Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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.

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 suspect it's a misreading of Judennot and offer confirmation here. Not is literally "distress". --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:29, 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]

Hungersnot means famine, eh? That brings up quite the wrong mental images. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

The term Judennot (Jewish misery) was defined (and presumably coined) in Nordau's speech on 29 August 1897 (cf. German text and English translation). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Writers who are Ismaili nizari and Canadian and write about Ismaili Nizaris in East Africa

Is M.G. Vassanji the only writer in Canada who is an Ismaili Nizari and writes about Ismaili Nizaris in East Africa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.41.68 (talk) 18:35, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Donmust90 would be the most likely to know the answer. μηδείς (talk) 02:04, 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 Way} 10:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way}, I don't see how your comment helps the user to find answers to their questions about the Nizari. Can you make your point a bit clearer? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I tried to be clear but if not this is straight to the source. BTW, using my 'avatar' might also be confusing (tho any text combo is fine).^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 18:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ismaili nizari surnames

Is there a website that shows surnames commonly used by Ismaili Nizaris? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.41.68 (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 7

Verhoeven's sneaking sympathy for RAH?

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. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 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. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 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. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 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]

TSDR. μηδείς (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Too stoned; didn't read? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:30, 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. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 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 Way} 11:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^^That's very likely. But Lincoln signed the 13th before the states appoved. The 13th was finnaly ratfied after he was shot. --84.160.155.45 (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting 84.160.155.45, yet another reason President Lincoln was one smart cookie.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 19:38, 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]

Are governors required to sign amendments to their state constitution (not federal constitution)? --84.160.155.45 (talk) 13:11, 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 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]

Thanks. I had no idea that the unified Italy was so recent! -- Q Chris (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and about the same for Germany. StuRat (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Germany had to do it all over again in '89 too.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 06:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Law

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 ~~thou~~though 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.

Also "stealer" is better termed as: thief, phonetically it may be confused with a Steel worker or someone on the Steelers.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 19:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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" ~~thou~~tho 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 Way} 19:59, 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]

Purists see the usage "tho" and say "ugh!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:35, 8 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 Way} 06:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not woried about spelling purity. I just keep thinking I am being addressed biblically. μηδείς (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I first read it I'm like all what μηδείς doing talking 'bout Shakespeare.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 18:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody got my little "tho" + "ugh" joke. Oh well... So as regards being addressed biblically, do you mean as in those creatures Gog and Ma Gog and Granny Gog and all the little Gogs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some jokes are eminently gettable but even more eminently not-worth-commenting-onable. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I often get that very response from my wife. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do get it...now (world speed record in the other direction!)^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 18:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extorsion might also be relevant if you threaten to release the information if not compensated. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 7 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 Way} 10:05, 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]

Nice find Nyttend, those filings would make for some entertaining reading as I stroll through my PACER or Google Scholar accounts lol.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't stop people trying to report it as a crime... Man reports drug robbery to cops, gets arrested. Astronaut (talk) 11:08, 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?

--Thank You. Pine (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 Way} 20:14, 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

@Twinpinesmall: Actually I have to correct myself. It seems that Rumantsch Grischun, the standard form of Romansh, is in fact an official language of the Federal Supreme Court (art. 54 BGG), and the Court has on occasion published rulings in that language (BGE 139 II 145), although interestingly accompanied by a German version of the text. Sandstein 08:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 8

Hypothetical US law question - Illegal spying?

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]

Since the Supreme Court decided that it was going to take part of the Fourteenth Amendment out of context and impose the Bill of Rights on the states, this is presumably a nationwide issue, not a state-by-state one. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Imposing" rights is a bit of an oxymoron. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:33, 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.

