisdiction of England. Now you have dozens of states and provinces dealing with uncertain law regarding technologies that are not even two generations old yet. μηδείς (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The book itself was written as a letter intended to comfort Christians who were being persecuted. The core message is that God will eventually prevail and destroy the evil in the world. The images are primarily symbols that would have been well-understood by their audience. And as to them being "disturbing", that was the point. You don't get people's attention about good and evil by using images of hearts and flowers. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the idea was that this is what those not raised up to heaven in the rapture would face. Then we basically get hell on Earth for the rest of us. StuRat (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You asked "Is Heaven supposed to be aversive or frightening?", I think you're confusing this with sayings 'Heaven comes to Earth' & the like that usually refer to what happens long after what Revelation foretells. The book/"disturbing images" is more about the 'final battle' of 'good' & 'evil'/'saved' & 'unsaved', not Heaven but more about Hell's last offensive one could say. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way17:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The account can also be interpreted to include a prolonged period of liberty, peace, prosperity, and health. Now, I will not claim to have a very usual interpretation of Christianity, but I would argue that something like [8] can readily be interpreted to mean that the world powers will create a lasting peace in Syria (where the warring factions face one another across the Euphrates), put aside weapons of mass destruction, and begin implementing a world without oppression, war, poverty, or disease. I think such an interpretation of the Revelation makes a lot more sense than the usual lugubrious reading, because how do you notice all the disasters and tribulations of the end times in a world that staggers from one set of concentration camps and droughts and oppressive governments to the next? Why should any parent, let alone a wise God, reward children who stage a "nuclear apocalypse" with a brand new world before demanding they learn how to use the one they have? But what makes a lot of sense is that if you can create a world where people do everything as best as fallible mortals can, sooner or later it will go to crap again, because nothing in this world lasts forever. And when that happens, you'll have something you never had before: a crime without an excuse, a First Cause of evil in the world. I mean, for all I know even Hitler had some Jewish kid beat him up and take his lunch money when he was a boy. Create the best possible world, and you "drain the lake to catch the fish". Satan is revealed from his hiding. Wnt (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Giving an answer would depend on where you place the emphasis - on "disturbing" or "images"; and it also depends on which of the images in Revelation you are talking about. Not all the images relate to Heaven. To the Christian with wisdom and understanding, Revelation does not frighten, but enlightens of the past, present and future, and encourages perseverance. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Revelation was intended to comfort its audience, in a time when it appeared Christianity would be destroyed. The core message of the Revelation is "I am coming soon." Two millennia later doesn't exactly qualify as "soon" in human terms, although in terms of the age of the universe it does. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with Revelation is that, of probably ALL of the books of the Christian bible, it is the one with the least amount of agreement among theologians, both mainstream and on the fringes, as to exactly what it means. You'll find reliable, well respected interpretations of the book ranging from literal word-for-word prophesy of exactly what will happen at the Apocalypse, to coded language which symbolicly describes the victory of good over evil in a general sense, to a Roman à clef of sorts which was describing and/or inspiring Christians to rise up against the Roman Empire. It's really a hard book to extract meaning out of; whether one reads it "blind" without knowing the historical and literary context in which it was written. Even if one does know that background, it's still quite hard to get into. The opening bits are fairly straight forward, the letters to the Seven churches of Asia seem to be fairly straightforward guidance on how to run a church or fix common congregational problems; the don't read all that different than the Pauline Epistles in that regard. Then you get into the stuff with the four living beings with the six wings covered in eyes, and it goes all pear shaped. John, unfortunately, didn't leave us with a key to interpret his work, and that would be really helpful here. The best thing to offer is to read what respected scholars from different traditions have to say on it, and also read it yourself, and come to your own conclusions. --Jayron3202:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Number of nonreligious people who study the Bible
