Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 October 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Humanities desk
< October 7 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 9 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


October 8[edit]

Hypothetical US law question - Illegal spying?[edit]

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)

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)
"Imposing" rights is a bit of an oxymoron. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
Did that include conferring second amendment rights upon all citizens? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)

Disturbing images in Revelation[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Number of nonreligious people who study the Bible[edit]

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)

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)
As for the second part of your question, we have an article on Conversion to Christianity. - Karenjc (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Hence the term "trolling". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Holy crap, that's actually a thing?!? I always got mildly annoyed when I saw the word "trolling" in a fishing context, as I just thought people were misspelling trawling due to having seen the other word on message boards and such (where I thought it had come about exclusively due to its practitioners being mendacious little thugs who ambush threads and then go back to hiding under their bridges). Learn something new every day! ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
The fishing term, not the internet term necessarily. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Hah, forgive my imprecision. Bugs has it right: I didn't know "trolling" is a real means of fishing for actual fish, and not just something that assholes do on the internet. I had thought it was exclusively a verbing of troll, not a description of tossing hooked bait in the water and seeing what bites. The practice of "trolling" message boards I've been aware of for quite some time, alas. Only the etymology and the technique performed on actual boats escaped me. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
You may find Jefferson Bible interesting. Katie R (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
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)

Woman president[edit]

Why no woman has been elected as US president? --Tortoide121 (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

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)
(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)
Because none have received a majority in the Electoral College. μηδείς (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
(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)
Because none have received a majority in the Electoral College? μηδείς (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
More like Megyn Kelly for the Republicans and Rachel Maddow for the Democrats. μηδείς (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
That could work too. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • There's also the fact that none have received a majority in the Electoral College. μηδείς (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Salaama Hut in Toronto[edit]

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)

1987 Kipling Avenue, Etobicoke. Deor (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Australia census by ethnicity and religions and by cities and divisions in the federal government[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Same in the U.S. HiLo48, yet so many conclusions keep being drawn. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 01:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  • 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)

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)

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)

How easy is it to get a low paying job?[edit]

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)

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)
(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)
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)

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

Entering a hotel via the window[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

German Argentinians in Europe[edit]

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)

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

Are ISBN numbers in the public domain?[edit]

Thanks for any help! Ocaasi t | c 23:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)