States/localities can & do have even greater protections against say being filmed or audio recorded than simply the Bill of Rights or US statutes.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 07:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"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]

Did that include conferring second amendment rights upon all citizens? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 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]

So how is that different from planting a camera and evidence in an innocent person's house? Seem like some kind of entrapment that could be inadmissable in court. Astronaut (talk) 11:15, 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]

To Dismas' original question: Florida making all non-consent "residential" & some "public areas" videos felonies.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 02:14, 9 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 Way} 03:37, 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]

Disturbing images in Revelation

In the book of Revelation, what is the point behind all the disturbing images? Is Heaven supposed to be aversive or frightening? 164.107.103.213 (talk) 13:59, 8 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 Bugs ^{What'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 Way} 17:23, 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 [1] 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 Bugs ^{What'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. --Jayron32 02:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's an assumption in there that the text is meant to have a single comprehensible meaning. However, whether one takes it strictly as an artistic work, or considers it as a divine revelation for a special purpose, the intent might well be to inspire a broad range of creative thought rather than to have one single meaning. Wnt (talk) 02:47, 12 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]

As for the second part of your question, we have an article on Conversion to Christianity. - Karenjc (talk) 14:38, 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]

You mean like this? And I'm saying this as a Catholic. It feels a bit like you are fishing for something with this question. Mingmingla (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the term "trolling". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:53, 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! ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 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]

The fishing term, not the internet term necessarily. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:42, 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. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 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. --Jayron32 01:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Category:Atheists and remove those that also appear in Category:Murderers will give you those who don't believe in god but also believe in not murdering people. Astronaut (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible has plenty of passages which not only doesn't forbid murder, but actively encourages it. This site has a list of them. So atheistic murderers could in theory have been inspired by the Bible. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may find Jefferson Bible interesting. Katie R (talk) 16:33, 8 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]

Woman president

Why no woman has been elected as US president? --Tortoide121 (talk) 15:38, 8 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 Way} 15:59, 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]

Because none have received a majority in the Electoral College. μηδείς (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Market diamond, what happened in 1973? Women have been getting to be top dog since 1940 as non-hereditary heads of state or since 1960 as heads of government. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:54, 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 Way} 18:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because none have received a majority in the Electoral College? μηδείς (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even with a majority of the Electoral College it doesn't always elect you: United States presidential election, 1824. Am I seeing double ;)^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 21:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson had the plurality, not the majority. As regards the OP's question, keep in mind that very few women have sought the office in the first place. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, your right Baseball Bugs. Jackson's writings tend to gloss over that with some interesting hyperbole.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 01:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not to say that the accusations of a "corrupt bargain" were not justified. On the contrary, it looked very fishy. Jackson eventually had his time, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:15, 9 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]

Just like the race of a president should be irrelevant. There are a lot of things that "should be" irrelevant, yet somehow are seen as relevant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, however it's telling to see the biggest demo shifts between Kerry 2004 & Obama 2008 here.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 02:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the factors mentioned above:

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).

Abecedare (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More like Megyn Kelly for the Republicans and Rachel Maddow for the Democrats. μηδείς (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That could work too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the fact that none have received a majority in the Electoral College. μηδείς (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salaama Hut in Toronto

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]

1987 Kipling Avenue, Etobicoke. Deor (talk) 18:19, 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]

The Australian Census site kept giving me "Ancestry" but just in general terms from my searches. If you put in 'Australian Census Banglaeshis' to Google I did get this detailed report it isn't at the census page but the 'immi.gov.au' site.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 18:50, 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 Way} 21:15, 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]

The request was for OP. Bringing up "education" & "terminal" after I commended you & we await OP's response to my link: Inspiring! Bolding too!^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 01:56, 9 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]

Same in the U.S. HiLo48, yet so many conclusions keep being drawn.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 01:56, 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. --Jayron32 16:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to check those links, specifically here, as well as the larger web version, if parts of those wikiarticles are confusing readers, we may need to revise those. Whats with the bolding & caps on this thread? I see the IP/OP checked back in so I trust my earlier Australian PDF was perused.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 18:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are entirely correct that the Census does ask two questions related to race and Hispanic heritage. I knew that already, and wasn't talking about that. It doesn't ask any questions about national origin or ethnic ancestry in general. The ACS does that, so the OPs question regarding Bangladeshi people is not covered by the main U.S. census, but is covered by the ACS. That's what I was talking about. --Jayron32 23:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are technically correct that the ACS has a question later: "Ancestry or Ethnic Origin" (#13) but also includes the same decennial census (DC) prompt in the links above, both cover OP's original question with: "Other Asian - Print race, for example, Hmong, Laotian, Thai, Pakistani, Cambodian, and so on."[2] followed by a "Some other race" prompt for a 'Bangladeshi' answer in OP's case. The ACS being non-mandatory & as you say a "statistical sampling" may try harder by asking questions in different ways a few questions later to catch all info & because race, ancestry & ethnicity can be different in special cases but my larger point was the DC prompts for "Hmong, Laotian, Thai" etc. so it does get 'Bangladeshi' for answers.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 02:36, 11 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]