Are there nonreligious people who study the Bible academically and rigorously and who do not have a religious background/affiliation since birth? Are there nonreligious people who have gotten inspired or enlightened by the Bible and God's actions and words? 164.107.103.213 (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of people who study it academically and historically as a work of literature. Whether ones believes in it from a religious perspective or not, it's a singularly important book in world history so it will be studied by anyone interested in that kind of thing. Mingmingla (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misunderstood what you were asking. I am sure there are people who have taken away useful ideas from the Bible, even if they don't embrace the religious aspect. You don't have to accept the alleged divine origin of the Ten Commandments, for instance, in order to believe that it's a bad idea to be jealous of people, or to kill them. - Karenjc(talk)14:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetically, anything is possible. Now, can you actually list some nonreligious or nontheistic people who become inspired by the biblical narratives and behave in the world to imitate the God in the Bible? 164.107.103.213 (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Holy crap, that's actually a thing?!? I always got mildly annoyed when I saw the word "trolling" in a fishing context, as I just thought people were misspelling trawling due to having seen the other word on message boards and such (where I thought it had come about exclusively due to its practitioners being mendacious little thugs who ambush threads and then go back to hiding under their bridges). Learn something new every day! ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠17:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly do learn something new every day. You've been on WP since 2007, and been hanging around the Ref Desks since 2010, but never came across the terminology of internet trolling until now? That is very surprising indeed. You even have a mini-essay on your user page, "On the Harms of Anti-Vandal Zealotry". That is not in any way a put down, just an expression of my surprise. But then, I'm constantly hearing about popular singers who've been "taking the world by storm" for years, sold umpteen million albums, had a gazillion squared utubular hits and so on, but their name meant absolutely nothing to me. Literally nothing. It all depends on the circles in which one moves. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]18:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, forgive my imprecision. Bugs has it right: I didn't know "trolling" is a real means of fishing for actual fish, and not just something that assholes do on the internet. I had thought it was exclusively a verbing of troll, not a description of tossing hooked bait in the water and seeing what bites. The practice of "trolling" message boards I've been aware of for quite some time, alas. Only the etymology and the technique performed on actual boats escaped me. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠21:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to keep the tangent going, I knew of the term "trolling" in a fishing context since before the Internet was much more than some silicon valley geeks and defense contractors. The term predates the Internet usage by a long time, and is quite familiar to anyone who fishes. --Jayron3201:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's some underlying conceptual fallacy in the question. Anyone who reads or even encounters ideas from a religious document by hearsay has "a religious background". They have already been touched, to some degree, not only by the document but by its presentation and the circumstances that led them to read it. Is a person strongly religious? Hard to say. Hard to define. Who is more religious, someone who points out that the person ahead in line dropped a twenty, or someone who handles a rattlesnake? Depends on who's answering. You can of course go by self-identification, but this may be outright falsified, and far more often is confused and poorly grounded in fact. I'm afraid the question comes apart like smoke in my hands. Wnt (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably for similar reasons that only about a few dozen have been elected national leaders throughout the world and then only in the last 5040 54 years. It might be even more curious why no woman has ever won a major US party nomination for president, though the three that I'm aware of winning VP nods all had their tickets lose in the general. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way15:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) List of female United States presidential and vice-presidential candidates has a list. Why have none been successfully elected is due to the electoral system of the United States which heavily favors a fight between two parties to gain Electoral College votes. This leaves many minor parties with next to no chance of getting their candidate elected. For example, in the 2012 election the Green Party of the United States nominated Jill Stein as their presidential candidate, the party gained 468,907 votes (~0.36%) but that got them zero out of 538 Electoral College votes. When women have sought the Democrat or Republican party nomination, then have lost out to male candidates. In the 2008 election Hillary Clinton only narrowly lost out to Barack Obama for the Democrat nomination. Astronaut (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Wasn't the question "elected", not the few appointed or co-acting etc. of non-"free world" nations? Your 2nd list does confirm my memory that the first was in the 60s so I take back my strike should be 50(4) not 40, good find there. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way18:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The gender of a president is irrelevant anyway, any president should try to do the best for all his citizens, of both genders. A woman can be as great or as awful a president as a man. --Cambalachero (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Women are significantly underrepresented in the offices from which US Presidential (and VP) candidates are typically chosen from: state governors, senators, congressional representatives, cabinet secretaries, and senior business or military positions. So the pool of plausible women candidates meeting the job experience expectation has been, and still is, relatively shallow.
Historically a significant fraction of US voters have been unwilling to vote for any women candidate for president. Here is Gallup data from 1937-2003 (by 2012 the number had gone up to 95%; by comparison, the number for male candidates, though not polled, would have been in the high nineties at all times).