"Low price implies high offer" completely ignores the demand side of the situation. If demand for a product or service goes down, the price normally goes down as well. See supply and demand. --Bowlhover (talk) 00:01, 9 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]

What about perks? Did you get any free samples? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there were some fringe benefits of that kind. Did add to the pleasures of the job. Hic. HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is from my local newspaper. Tell me how easy you think it is to get a job where you are up against 300 other applicants? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:22, 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]

Hard telling about the laws in various places, but read what happened to Henry Louis Gates when he had to break into his own house. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:16, 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 Way} 02:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being accidentally locked out of a rented room is a civil tort. Breaking and entering is a crime. You are not entitled to commit a crime to rectify a tort under common law. France is not under common law. This free advice is worth what you paid for it. μηδείς (talk) 02:25, 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]

As someone who's been witnessed "knocking a hole in the wall", now I am concerned & oh yeah, the wall provoked me!^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 03:46, 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]

"I live in hotels tear out the wall, I have accountants pay for it all.".^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 14:21, 10 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]

P.S. I am aware that France is not a common law jurisdiction - however my knowledge of Civil law (legal system is even worse than my knowledge of common law, so I tend to do most of my musings assuming common law (usually UK law) applies. Equisetum (talk | contributions) 18:57, 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 Argentinians in Europe

Reading German Argentinian, I am surprised that there is no discussion of German Argentinians migrating to Europe. I know that, due to the laws on Italian citizenship and Spanish citizenship, many Italian Argentinians and Spanish Argentinians took advantage to migrate to Europe during the Argentinian dictatorship and after the Corralito crisis. Was it so with German Argentinians? Why (not)? --Error (talk) 22:38, 8 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]

Thank you. --Error (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are ISBN numbers in the public domain?

Thanks for any help! Ocaasi^{t | c} 23:33, 8 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]

Supposing one could copyright an ISBN number, what would be the point? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 9 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]

ISBN numbers are not secret. You may reveal them whenever you wish. In case it helps, they are also verifiable in Wikipedia terms. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:03, 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]

Copyright is generally about protecting creativity. There isn't much creative about the next number in a well-known sequence. Unilynx (talk) 19:54, 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]

That would not be exactly the same premise. The numbers in a phone book are meaningful. An ISBN has no special meaning except for being attached to a particular book. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That might have involved a copyright on the phonebook as a compilation/database itself: Database Directive (if it was already law at the time) Unilynx (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: how is a phonenumber more meaningful than an ISBN? A phonenumber hasn't got any special meaning except for being attached to a house (or a cell phone nowadays) instead of a book either? @Unilynx, the argument was something along "someone had to do a lot of work to compile this list and you just copy it, that's not fair" which resembles that directive. The discussion is a bit obsolete now I think, although phonebooks are still distributed here I have only a very vague remembrances of someone actually using them :) Joepnl (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True. So I'll put it this way: An individual phone number is no more copyrightable than an individual ISBN. A compiled list of phone numbers or of ISBN's might be copyrightable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, but the situation with database copyright is controversial - the U.S. only narrowly escaped falling prey to it. When datasets can be subject to "sweat of the brow" copyright, I have no idea how anyone can be confident that they can cite any kind of information. Wikipedia, based in the U.S., ignores it, but I have no idea how many of our articles would be at least technically illegal to access from those other countries. Wnt (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 9

What about Peake?

I've been exploring areas around Chessie (railroad mascot). On the B&O Railroad Museum online gift store, there's a plush Chessie. On another website involving Chessie, there's a plush "Nip" and a plush "Tuck". But I don't find anything regarding "Peake". What did he look like? Could anyone help, please? Thank you.142.255.103.121 (talk) 07:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I googled around some seems there is a historical society with lots of pictures & merch. here, here & here there are tons more under search. The society page is here.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 07:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I was hoping to find a plush "Peake", actually.142.255.103.121 (talk) 18:27, 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 Way} 19:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. But judging what you provided me, can you do so with the description of Peake, please? Thank you.142.255.103.121 (talk) 04:43, 10 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 Way} 14:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not asking to run the searches again for "plushes". What I'm trying to ask is with everything you provided me on Peake, can you go back over them and suggest to me what color of plush cat to buy and name "Peake", please? Thank you.142.255.103.121 (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From my vantage point Peake is greyish/dark brown with some black vertical striping that is splotchy, a black line running along its back with white ~~tuffs~~fur on the upper chest, chin, cheeks & above the nose in a line to the forehead, tho I doubt those are set in stone & any greyish/dark brown cat with some black splotches would fit the bill. I'm just going off the images I linked to above from the search site I linked to.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 03:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much.142.255.103.121 (talk) 06:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome, glad I could help, btw I never even knew these characters existed & always thought the Chessie logo was a cat on the prowl not a cat on the nap. ;-).^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 17:12, 11 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 Waltz 13:28, 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! ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 14:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do we call a graphic novel that contains what the media loves to call "graphic violence" - a "graphic graphic novel"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:27, 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 300 Sin 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]

Let me link: Understanding Comics, Reinventing Comics, Zot!. Persepolis (graphic novel) and Persepolis 2, Maus, RAW (magazine), Life of the Party, Safe Area Gorazde, Madwoman of the Sacred Heart, 300 (graphic novel), Sin City, Lucifer (DC comics), Berlin (comic). --Error (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping with Moore, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. I don't remember if Miller's Ronin (graphic novel) is what you want.

Thanks for the tips from my side as well.

--Error (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recommendations all. -Viennese Waltz 07:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cages by Dave McKean, Eddie Campbell's Alec stories, Moore and Campbell's From Hell, The Wrong Place by Brecht Evens, and Gemma Bovery and Tamara Drewe by Posy Simmonds are some graphic novels with literary and formalist ambitions that spring to mind. I'd dispute the inclusion of 300 and Sin City - regardless of how good they are, they're pulp rather than literary in style. Straddling literary and pulp, I'd suggest The Adventures of Luther Arkwright by Bryan Talbot and Button Man by John Wagner and Arthur Ranson. McCloud's Understanding Comics and its follow-ups may be formalist, but are academic rather than literary - they're explorations of comics form and theory. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make any recommendations, since I don't follow the media. But I will say I broke up with someone for liking From Hell. μηδείς (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Rhetorics introduction textbook?

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]

Agreed with the views already expressed, however you may find a links like this useful. There are also books & websites on famous quotations, toastmaster guides & even the presidency project with transcripts of all speeches & papers going back in time.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 14:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 10

It's drafty in here.

During the American Civil War, could someone who had already served in the Union Army be drafted? I'm trying to figure out if William H. Crook was a soldier. Arlington National Cemetery thinks so, but Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln notes he was drafted in 1865, and that Lincoln had to arrange to get him out of it. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of the Crook article, there’s a link to his autobiography [3] – 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]

I don't really want to use a primary source. I can't find anything conclusive. Thanks anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would make sense to draft army veterans in a US war, since they would need less training. I've seen no evidence that army veterans were exempt from the draft in WW1 or WW2. Some enlisted for a year or whatever and then went home during the Civil War. They could certainly re-enlist. This on and off in and out service was unlike WW2 where they were grabbed for the duration. Edison (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to draft veterans of one war in a following one, but I've never heard of drafting them in the same one. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is a published autobiography really a "primary source" whose credibility on the topic of something like military service is so doubtful that we wouldn't include it? I feel like that's a gray area. Anyway, I know this isn't exactly the stunning proof we're seeking, but the Arlington cemetery record reads "CROOK, WILLIAM H PCT CAPT KNIGHTS CO 3D BATTN D C MILTIA INF CW", and there appears to be a William H. Crook in the 3rd battalion of the D.C. militia -- this site, at least, lists a William H. Crook as a 3 month enlistee in that battalion in 1861. Is the combination of Arlington's assertion and the apparent existence of confirming evidence not enough? There might perhaps be more authoritative sources available online via the National Archives, but of course the shutdown prevents access to a lot of material there. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit leery of the Arlington site because it also listed him as a "Colonel, United States Army". An unreliable source (which I can't find now) called it an honorary rank, which makes sense, since he hardly served long enough (or had money and influence enough) to earn it. That being said, I've found The New York Times obituary for him,[4] and it does say he fought in the Civil War. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Have to say it, the title of this section lacks clarity!