Of course Americans don't want to vote for anybody for president. In the last election one major party candidate had the looks and demeanor of Count Chocula, and the Democratic candidate was a golf player named Barack Obama. μηδείς (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget Ryan, who was compared unfavorably to Eddie Munster. There was definitely no excessive facial attractiveness in the last election. And there's a number of old geezers in the House and Senate who would be best off confining their public appearances to the radio. For 2016, maybe we could arrange to have Kathy Ireland for the Republicans and Cindy Crawford for the Democrats. That could make things interesting and improve voter turnout. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the Somali diaspora article, there is a picture of a restaurant in Toronto. Where is that in Toronto, I mean is it in North York or Etobicoke? Or also, what is the address? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.64.226 (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Australia census by ethnicity and religions and by cities and divisions in the federal government
Is there a website or part of the Australian Government website that gives you the access to census data on which cities in Australia has the largest population of Bangladeshis or Muslims and which divisions in the federal government has the largest population of Bangladeshis and Muslims like UK census website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.64.226 (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you can't. Chiefly because the Australian Bureau of Statistics is not an organ of the government of the United Kingdom and uses different statistical and reporting criteria. Using immigration data as a proxy won't get you self-identified ancestry data like census will. I'm sorry, but you'll have to face the fact that Australian census data on ethnicity does not map neatly onto your personal view of ethnicity. Moreover, "divisions" in the Australian context often refers to a bureaucratic structure, and I strongly doubt that Government is going to provide ethnic or religious data on its employees in that way. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read it as OP asking if the Australian website displays data in a way that is like the one in the UK, not if the UK site gives Australia data or if the two are connected, though I'm seeing what you mean Fifelfoo as far as ethnicity in my searches on the Australian Census sites. Perhaps OP could re-phrase so there is no doubt. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way21:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian government collects Australian data in an Australian manner. This manner will be fundamentally different to the manner in which the UK government collects data. Particularly as there isn't an international standard on ethnic data, as opposed, to for example, terminal level of education. Thus, OP will never be able to display data on an Australian website in the way in which data displays on a UK website because the structures of the data sets are incommensurable.Fifelfoo (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I usually declare myself to be Australian on the census. That option is available to everybody in the census, no matter what their ancestry. That makes drawing conclusion on anything but self identification meaningless. HiLo48 (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the U.S., it should be noted that this information is NOT part of the United States Census, that is the constitutionally mandated decenial census. The United States Census Bureau DOES collect this data, not for every person, but as a statistical sampling as part of its American Community Survey, which is a detailed statistical snapshot (as opposed to a comprehensive counting) of a wide range of U.S. data. --Jayron3216:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that you know if you go to city of Sydney, the data tells you how many are Bangladeshis or how many are Muslims. That's all that I can ask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.65.246 (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Australian census data defines both religion and ethnicity from self-reporting. What is a "Bangladeshi" to you? If your personal definition of being "Bangladeshi" maps onto the collective and shared definition of Australian census respondents then you can use census data. Similarly with being "Muslim." But if you really detest Sufis, or believe that some people who you'd call "Bangladeshi" have reported themselves as "Australian" then you're out of luck. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How easy is it to get a low paying job?
I've always believed that someone can find a job without too much difficulty if they are willing to accept a low wage, but I realize now that I have no facts to back this opinion up (or disprove it for that matter). Where can I find statistics on the time it typically takes for someone to find a minimum wage job, for example? Thanks. 74.15.138.165 (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That will depend on several factors: the specific work(s) considered, unemployment rate, the expertise of the worker in the work, other personal information that may benefit or harm the worker's chances with the employer, the distance that the worker is willing to commute to work, etc. --Cambalachero (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I'd suggest Ehrenreich's Nickled and Dimed or Lowenstein's Weevils at Work here. Labour market statistics analysis won't tell you anything about difficulty, acceptance, willingness, finding, what a job is, lowness of wage: labour market statistics incorporate their assumptions in their reporting requirements. Only discursive work will get you there. There's a lot of half-decent industrial sociology on precarity which is immediately relevant, in particular some studies claims about a precariat ought to be useful. By the way, you'd want to look at labour market non-participation and work refusal alongside slack. In a great deal of cases (per Lowenstein's discursive reporting) workers refuse shit work and see "willingness" as a sickening forced consent. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If a job is low paying, it implies automatically that lots of people are willing to do it, otherwise, the salary would go up.
The reason doesn't matter, maybe they don't have other marketable skills, but that's irrelevant when it comes down to define a market price. Low price implies high offer. The 'easiest' way of finding a job is learning skills. Even simple qualifications like commercial driver's license could improve dramatically your situation. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, low price for something implies a higher supply than demand. It doesn't matter if someone thinks it's high, the only thing that's important is that it is higher in comparison to the demand, for whatever reason. But yes, the logic is the same: there are lots of candidates trying to obtain a low paying job. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some years ago I worked in the local vineyards for six months. Locale was terrific, the company was great, but the pay was crap. To get the job I had to attend a trial day where I was obviously assessed for work ethic and potential to learn the necessary skills quickly enough. (Bad pruning can really destroy a vineyard.) Many didn't pass that test. So, poorly paying job, but not all that easy to get. HiLo48 (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The situation in regard to low-paying jobs (in the UK often called "entry-level jobs") varies by time and place much more than the situation regarding to higher-paying skilled jobs does. If you qualify as a doctor you will get a job either very easily or quite easily, even in a recession. If you are looking to work as a supermarket cashier they are either desperate to snap you up, or dismissive, or anything in between. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Entering a hotel via the window
Resolved
I guess this could be construed as legal advice, as it pertains to a situation which actually occurred to me, however the situation has passed and I am not actually asking for advice, rather looking to satisfy my curiosity. I recently stayed in a small French hotel, where we were given a key which opened both the front door and the room we were staying in. Being outside tourist season we were the only guests. Returning late one night we found that the key failed to open the front door (it later transpired that the door had been deadlocked from the inside by mistake before the owners left via the back door). One of the options we considered before finally waking the owners up by furiously knocking on the door to their nearby house was to check for an unsecured ground floor window and enter via that. Is there any law which prohibits this? Feel free to choose your jurisdiction - I'm not specifically interested in French law. My view was that as we had permission to be in the hotel, any means of entry which wouldn't cause damage would be fair game. My friend remained less convinced. Equisetum (talk | contributions) 21:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At a certain point it only matters if the "victim" or an officer chooses to report or enforce it. Wikipedia has a whole article (that could use expanding) with several links at Dumb laws, most of us would be in custody if they went strictly by the book--& forgot about statute of limitations. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way02:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That begs the question of whether your intent was unlawful. A locksmith picks a lock, but it is legal when he does so with the owner's permission. The guest at a hotel is entitled to open the window, to be on the inside, to be on the outside; the only question is whether there is some written or unwritten rule prohibiting him from clambering through it. Wnt (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Intent to redress a tort has nothing to do with excusing breaking and entering; it is you who is begging the question--the OP said nothing about having permission; and a locksmith entering with an owner's permission is a locksmith entering with an owner's permission. Next you'll be giving us medical advice, Wnt, and suggesting knocking a hole in the wall is okay if they have your credit card on file for a damage deposit? μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, so far as I know, knocking a hole in the wall actually isn't a criminal offense so long as you pay your damages, is it? Hotels get this kind of nonsense all the time, especially from rock stars. Wnt (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the premise that the renter is accidentally locked out, he has permission to be inside. The owner could walk by and see him looking out the open window from the inside, and see nothing wrong with the world. He could walk by and see the renter sitting with one leg outside the window, and might look at him askance because it's not normal use, but is it prohibited? Which brings us right to the "breaking" and entering scenario, because the legal use of the term doesn't actually mean the renter bashed in the window. Wnt (talk) 03:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A guest has the right to be in their room (and most hotel's can revoke that at will, so if you're locked out, you may have lost that right and, hence, have no right to "break in") a guest does not have a right to unrestricted access to the rest of the building. At some hotels the doors are locked at night and you need a key to access, or need to communicate via intercom with staff, if you lost your key and tried entering via another means, you would be removed by the police and, probably, not welcome back. Granted that in these instances, you wouldn't be breaking the law so much as having the hotel kick you out, but there's nothing you could do about it. The owners control what is, and isn't, legitimate access- so entering in a nonstandard way may not end you up arrested, but it can get your privileges revoked.