-Δ-220 of ^Borg 01:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

King James Version and the Apocrypha

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 KJV is currently available in both versions and the KJV Only people would use the one without it. Rmhermen (talk) 05:07, 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..." [5] 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]

@Joefromrandb:, please note that the KJV-onlyists generally use the 1769 revision of the King James, which apparently is the last major update of the translation that carries the name "King James Version", i.e. as opposed to later revisions, which carry different names, e.g. the Revised Standard Version. Since the 1769 revision apparently doesn't get mentioned in most printings nowadays, most people don't appear to be aware that its text is different from the 1611 original, so when groups such as this church claim that they're using 1611, you need to take it with a grain of salt unless you have good evidence, e.g. they openly reject 1769, or their church sign says "Our helpe is in the name of the Lord: who made heauen and earth" instead of the later spelling of "Our help is in the name of the LORD, who made heaven and earth". Nyttend (talk) 19:16, 12 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]

Actually they based their discrimination on official records (automatized by Dehomag machines), since, as you say, real Jews were often indistinguishable from "Aryans".

A further example are the Crimean Karaites. They practice a variant of Judaism, but they were not targeted for extermination since Nazi theory held them as a converted Turkic people.

--Error (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some corrections: Maybe you didn't expect this kind of Spanish Inquisition, but Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492 (a bit later for Portuguese Jews). Hence, the Inquisition didn't deal with Jews. It dealt with Judaizantes, Crypto-Jews, relapses, baptised Christians that were perceived to practice Judaism in secret. Actually, some Messiah claimant (David Reubeni?, Solomon Molcho?) fell in the hands of the Spanish government. He was imprisoned as a Jew, but his deputy was passed to the Inquisition and relaxed to the secular arm since he was a baptisee of Jewish descent who practiced Judaism when abroad.

And under the laws of limpieza de sangre, New Christians (people of Jewish or Moorish or heretic descent) were discriminated against in Spain. Even if they were exemplary Christians (or even later recognized as saints), their ancestry made them suspect.

--Error (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You also have families of several different races who have converted to Judaism such as Semei Kakungulu & the list goes on.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 14:48, 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]

Ethnicity, on the other hand, may be more measurable, because it is dependent on culture and ancestry rather than on physical appearance. 164.107.102.180 (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity is dependant on who/what people think they are. Nothing more, nothing less. And what do you measure culture with? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:04, 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]

Sammy Davis Jr. didn't look particularly white. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is the dispùted hypothesis that Ashkenazis descend in a great part of Khazars. --Error (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A recent publication: "A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages" --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at our article Khazaria which argues that most Ashkenazim have any real connection to Ancient Israel and that the majority of them originate in an area near Russia. Im sure some of the theorizing is backed up by genetic tests--82.46.142.98 (talk) 22:52, 12 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]

Christianity in the United States says that 73% of Americans self-identify as Christians in a 2012 survey. --Jayron32 16:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Aside from the inherit problems that no one is obligated to report this data (unlike Census) & that this data is dependent on respondents who are not swearing to its accuracy, this resource may help answer your questions.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 16:44, 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]

Yes, exactly that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack of Oz, we might know the same people lol. Some of my Eastern Orthodox friends even celebrate two Christmases a year which raises the interesting question of if you're a Christian if you recognize two different birthdays for Christ.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 21:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being as how the celebration of Jesus' birthday was set up to coincide with pagan rites about the winter solstice, and that Jesus was likely born nowhere close to December 25th, you can celebrate as often as you like. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