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in this case the owners would likely never have known - I would have entered through the window, un-locked the door, closed the window again and everything would have been back to how it should have been. The impression I get from the answers thus far (which I realise cannot be definitive) is that it is potentially just on the edge of breaking the law (and might depend whether the window opened onto a public area of the hotel, or somewhere like a kitchen), but would certainly be grounds for expulsion from the hotel. I think I still would have tried it if waking the owners up hadn't worked - beats sleeping in a doorway in your best suit after rather a lot of good champagne at your friend's wedding reception. Sleeping in the car wasn't even an option - we'd left that at the reception hall and got a taxi back. Equisetum (talk | contributions) 10:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In UK law, it wouldn't count as "breaking and entering", as there was no intention to engage in any wrongdoing after entering the building. I can't find what the position is in French law. Breaking in is called "effraction". From a fairly extensive experience of small French hotels I think that the owners would not have minded you entering by the window. Did their security arrangements not include a large dog? If they had called the gendarmes, the gendarmes would likely have refused to come out, and if they had come out they would have laughed and asked the owners to sort the problem out with you. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No - I don't think the owners would have minded either. No large dog - unless it was sleeping in the house rather than the hotel. The owners were very apologetic about the whole situation - in fact they were so nice that we bought them a box of chocolates to apologise for knocking them up at half one in the morning. Leaving the hotel on the last day I noticed that they had stuck some sticky tape over the inside keyhole, obviously they don't want this to happen again! Equisetum (talk | contributions) 13:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like. The function of the dog, by the way, is not barking or biting, as it is too old for either of these purposes, but for the intruder to trip over. Sticky tape ("du Scotch" in French) is a useful item in premises security, but not as useful as a dog. Wired and wireless intruder alarms are actually available in France, contrary to popular belief. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Equisetum, the purpose of your question is unclear at this point. If you think the owners would not mind or know, what does the law have to do with this? If your question is, does being locked out legally justify a tenant to enter through the window, (a window not meant for that purpose), then the answer is no, he is not entitled to enter through the window. Indeed, the landlord might be forced to press charges if he injures himself doing so or face legal liability. For example, a neighbor of mine had a son who used her car all the time, but who was not a resident of her house. One night he took the car, damaged several neighbors' cars, and injured himself, none of which would be covered by her insurance. She was forced to press charges against him for theft of the car, which she did, or face many tens of thousands of dollars in civil damages. The purpose of civil courts is to redress damages like being negligently locked out of an accommodation. The law doesn't let people climb their neighbors' fences to retrieve lost balls or pry open windows when the door should not be locked. μηδείς (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the purpose of my question was entirely idle curiosity - i.e. if we assume that a) I actually did this, b) the owners did find out, c) the owners did mind, would I be guilty of anything (primarily I was thinking criminal, but I guess a civil wrong would also apply) and if so, what? I was always fairly clear that I am not specifically legally justified to do this (apologies for not making this clear in my original question), but it wasn't clear to me which if any provision under law embodies this. I think that this has been answered as well as it can be without me seeking a professional legal opinion (which is a little too expensive for idle curiosity). I am still interested as to what I could be guilty of - in terms of civil torts a close reading of trespass implies that I could be sued for that in at least the US under case law which establishes that any use of land beyond that which I have been granted permission for constitutes trespass. In criminal law I'm not sure if anything applies, even breach of the peace/disorderly conduct doesn't fit as opening an unlocked window and climbing through it doesn't cause a disturbance of any kind, likewise breaking and entering doesn't fit as my intent upon entering would not have been unlawful. Apologies if this seems a little pedantic, feel free not to respond if you don't want to. I happen to enjoy musing on fairly trivial legal "edge" cases, but appreciate that many people find it annoying. Equisetum (talk | contributions) 18:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From Law.com, my emphasis added: "breaking and entering n. 1) the criminal act of entering a residence or other enclosed property through the slightest amount of force (even pushing open a door), without authorization. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. If there is no such intent, the breaking and entering alone is probably at least illegal trespass, which is a misdemeanor crime." The situation you describe would be breaking and entering in the US. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The premise of the question is that the person has authorization. There is, of course, always a risk that he is wrong about that; for example, his room might have been swapped with another guest by someone who didn't think we was checked in yet. But even then, so long as he cannot be proven to have had the mens rea to have deliberately entered the wrong room without authorization, he is still innocent. I think... (There's a case where this breaks down, namely, I think that heavily intoxicated people who enter the wrong house still end up in trouble, but I think that is some interaction of the deliberate choice to become intoxicated as opposed to a genuine accident, isn't it?) Wnt (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the posts immediately above this the OP specifies "if the owners did mind", and the law dictionary quote says it is still trespass without mens rea. Your response misses that entirely, Wnt. μηδείς (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it boils down to this (assuming no complications like swapped rooms) - is the required "authorization" the authorization to enter a property in general (which I had), or the authorization to enter a property by a specific means (which I did not). If the former, Wnt's interpretation holds and I would not be guilty of illegal trespass according to the law dictionary definition. If the latter, Medeis' interpretation holds and I would be guilty. I doubt we can get any further without a lawyer. I agree that trespass does not depend on the intent to commit a crime (although this is slightly different to the question of mens rea, which I believe for illegal trespass would hinge on whether I intended to enter the property or not - pretty moot in this case as I clearly did). I was not hitherto aware of the crime of illegal trespass, which I don't believe exists in the UK (trespass is merely a civil tort over here). I'm marking this question resolved - my idle curiosity is satisfied, thank you to everyone who responded. Feel free to discuss this further if you are still interested though. Equisetum (talk | contributions) 22:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
German nationality law is less liberal than Spanish or Italian laws, not allowing descendants after several generations or descendants from German mothers, if the child was born before 1975. Add to this that you have to renounce your previous nationality, which is probably a deal-breaker for many. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not every information can be protected by copyright, not everything can be an intangible asset, since not every piece information is a creative work. Therefore, sometimes it's meaningless to ask if something is public domain or not. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fruit may be in the public domain, its shape belongs its creator. The question has not been answered! Marvels of the language, compare the two following propositions a) are A, B and C in the public domain, b) A, B and C are in the public domain. --Askedonty (talk) 05:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are an ISO standard so rather a constraint than an asset still perhaps their checksum system would feature intellectual property restrictions. --Askedonty (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify the question? Are you asking whether there are ISBNs such that if I reproduced them I could be sued for breach of copyright? Marnanel (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think there was a legal battle over phonenumbers in The Netherlands which the then-monopolist PTT considered theirs so nobody else could create a phonebook without their permission. Joepnl (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very true, after dozens of search result sites I lost track of that, I did the obligatory Google images and Ebay searches, nothing at all is turning up for Peake plushes. Not tons of experience in these type of searches so another editor may know of sites/portals that could give more detailed results than a google or google image query. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way19:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking to run the searches again for "plushes"? Not sure what you're asking, but in my 2nd response I was saying that I did go back with Ebay, Google and Google images and run those search combos, nothing at all is turning up. There could be other editors with knowledge of some other search portal or resource for a search but I am unaware of any. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way14:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recommendations for graphic novels
I recently read Alan Moore's Watchmen and enjoyed it very much. Can anyone provide me with recommendations for other graphic novels in a similar vein? Obviously Moore's own V for Vendetta is one. I would like to read graphic novels which are particularly literate in tone and formally experimental in style, like Watchmen is. Thanks, --Viennese Waltz13:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you'd like some other titles in DC's Vertigo imprint, which I believe publishes both of the works you mentioned. You mention "literate" and "experimental;" it's hard to combine those two traits much better than Moore does it, but I'd recommend Transmetropolitan by Warren Ellis (literate; imagine, among other things, Douglas Adams writing a fictionalized biography of Hunter S. Thompson in the style of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and you'll start to approach Transmet), though perhaps relatively straightforward in its pacing. I also enjoyed Grant Morrison's The Invisibles. Morrison definitely falls on the "experimental" side of things and clearly has a lot of fun doing it (while using enough arcane sources to keep you busy at the library for days afterward if you really get into it). The first thing anyone will recommend to you, however, is Neil Gaiman's The Sandman, which would be worth buying even if it only consisted of Dave McKean's cover art (but it turns out there are complex and interesting stories there, too, huh). Other than Watchmen, or maybe American Splendor,Sandman is probably the most recognized English-language comic series, and for good reason. If you want to get away from heroes and gods, you might check out the work of Daniel Clowes (other editors can recommend more authors on that side of the literary spectrum). Happy reading! ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠14:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention back in the eighties and nineties, before the idea of comics for anyone other than children was really established in the popular imagination, you had formulations like "adult graphic novel" or "graphic novel for adults" which made them sound absolutely filthy. Sadly, very few of them were. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
McCloud Understanding Comics,Reinventing Comics, and Zot! (Wasn't it? Hard to find.). Satrapi Persepolis and Persepolis 2. Spiegelman Maus. Spiegelman etal RAW. Fleener Life of the Party. Sacco Safe Area Gorazde. Moebius Madwoman of the Sacred Heart. Miller 300Sin City (Collected). Various, Lucifer (Trust me on this one, particularly the Eileen Belloc subplot). Lutes Berlin. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for a good Introduction textbook in Rhetorics (Something that covers the topic generally). it should be a cherished text in the academic world, admired, and chosen by the most active and honored institutions. you have my deep thanks ! Ben-Natan (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rhetorics is a pretty broad topic, it would be difficult to come up with one, unless you tell us what you want to learn exactly.