Everyone always asks how come the love and peace stop dead the moment the official Christmas period ends, and why can't the spirit continue all year around. Well, the folks you refer to (and members of the family into which I married do the same) are taking the initiative. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the words of Tom Lehrer: "On Christmas Day, you can't get sore / Your fellow man you must adore / There's time to rob him all the more / The other three-hundred and sixty-four." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:36, 11 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]

If you look up the total pages of federal regulation, the only time they've gone down since after WWII was under Reagan, and they quickly went back up to the old level under Clinton. There was no deregulation of anything under either of the Bushes. Sarbanes-Oxley came in under Bush II and was credited for driving down IPO's and sending financial business to London, causing a boom there. μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, but London was not the lone benefactor of increased US regulation Jim_Rogers#2002_to_present gives insight on where some of the "smart money" is moving.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 21:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The number of Federal Register pages, to which Medeis refers, is frequently cited as a measure of regulation, but it's highly misleading. Not everything or even most things in the Federal Register are regulatory, and even when a document actually is adding rules, the number of pages is a poor measure of the breadth and intrusiveness of the regulation. Note also that deregulatory as well as regulatory initiatives must be printed in the Federal Register. Perhaps most significantly, the length of regulatory documents in the Register has increased over the years, in part because of deregulatory initiatives such as the Paperwork Reduction Act (yes, that's a statute that requires more paperwork) and the increased need to provide legal and economic support for regulatory changes.

In the area of securities and finance, there were major deregulatory statutes under Clinton: the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996, the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Since then there have been major regulatory initiatives in the form of the USA Patriot Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Of course, to call a statute regulatory or deregulatory can obscure important details. For example, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was a partial repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, but it also imposed extensive new federal protections for consumer privacy.

The parties behaved stereotypically with the Dodd-Frank Act, with the Democrats pushing for more regulation and the Republicans seeking to limit it, but that's about the only time. I haven't gone back to check, but I think that most of the other statutes were bipartisan. The anti-money laundering provisions of the USA Patriot Act were a Republican idea, although they also received quite a bit of support from Democrats. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was supported more strongly by Democrats than Republicans, but the single most intrusive provision, requiring CEOs and CFOs to certify the accuracy of SEC filings, came from the Bush Administration. John M Baker (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't name the title of the act, but the law that loosened the reigns on banks and let them make riskier and less-oversighted investments (which came back to haunt all of us) was passed by a Republican Congress and happily signed by Clinton. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. It didn't actually have much to do with the financial crisis; in fact, the financial institutions that diversified in reliance on GLB tended to do somewhat better than institutions like Washington Mutual, which continued to invest in mortgages. From a regulatory perspective, the single greatest cause of the crisis was the Federal Reserve's failure to use existing authority to regulate the mortgage process. I believe that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act may have been a factor in the SEC's failure or inability to regulate the net capital of large investment banks like Lehman Brothers, so in that sense GLB may have contributed to the crisis. John M Baker (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John M Baker, wanted to comment/compliment you that editors such as myself really appreciate your contributions on these desks but it may not show with responses because of your extremely well thought out & great generosity in sharing your expertise. Most times I spend more than an hour just digesting all your posts so just because I & possibly others don't respond doesn't mean that we aren't very avid readers that look forward to these. There are a dozen+ editors on here that I admire & enjoy reading but I usually give them a reply to agree/disagree (human nature is that we all enjoy a response) just wanted to make up for a lot of interesting reads you provide with a umbrella reply here. Thanks again for your contributions.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 14:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the things that are loosened are 'reins' (as in horses), not 'reigns' (as in monarchs). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to Charles I, Louis XVI, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall that the federal agency responsible for collecting fees from oil companies which drilled on federal land simply failed to collect them under Bush. This appeared to be a backdoor way to help the oil companies out. I'm not sure if that qualifies as "deregulation", though. StuRat (talk) 05:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm having trouble thinking of any significant deregulatory statutes during the Bush era, but regulators tended to have a policy of benign neglect on many fronts, particularly during Bush's second term. Bush also appointed conservative judges who were more skeptical of regulation. John M Baker (talk) 05:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do either of you have anything more specific to say than "It's Bush's fault", John and Stu? μηδείς (talk) 06:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

μηδείς, agreed that it's never as simple as 'so&so's fault', that the Republican congress led many of these during the Clinton era & the current administration's (& really almost every administration) similar "backdoor way to help" pet projects (as StuRat pointed out).

I didn't read the above as 'Bushes fault' per se, just of pointing out facts related to OP, that 99.9% of politicians & especially White House administrations do to some degree or another & that both Republican & Democratic presidents (tho it has been mostly Dem WHs taking credit due to the last 50 year history) have taken credit for the accomplishments of an opposition Congress during their administrations should be common knowledge to readers of these desks. True, even an attempt like John M Baker's to acknowledge that most were "bi-partisan" can be read by those few that already had their minds made up in a certain ideology. As long as all readers remember that there are good & bad politicians not parties, I think getting detailed about the exact things that happened is fine even if they may read one-sided.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 14:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping Stu at least had a link to an RS for the unpaid fee claim, which sounds dubious, and if true may have a reason behind it we're not hearing. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would make for interesting reading, in more ways than one.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 18:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: [6]. The kindest possible reading seems to be that the US Department of Interior is completely incompetent. StuRat (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was an interesting read, thanks StuRat. Oh & did cross my mind to make a 'it's all relative' comment about the "completely incompetent" 'departments' but I'll defer lol. Given the current national discourse I found this from the article troubling:"Government data are incomplete and often inaccurate, making it almost impossible for enforcement officials to develop strategies for selecting companies for special scrutiny."^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 19:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Marketdiamond, for the kind words. I wasn't really trying to take a position on the regulatory and deregulatory statutes I mentioned. They can go both ways. The National Securities Markets Improvement Act I consider a big success - it cut out a whole level of regulation, with essentially no negative effects. Conversely, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act kept swaps from being regulated, which arguably contribued to the 2007 - 2008 financial crisis and was overturned with the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act. I think you have to see that as a failed example of deregulation. John M Baker (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to "blame" someone for getting the ball rolling, Reagan is the godfather of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Credit where credit is due: Carter, deregulation's hero, tho Reagan was smart enough not to end the efforts.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 19:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, Jimmy was a real peach of a president. It reminds me of something Mark Russell said, during Reagan's early years, when there was an electrical problem at the Executive Mansion: "The last power shortage in the White House lasted four years." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:27, 12 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.142.98 (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before anyone asks, this probably refers to UCAS and the (now renamed) Criminal Records Bureau (both in the UK). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This may clear some of OP's questions, specifically: "On the UCAS form, you will be asked whether you have a "relevant" criminal conviction."^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously only UCAS can give you a definite answer to this, but given that UCAS processes over 2,600,000 applications a year, CRB checks do not come cheap, and the checking process is also notoriously slow and unreliable (though it is improving), I would be very surprised if they ran any checks at all.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The universities do the checks. It would be extremely unwise to lie in your application. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 12