On the other hand, many "active and honored institutions" have online syllabus of their courses, you could check these for a literature list. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that "rhetorics" is a rather archaic word. You might have better luck looking for "persuasive writing" or "persuasive speaking". How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie is one such book. As I recall, Ben, constantly repeating your target's name, Ben, is a way, Ben, to make them feel like you are their friend, Ben. :-) StuRat (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the bottom of the Crook article, there’s a link to his autobiography [9] – see page 25 where he describes being drafted and says ”I had served in the army already”. Is that enough? Taknaran (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
King James Version notes how the Apocrypha was included between the Old and New Testaments in the original 1611 version, and it discusses how the Apocrypha began, on occasion, to be removed from certain printings of the KJV Bible. I'm unclear as to whether current printings of the KJV Bible contain the Apocrypha. Also, do those that are part of the King James Only movement, who consider the original 1611 printing to be the only acceptable translation, consider the Apocrypha to be cannon? Joefromrandb (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The exact status of the Apocrypha in the Anglican Church is described in Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion; "And the other Books (ie the Apocrypha), as Hierome saith, the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine..."[10] Our article, Biblical apocrypha says; "All King James Bibles published before 1666 included the Apocrypha. In 1826, the British and Foreign Bible Society decided that no BFBS funds were to pay for printing any Apocryphal books anywhere. Since then most modern editions of the Bible and re-printings of the King James Bible omit the Apocrypha section.". Alansplodge (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do Jewish people look white?
Living in the United States, a person who says that he is Jewish looks like a typical white person, not South Asian, East Asian, Southeast Asian, sub-Saharan African, or Native American. Why do Jews look white even though the Semitic peoples come from the Middle East, which is part of West Asia, and have darker complexion with black/brown hair+eyes and tan skin color? Also, during World War II, if a Jewish family refuses to put on the yellow star badge thingy and practices Judaism in secret under the mask of Christianity, then can that evade persecution by the NAZIs? 164.107.102.180 (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I must add that, in research experiments, researchers may ask, "What is your race/ethnicity?" and offer choices like "Asian-American/Pacific Islander, White-American, African-American, Jewish, and Other," and then adds, "Are you Hispanic?" and the choice is "Yes/No". So, is being Jewish treated as an ethnicity or a race, even though Jewish people may look like white people? 164.107.102.180 (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll answer only about the allegation that Jews look white. well, Not all Jews look "White". Some Jews, mainly those of Ashkenazi ancestry may look europeanish (and i can promise that it probably won't be a typical north-european look though there are exceptions off course). This is because primarily, jews from europe tend to resemble some kind of a mixture between Israelite, European-native, and a bit Khazar ancestry. Ben-Natan (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As to the second, Nazism#Racial theories shows that the Nazi persecution was racial, not religious. Unlike the Spanish Inquisition, where many Jews survived by converting, the Nazis were only interested in who your parents were. There were cases of people who did not even know that they had Jewish ancestry being "outed" and persecuted by the regime. --ColinFine (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, practicing Jews and non-Jewish people with Jewish ancestry can be persecuted, huh? I imagine that a Jewish family may survive through the Spanish Inquisition, but fails to survive through the Holocaust, because the NAZIs base the Jewish identity on race and looks. 164.107.102.180 (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth pointing out that Semitic peoples in general are sometimes classified as 'white' - the 'races' are all social constructs, with no clear scientific method existing to establish 'boundaries' - or for that matter, to establish how many 'races' there supposedly are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is more of an understatement. Classification of ethnicity based on skin colour or on perceived historical or ancestral links with certain geographical locations is problematic and unscientific; however, that doesn't mean that classification of ethnicity is less important. As a matter of fact, the following source shows that ethnic identification is important in its relationship with health and other indicators and asks for a clearer understanding of the processes involved in ethnic identification in England: Karlsen, S. (2004). 