Other Examples of Colonial Partitions

Were there ever any other cases besides the 1947 Partition of Palestine and the 1947 Partition of India in which a colonial/imperial power (or the United Nations, et cetera) divided its colony (or whatever its proper name is) into two or more countries along ethnic/racial/religious/et cetera lines before giving these countries their independence? I hope that my question here is clear enough. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat related is when the Pope created the Line of Demarcation, giving the "old world" to Portugal and the "new world" to Spain. The Portuguese did get to colonize Brazil, though. StuRat (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire. This pretty much drew the map of the Middle East, and not always wisely. StuRat (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Practically all the borders in Africa were drawn without any regard at all for ethnic or national coherence - tribal areas and kingdoms were arbitrarily divided between different colonies. The consequences have blighted the continent ever since. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Partition of Ireland. Technically not separated into two independent countries but figured I'd throw it in anyway.Biggs Pliff (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Out of the many responses to this question, no offense, but you were one of the few people who understood what I meant here. Futurist110 (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Partitions of Poland. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although Poland was partitioned at the start of colonization - the OP is asking about the other end. Alansplodge (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "before giving these countries independence" thing is a bit tricky since some might claim they weren't independent until the partition, even if the 'partitioned' was for years. That said the Cyprus dispute, United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor and even Separation of Panama from Colombia. Also when Simon Bolivar died many nations declared their "independence" by partition.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 14:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, I meant that these colonies would get partitioned and then become independent. Futurist110 (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite what you're looking for, but Partition of Babylon gives some interesting context. As with some of the other partitions mentioned, many parts were more of a re-partitioning from before they got collected together. Matt Deres (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. For the record, I think that most of the people who responded to my question here misunderstood it. I meant cases of partition specifically along ethnic/racial/religious/et cetera lines, rather than some country/countries simply drawing lines on a map without regards for the ethnicity/race/religion/et cetera of the population(s). Futurist110 (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard it referred to as "the Partition of New South Wales", but that's exactly what happened, many times. At States and territories of Australia is a gif map showing the creation of the colonies/states and mainland territories. New South Wales at one point contained all of what is now NSW, Victoria, Tasmania, Queensland, South Australia, the Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory, Jervis Bay Territory, Norfolk Island and New Zealand. All the bits were progressively lopped off, in NZ's case becoming a separate nation.

NSW never contained any part of what is now Western Australia; and curiously that state is the only Australian jurisdiction that ever made a serious attempt to secede from the rest of the nation. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This partition was not along ethnic/racial/religious lines, though, which is what I was asking about here. Futurist110 (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Constitutional Act of 1791 divided Canada into Upper Canada and Lower Canada - the "Lower" part being the core of what had previously been the French colony of Canada, conquered by the British in 1763 and essentially modern Quebec, and the "Upper" part being the part where English-speaking Loyalist settlers had fled during the American Revolution, essentially the modern Canadian province of Ontario. Britain also divided the former French colony of Acadia into modern New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The Acadians were expelled in 1755, and during the Revolution, English-speaking Loyalists settled in what would become New Brunswick (although Nova Scotia became English-speaking as well since the Acadians were no longer there). These were the four provinces that became independent (more or less) as Canada in 1867. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was a Comprehensive Encyclopedia like Wikipedia Ever Imagined in Science Fiction or Fantasy?

I was wondering if any science fiction stories mention Wikipedia or something similar to it; the closest thing I can think of is the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. I would think it would be mentioned in some kind of cyber punk novel featuring a lot of computer use, but I've seen very few journalists even in cyber punk for that matter. Or alternatively is there an idea like Wikipedia in a fantasy novel; like a seemingly all knowing book; kept magically up to date?— Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe (talk • contribs) 12:49 October 2013 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov came up with the Encyclopedia Galactica in his Foundation (novel) series. Published first as a short story in 1942. 220 of ^Borg 15:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

H.G. Wells had the World Brain (WB) but not as far as I know as a part of a novel or similar. He expounded the idea in essays and addresses. 220 of ^Borg 16:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The people in The Machine Stops could be seen as dystopic Wikipedians and in ORA:CLE there are experts that link electronically, not unlike this reference desk. --Error (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

18th-century Spies

How would normally as spy be recruited during the 18th century? Where there any general way of doing this? Where there female spies in Europe during this century? Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if it answers your question, but our article spy gives some historical information. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aciram -- I assume that it could differ greatly depending on the person's social background, and which level of society they would be expected to operate in... AnonMoos (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a category for female wartime spies. From the American Revolution, there is Sarah Bradlee Fulton and Miss Jenny. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear tridents

Does "nuclear trident" get much use, either intentionally or unintentionally, for "nuclear triad"? It seems a plausible error (I just made it myself) and thus perhaps a plausible redirect, but all the pages I'm finding with Google are talking about nuclear-tipped Trident missiles. Nyttend (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw the title of this thread, my first thought was the missile, but then the phrase "nuclear triad" was unknown to me until a few seconds ago. In the UK, there was much debate about whether we acquire Trident in the first place and now over whether we should replace it and with what. [7] [8] [9]. It is our only strategic nuclear weapon, so for us, "Trident" and "nuclear deterrent" are interchangeable. Alansplodge (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw the title, my first thought was there is a glowing new bubble gum ;-).^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 19:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]