'Black like Beckham'? Moving beyond definitions of ethnicity based on skin colour and ancestry. Ethnicity & Health, 9(2), 107-137. doi:10.1080/1355785042000222842. Sure, ethnicity may be dependent on "who/what people think they are", but your "nothing more" part is arguable due to the perceived correlations between ethnicity and health. And furthermore, I didn't mean quantitative measurement; I meant to say qualitative "measurement" or putting people into [subjective] categories. 164.107.102.180 (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hogwash ATG, thats a silly eucentirc version without any regard for the rest of the world. All jews are NOT European (and hae not been persecuted either)/. Ashkenazis (who are the lasrgest immigrants to teh US) are white./ There race is white, then you have Mizrahi and Sephardic who look totally different. Indian Jews (and Ethiopians and East Asians) look like thaeir counterparts from that part of the world.
Any study will tell you that are varied definition so "nothing more, nothing less" is absoltuely silly rooted in nothing but personal opinion.Lihaas (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has suggested that "Jews are all European". As for my definition of ethnicity, it is the one given in our (well sourced) article on the subject. Read it. You might learn something. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the degree of genetic integration with non-Jewish populations must be higher than is sometimes assumed, despite the evidence of traceable Y-chromosomes. (For one thing, it is immensely more drastic for a man to consider conversion than a woman...) Certainly to my eye Dutch Jews look Dutch, Russian Jews look Russian, etc. See also Ethiopian Jews... Wnt (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What proportion of Americans were raised in Christian households?
It seems to be quite common to find a Christian or someone who is raised Christian in the United States (i.e. sometimes people may say that they celebrate Easter and Christmas with their families). My question is, what proportion of the population were raised Christian or came from Christian households? 164.107.102.180 (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know Jewish people who celebrate Christmas with their families. They certainly do not consider themselves Christian families. And when I say "celebrate Christmas", I mean exactly what most people who call themselves Christians do, i.e. share presents and gorge themselves stupid, but go nowhere near any church. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]18:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On Arthur's Perfect Christmas, Francine Frensky and Muffy Crosswire were mad at each other. Francine wanted to celebrate Hanukkah with her Jewish family, not going to Muffy's party. Muffy assumed that Hanukkah was not important as Christmas, and Francine said, "Well, it is to me!" and slammed the phone down. Jack of Oz, do you mean eating a very large Christmas banquet for "gorge themselves stupid"? I think many people do that during the Big Holidays in many cultural traditions. :) 140.254.70.33 (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deregulation in 2000s in the US
Does anyone know about major industry deregulations (laws) after the year 2000? This page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation) lists many of them from late 1970s to late 1990s. However, I am curious if much has happened since year 2000 in any major industry in the US. Need this information for a research project.--130.160.161.93 (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at Domestic policy of George W. Bush#Regulation, since Republicans are generally the party of deregulation in the US. It says that Bush was big on regulation, but it's entirely sourced to an article in Reason, a libertarian publication, so that should be taken with a grain of salt. I can't think of any major deregulation after 2000; the focus in the main Deregulation article is probably about right. Checking Google under deregulation under bush (it all seems to focus on 43) yields mostly a partisan mix of the left saying Bush deregulated and caused the financial crisis and the right pushing back against that. And while less intuitive, deregulation under obama offers some similar, mostly partisan, sources. --BDD (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
UCAS
Do UCAS do CRB checks on all applicants or is that done by university admissions tutors for courses which require checks?
Resolved